2 Împărați 16
1 În al şaptesprezecelea an al lui Pecah, fiul lui Remalia, a început să domnească Ahaz, fiul lui Iotam, împăratul lui Iuda.
2 Ahaz avea douăzeci de ani când a ajuns împărat, şi a domnit şasesprezece ani la Ierusalim. El n-a făcut ce este plăcut înaintea Domnului, Dumnezeului său, cum făcuse tatăl său David.
3 Ci a umblat în calea împăraţilor lui Israel; şi chiar a trecut pe fiul său prin foc, după urâciunile neamurilor pe cari le isgonise Domnul dinaintea copiilor lui Israel.
4 A adus jertfe şi tămâie pe înălţimi, pe dealuri şi supt toţi copacii verzi.
5 Atunci Reţin, împăratul Siriei, şi Pecah, fiul lui Remalia, împăratul lui Israel, s-au suit împotriva Ierusalimului ca să lupte împotriva lui. Au împresurat pe Ahaz, dar n-au putut să-l biruiască.
6 În acelaş timp, Reţin, împăratul Siriei, a adus iarăş Elatul subt stăpânirea Sirienilor; a izgonit pe Evrei din Elat, şi Sirienii au venit la Elat, unde au locuit până în ziua de azi.
7 Ahaz a trimes soli lui Tiglat-Pileser, împăratul Asiriei, să-i spună: ,,Eu sânt robul tău şi fiul tău; suie-te, şi izbăveşte-mă din mâna împăratului Siriei, şi din mâna împăratului lui Israel, care se ridică împotriva mea.``
8 Şi Ahaz a luat argintul şi aurul din Casa Domnului şi din vistieriile casei împăratului, şi l-a trimes ca dar împăratului Asiriei.
9 Împăratul Asiriei l-a ascultat. S-a suit împotriva Damascului, l-a luat, a dus pe locuitori în robie la Chir, şi a omorât pe Reţin.
10 Împăratul Ahaz s-a dus la Damasc înaintea lui Tiglat-Pileser, împăratul Asiriei. Şi, văzând altarul din Damasc, împăratul Ahaz a trimes preotului Urie chipul şi înfăţişarea acestui altar, întocmai cum era făcut.
11 Preotul Urie a făcut un altar întocmai după chipul trimes din Damasc de împăratul Ahaz, şi preotul Urie l-a făcut mai înainte ca să se întoarcă împăratul Ahaz din Damasc.
12 La venirea lui din Damasc, împăratul a văzut altarul, s-a apropiat de el, şi s-a suit pe el.
13 A ars pe el arderea de tot şi darul de mâncare, a vărsat jertfele de băutură, şi a stropit pe altar sângele jertfelor de mulţămire.
14 A îndepărtat dinaintea casei altarul de aramă care era înaintea Domnului, ca să nu fie între noul altar şi Casa Domnului; l-a pus lângă noul altar, spre miazănoapte.
15 Şi împăratul Ahaz a dat următoarea poruncă preotului Urie: ,,Să arzi pe altarul cel mare arderea de tot de dimineaţă şi darul de mâncare de seară, arderea de tot a împăratului şi darul lui de mâncare, arderile de tot ale întregului popor din ţară şi darurile lor de mâncare, să torni pe el jertfele lor de băutură, şi să stropeşti pe el tot sângele arderilor de tot şi tot sângele jertfelor; cât despre altarul de aramă, nu-mi pasă de el.``
16 Preotul Urie a făcut întocmai cum poruncise împăratul Ahaz.
17 Şi împăratul Ahaz a sfărâmat tăbliile dela temelie, şi a scos lighenele de pe ele. A dat jos marea de pe boii de aramă cari erau supt ea, şi a pus-o pe o pardoseală de piatră.
18 De hatârul împăratului Asiriei, a schimbat în Casa Domnului pridvorul Sabatului care fusese zidit acolo, precum şi intrarea de afară a împăratului.
19 Celelalte fapte ale lui Ahaz, şi tot ce a făcut el, nu sânt scrise în cartea Cronicilor împăraţilor lui Iuda?
20 Ahaz a adormit cu părinţii săi, şi a fost îngropat cu părinţii săi în cetatea lui David. Şi, în locul lui, a domnit fiul său Ezechia.
{"verseMap":{"1":[{"id":832,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Ahaz","title_en":"Ahaz","content_ro":"<h3>AHAZ<\/h3>\n<li>1. King of Judah (735–715 <span>BC<\/span>) who was especially remembered for his apostasy. The name Ahaz (Mt 1:9) is a shortened form of Ahaziah or Jehoahaz. The three main accounts of Ahaz (2 Kgs 16; 2 Chr 28; Is 7) treat him as one of the most evil rulers of the southern kingdom of Judah. Consequently, his burial was relatively dishonorable (2 Chr 28:27). He was succeeded by his son Hezekiah (2 Kgs 18:1).<\/li>\n<p>There is little agreement on the chronology of this section of the OT. The chronological system that seems to have the fewest problems would place Ahaz’s accession in 735 <span>BC<\/span>. If he first came to the throne as co-regent with his father, Jotham, from 735 to 732 <span>BC<\/span>, his entire reign covered a span of approximately 20 years, ending in 715 <span>BC<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p>Ahaz reigned over Judah during a critical time in the history of the ancient Near East. The Assyrians were pushing westward, threatening the Syro-Palestinian area. Pekah, king of Israel, and Rezin, king of Syria, adopted a policy of resistance against the Assyrians and invaded Judah in order to effect a solid coalition by deposing Ahaz.<\/p>\n<p>Blatantly revealing a lack of trust in God, Ahaz appealed to Tiglath-pileser III, the Assyrian king, for help. That appeal brought the wrath of the prophet Isaiah upon Ahaz. The ensuing encounter (Is 7) led to Isaiah’s prediction of the birth of Immanuel as a sign of the dissolution of the countries of Israel and Syria. Those two kingdoms were ultimately destroyed by Tiglath-pileser in a campaign that lasted about two years (734–732 <span>BC<\/span>).<\/p>\n\n<p>Before the two kingdoms to the north were conquered by Assyria, their invasion of Judah caused great turmoil (2 Chr 28:8). The invaders not only carried off much spoil but also attempted to depopulate portions of Judah by taking 200,000 people captive to Samaria. That attempt was protested by a prophet in Samaria named Obed, who condemned the act of slavery and ordered the captives returned (v 9). He was joined by several leaders of Israel (v 12), who succeeded in having the captives returned to Jericho with provisions from the spoil that had been taken.<\/p>\n<p>During that time, the kingdom of Judah may have been threatened from the south as well. The Edomites, who had long been under the domination of Judah, may have taken advantage of Judah’s growing internal weakness to assert their independence. The Masoretic Text of the OT refers to an invasion of the seaport town of Elath on the Red Sea by Aram, the Hebrew name for Syria (2 Kgs 16:6). The name Aram is quite similar to the name Edom in Hebrew, however, so many scholars think that invasion was actually by Edomites.<\/p>\n<p>By virtue of the alliance he had made, Ahaz placed his country in a dangerous position of dependence on Assyria. The kingdom of Judah became essentially a vassal state under the tacit control of Tiglath-pileser. Ahaz went to Damascus, the capital of fallen Syria, to appear before Tiglath-pileser, possibly to assure his allegiance to the king to whom his nation had become tributary (2 Kgs 16:10).<\/p>\n<p>While in Damascus, Ahaz saw an Assyrian altar, a model of which he sent back to Judah. Under the direction of Uriah the priest, a similar altar was built in Jerusalem, replacing the original bronze altar. Several other alterations were made in the temple by Ahaz, all indicating his turning away from Jewish religion.<\/p>\n<p>The “dial of Ahaz” (2 Kgs 20:11; Is 38:8) later figured in a sign given to his son Hezekiah; the Hebrew word actually refers to a flight of stairs, no doubt built by Ahaz and used to tell time by the movement of a shadow across it.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> King; Kings, Books of First and Second; Israel, History of; Sundial; Chronology of the Bible (Old Testament).<\/p>\n<li>2. Micah’s son and Jehoaddah’s father, a descendant of Saul, otherwise unknown (1 Chr 8:35-36).<\/li>","content_en":"<h3>AHAZ<\/h3>\n<li>1. King of Judah (735–715 <span>BC<\/span>) who was especially remembered for his apostasy. The name Ahaz (Mt 1:9) is a shortened form of Ahaziah or Jehoahaz. The three main accounts of Ahaz (2 Kgs 16; 2 Chr 28; Is 7) treat him as one of the most evil rulers of the southern kingdom of Judah. Consequently, his burial was relatively dishonorable (2 Chr 28:27). He was succeeded by his son Hezekiah (2 Kgs 18:1).<\/li>\n<p>There is little agreement on the chronology of this section of the OT. The chronological system that seems to have the fewest problems would place Ahaz’s accession in 735 <span>BC<\/span>. If he first came to the throne as co-regent with his father, Jotham, from 735 to 732 <span>BC<\/span>, his entire reign covered a span of approximately 20 years, ending in 715 <span>BC<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p>Ahaz reigned over Judah during a critical time in the history of the ancient Near East. The Assyrians were pushing westward, threatening the Syro-Palestinian area. Pekah, king of Israel, and Rezin, king of Syria, adopted a policy of resistance against the Assyrians and invaded Judah in order to effect a solid coalition by deposing Ahaz.<\/p>\n<p>Blatantly revealing a lack of trust in God, Ahaz appealed to Tiglath-pileser III, the Assyrian king, for help. That appeal brought the wrath of the prophet Isaiah upon Ahaz. The ensuing encounter (Is 7) led to Isaiah’s prediction of the birth of Immanuel as a sign of the dissolution of the countries of Israel and Syria. Those two kingdoms were ultimately destroyed by Tiglath-pileser in a campaign that lasted about two years (734–732 <span>BC<\/span>).<\/p>\n\n<p>Before the two kingdoms to the north were conquered by Assyria, their invasion of Judah caused great turmoil (2 Chr 28:8). The invaders not only carried off much spoil but also attempted to depopulate portions of Judah by taking 200,000 people captive to Samaria. That attempt was protested by a prophet in Samaria named Obed, who condemned the act of slavery and ordered the captives returned (v 9). He was joined by several leaders of Israel (v 12), who succeeded in having the captives returned to Jericho with provisions from the spoil that had been taken.<\/p>\n<p>During that time, the kingdom of Judah may have been threatened from the south as well. The Edomites, who had long been under the domination of Judah, may have taken advantage of Judah’s growing internal weakness to assert their independence. The Masoretic Text of the OT refers to an invasion of the seaport town of Elath on the Red Sea by Aram, the Hebrew name for Syria (2 Kgs 16:6). The name Aram is quite similar to the name Edom in Hebrew, however, so many scholars think that invasion was actually by Edomites.<\/p>\n<p>By virtue of the alliance he had made, Ahaz placed his country in a dangerous position of dependence on Assyria. The kingdom of Judah became essentially a vassal state under the tacit control of Tiglath-pileser. Ahaz went to Damascus, the capital of fallen Syria, to appear before Tiglath-pileser, possibly to assure his allegiance to the king to whom his nation had become tributary (2 Kgs 16:10).<\/p>\n<p>While in Damascus, Ahaz saw an Assyrian altar, a model of which he sent back to Judah. Under the direction of Uriah the priest, a similar altar was built in Jerusalem, replacing the original bronze altar. Several other alterations were made in the temple by Ahaz, all indicating his turning away from Jewish religion.<\/p>\n<p>The “dial of Ahaz” (2 Kgs 20:11; Is 38:8) later figured in a sign given to his son Hezekiah; the Hebrew word actually refers to a flight of stairs, no doubt built by Ahaz and used to tell time by the movement of a shadow across it.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> King; Kings, Books of First and Second; Israel, History of; Sundial; Chronology of the Bible (Old Testament).<\/p>\n<li>2. Micah’s son and Jehoaddah’s father, a descendant of Saul, otherwise unknown (1 Chr 8:35-36).<\/li>","summary_ro":"AHAZ 1. King of Judah (735–715 BC) who was especially remembered for his apostasy. The name Ahaz (Mt 1:9) is a shortened form of Ahaziah or Jehoahaz. The three main accounts of Ahaz (2 Kgs 16; 2 Chr 28; Is 7) treat him as one of the most evil rulers of the southern kingdom of Judah. Consequently, his burial was relatively dishonorable (2 Chr 28:27). He was succeeded by his son Hezekiah (2 Kgs 18:1). There is little agreement on the chronology of this section of the OT. The chronological syste...","summary_en":"AHAZ 1. King of Judah (735–715 BC) who was especially remembered for his apostasy. The name Ahaz (Mt 1:9) is a shortened form of Ahaziah or Jehoahaz. The three main accounts of Ahaz (2 Kgs 16; 2 Chr 28; Is 7) treat him as one of the most evil rulers of the southern kingdom of Judah. Consequently, his burial was relatively dishonorable (2 Chr 28:27). He was succeeded by his son Hezekiah (2 Kgs 18:1). There is little agreement on the chronology of this section of the OT. The chronological syste...","source":"Articles\/A.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":22088,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Books of First and Second Kings","title_en":"Books of First and Second Kings","content_ro":"<h3>KINGS, Books of First and Second<\/h3>\n<p>Books continuing the history of the covenant people as recorded in Joshua, Judges, and the books of Samuel. The record in Kings begins with the events at the end of David’s reign (1 Kgs 1–2). It continues through the reign of Solomon (chs 3–11); the histories of the divided kingdoms (1 Kgs 12—2 Kgs 17); and the history of the surviving kingdom in the south, through its fall in 586 <span>BC<\/span> and the subsequent kindness shown Jehoiachin by Evil-merodach, king of Babylon, around 561 <span>BC<\/span> (2 Kgs 18–25).<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Authorship and Date<\/p>\n<p>• Sources<\/p>\n<p>• Theology and Purpose<\/p>\n<p>• Content<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"AuthorshipandDate\">Authorship and Date<\/p>\n<p>Kings was originally regarded as one book in the Hebrew canon; the division into two books of approximately equal length appeared first in the Septuagint and finally entered the Hebrew Bible in the 15th century <span>AD<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p>The book itself is anonymous, and information about its author can only be deduced by examining the concerns and perspectives of the work. The Babylonian Talmud (<em>Baba Bathra<\/em> 15a) attributes Kings to Jeremiah. Although this identification could have arisen from the tendency of later Jewish tradition to assign biblical books to prophetic authors, the theory of origin in prophetic circles fits the evidence quite well. Substantial portions are given to the lives of the prophets; 16 of 47 chapters are devoted to the lives of Elijah and Elisha (1 Kgs 17—2 Kgs 10), and there is considerable interest in other prophetic figures such as Ahijah (1 Kgs 11:29-39; 14:1-16), an unnamed man of God (13:1-10), and Micaiah (22:13-28). Possible dependence on Isaiah (2 Kgs 18–20; cf. Is 36–39) and Jeremiah (2 Kgs 24–25; cf. Jer 52) also suggest prophetic origin. The author-compiler also shows intense concern with the efficacy of the prophetic word, frequently calling attention to the fulfillment of words spoken earlier by the prophets.<\/p>\n<p>One might initially think that such a history would be unlikely for a prophet, but the evidence is to the contrary. The prophets were the guardians of the covenant relationship and are known to have produced accounts used as sources by other biblical historians. The following are among such sources: the acts of Samuel the seer, the acts of Nathan the prophet, the acts of Gad the seer (1 Chr 29:29); the acts of Nathan the prophet, the prophecy of Ahijah the Shilonite, the visions of Iddo the seer (2 Chr 9:29); the chronicles of Shemaiah the prophet and of Iddo the seer (12:15); the annotations of the prophet Iddo (13:22); and the acts of Uzziah by Isaiah the prophet (26:22). Add to this the fact that Kings is positioned in the Hebrew canon in the Former Prophets (Joshua to 2 Kings), and a consistent picture of prophetic origin emerges.<\/p>\n<p>The date of the final part of the book must be after the last events recorded. Evil-merodach’s kindness toward Jehoiachin (c. 561 <span>BC<\/span>) is the terminus of the book and therefore fixes the earliest date. Since the work shows no knowledge of the restoration period, a date before 539 <span>BC<\/span> is probable. The author’s selection of his data to answer the burning theological questions of the exilic community also suggests a date between 561 and 539 <span>BC<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Sources\">Sources<\/p>\n<p>The compiler of Kings specifically names three of the sources that he used in his work, and biblical scholars have suggested the presence of a number of other sources that may have been cited. Of course, the sources not mentioned specifically by the compiler are only the speculations of those who have studied his work and can have only varying degrees of probability. The sources both specified and alleged are as follows.<\/p>\n<h5>The Book of the Acts of Solomon<\/h5>\n<p>As 1 Kings 11:41 says, “The rest of the events in Solomon’s reign, including his wisdom, are recorded in <em>The Book of the Acts of Solomon”<\/em> (<span>nlt<\/span>). Presumably additional materials of a biographical nature were included, specifically accounts similar to the judgment between the two mothers (3:16-28) or the visit of the queen of Sheba (10:1-10). There has been debate as to whether these materials were official court records or nonofficial documents. Some scholars have attempted to isolate further materials within this section by identifying descriptions of the buildings as from temple archives (chs 6–7) and lists of administrators as from administrative documents (chs 4–5), but this must remain speculative.<\/p>\n<h5>The Book of the History of the Kings of Israel<\/h5>\n<p>This source is mentioned 17 times in Kings, usually in the closing formulas at the end of the account of the reign of a northern king. Some idea of the nature of these chronicles can be derived from looking at the type of information to which the compiler refers his readers (see 1 Kgs 14:19; 16:27; 22:39; 2 Kgs 13:12; 14:28). These passages suggest that this source was the official annals covering the reigns of the kings.<\/p>\n<h5>The Book of the History of the Kings of Judah<\/h5>\n<p>This source is mentioned in 15 passages, and as with the kings of Israel, is found in the concluding formulas to the accounts of the reigns. This source was to be consulted for additional details on individuals’ reigns (for example, see 1 Kgs 15:23; 22:45; 2 Kgs 20:20; 21:17). These sources for the histories of the two kingdoms were probably similar to the annals known from the surrounding cultures, particularly from the reigns of Assyrian kings. They were likely official court histories kept in Samaria and Jerusalem.<\/p>\n<p>In addition to these explicitly mentioned sources, scholars have suggested the compiler drew on other sources that he does not name.<\/p>\n<h5>Davidic Court History<\/h5>\n<p>Second Samuel 9–20 is often identified as a unit of material in the composition of the books of Samuel; it is variously called “the court history” or “the succession narrative.” Because of similar vocabulary and outlook, 1 Kings 1–2 are often associated with this material from Samuel. The statement of 1 Kings 2:46, “so the kingdom was now firmly in Solomon’s grip,” is taken to be the end of this record.<\/p>\n<h5>Sources for the House of Ahab<\/h5>\n<p>The reigns of individual kings are ordinarily given only brief notices; for example, the father of Ahab, Omri, is given eight verses, even though when judged by political and economic significance, he was among the greatest of the northern kings (1 Kgs 16:21-28). However, beginning with the reign of Ahab, the record becomes quite expansive, and extensive coverage is given the dynasty of Ahab through the coup by Jehu (1 Kgs 16—2 Kgs 12). The use of the stereotyped formulas for the reigns is suspended in this material, and the existence of other literature used by the compiler is probable. This material is commonly subdivided into further sources for the lives of Elijah and Elisha and the reign of Ahab.<\/p>\n<p>The Elijah section covers material in the following chapters: 1 Kings 17–19, including the feeding by the ravens, the incidents with the widow of Zarephath, the drought, the fire on Carmel, and the revelation of God at Sinai; 1 Kings 21, the affair of Naboth’s vineyard; and 2 Kings 1, the death of Ahaziah’s messengers. The reign of Ahab, which gets so much attention in Kings, is primarily a backdrop for the accounts concerning Elijah.<\/p>\n<p>The Elisha material found in 2 Kings 2–13 may have had an independent literary development from that of the Elijah accounts. It includes the following: chapter 2 (Elisha’s succession to the prophetic office, the purification of a spring, the death of mocking children); chapter 3 (on the campaign against Moab); chapter 4 (the widow’s oil, the Shunammite woman); chapter 5 (Naaman’s leprosy); chapter 6 (the Aramean attempt to capture Elisha); chapter 7 (the famine in Samaria); chapter 8 (the Shunammite’s property, the coup of Hazael); chapter 9 (the anointing of Jehu); and chapter 13 (the death of Elisha). No other portion of the OT takes the sheer delight in the miraculous that is seen in the Elisha narratives.<\/p>\n<p>In 1 Kings 16 to 2 Kings 13 there are additional incidents not directly related to the biographies of Elijah and Elisha; accounts such as the military campaigns of 1 Kings 20:1-34 and further details of Jehu’s coup (2 Kgs 9:11–10:36) are often attributed to a third source containing accounts of the dynasty of Ahab and his successors. In all three of these possible sources the orientation is toward affairs in the northern kingdom.<\/p>\n<h5>Isaiah Source<\/h5>\n<p>The account of the reign of Hezekiah contains a section (2 Kgs 18:13–20:19) that is nearly a verbatim citation of material also found in Isaiah (Is 36:1–39:8). The section records the invasion of Sennacherib, the mission of the Rabshakeh, Hezekiah’s prayer, Isaiah’s prophecy, Hezekiah’s illness, the regression of the sun, and the envoys from Merodach-baladan. The material must be regarded as based on the book of Isaiah or some other source used in both Isaiah and Kings.<\/p>\n<h5>A Prophetic Source<\/h5>\n<p>Because Kings shows great interest in the prophets and their ministries, various scholars have suggested that yet another source was used by the compiler; this would be an independent literary unit containing accounts of the prophets. This source would have contained the records for the material on Ahijah (1 Kgs 11:29-39; 14:1-16), unnamed prophets (ch 12; 20:35-43), Micaiah (22:13-28), and other references.<\/p>\n<p>Apart from the sources explicitly mentioned and inferences about their character, the remainder of the sources suggested have only varying degrees of probability. Considerable scholarly effort has gone into identifying and characterizing such sources, but it remains speculative. When considering the sources the compiler may have used, one important caution must be kept in mind. Even if such sources did exist, one cannot have confidence in a reconstruction of the compositional history. Which sources had already been integrated into a larger composition before they were used by the compiler of Kings? We cannot be certain that the life situation out of which these other sources grew has been correctly identified, nor can we know that even the compiler himself was aware of the past history of his sources. Biblical scholarship has expended considerable energy in trying to delineate the past history of the book of Kings, but it has often been at the neglect of the unity of perspective that is the product of the final compiler(s) in whose hands the book received its canonical form.<\/p>\n<p>What is important to understanding the book is not the perspective of its various sources (of which the compiler himself may have been unaware), but the perspective of the book as a whole on the history of the kingdoms. It is the outline that the compiler has imposed on the sources that establishes the teaching of the book; his sources are used in accord with his own purposes, a fact that makes the purposes for which the sources had been prepared largely irrelevant to the teaching of the book in its present form. Exploring possible sources, worthwhile in itself, must not eclipse the message of the book as a whole. This is not to imply that the books of Kings are simply a compilation of unaltered sources. The writer(s) undoubtedly exercised a measure of selectivity and literary skill in composing the historical narrative.<\/p>\n<p>One compositional technique of the compiler is quite prominent in the histories of the divided kingdoms: this is the use of formulaic introductions and conclusions to the various reigns. The formulas for both kingdoms are quite similar, differing only in minor details. For the kings of Judah, the full introductory formula is as follows: (1) year of accession synchronized with the regnal year of the northern king; (2) age of the king at his accession; (3) length of his reign; (4) name of his mother; (5) judgment on the character of the reign. The account of a Judean king’s reign is concluded as follows: (1) a reference to the chronicles of the kings of Judah for further information; (2) a statement regarding the death of the king, including the place of burial; (3) successor: “And his son reigned in his stead” (<span>rsv<\/span>). The full formula for a Judean king can be seen, for example, in the reign of Rehoboam (1 Kgs 14:21-22, 29-31).<\/p>\n<p>The formulas differ slightly for the kings of Israel; the introduction is as follows: (1) year of succession synchronized with the regnal year of the southern king; (2) length of his reign; (3) location of the royal residence; (4) condemnation for idolatry; (5) name of the king’s father. The account of an Israelite king’s reign ends as follows: (1) a reference to the chronicles of the kings of Israel for further information; (2) a statement regarding his death; (3) a statement of the succession of his son, unless a usurper follows. The full formula for an Israelite king can be seen, for example, in the reign of Baasha (1 Kgs 15:33-34; 16:5-6).<\/p>\n<p>There is some variation in the use of these patterns, but on the whole, they are consistently followed and provide the basic framework for the history of the divided kingdom. The synchronisms of the reigns provide data for constructing the chronology of the period. The variations in the formulas may reflect the characteristics of the sources the compiler was using or may reflect his own interests. The name of the mother of a Judean king is recorded, but not of an Israelite king, perhaps reflecting concern with a more exact and fuller record of the Davidic succession. The royal residence is presumed to be Jerusalem for the southern kings (though it may be mentioned) but is recorded for the northern kings since it moved several times, from Shechem to Penuel to Tirzah to Samaria. The mention of the king’s father for a northern ruler also reflects the frequent change in dynasties there, as opposed to the dynastic stability of Judah, which is reinforced by mentioning the burial of almost all its kings in the city of David.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheologyandPurpose\">Theology and Purpose<\/p>\n<p>The books of Kings record the history of the covenant people from the end of the reign of David (961 <span>BC<\/span>) through the fall of the southern kingdom (586 <span>BC<\/span>). Yet it is not history written in accord with modern expectations for history textbooks. Rather than concentrating on economic, political, and military themes as they shaped the history of the period, the compiler of Kings is motivated by theological concerns.<\/p>\n<p>Evaluation of the theology and purpose of the books of Kings is made easier by the fact that there is a parallel history for much of Kings found in the books of Chronicles. By comparing the two accounts, especially where the later Chronicler adds or deletes material found in Kings, the interests of both histories are thrown into clearer relief.<\/p>\n<p>The books of Kings were composed during the exile, likely between 560 and 539 <span>BC<\/span>. Jerusalem had been turned into rubble, and there was no longer a throne of David. Those two pillars of the popular theology—the inviolability of the temple and the throne of David (Jer 7:4; 13:13-14; 22:1-9; see 1 Kgs 8:16, 29)—had tumbled. If Israel’s faith was to survive, the burning questions that had to be answered were “How did it all happen? Can’t God keep his promises to David and to Zion? Have the promises failed?” The writer of Kings aims to deal with the bewilderment of the chosen people in response to the disasters of 722 <span>BC<\/span> (fall of Samaria) and 586 <span>BC<\/span> (fall of Jerusalem). Kings, like the book of Job, is a theodicy, a justification of the ways of God to men.<\/p>\n<p>In order to answer the question “How did it happen?” the compiler adopts the procedure of recounting the history of the covenant people in light of standards propounded in the Law. For this reason Kings could be called Pentateuchal history, or even more pointedly, Deuteronomic history, for standards propounded only in the book of Deuteronomy in the Pentateuch are used by the compiler to measure the kingdoms. Among the prominent themes selected from Deuteronomy and applied to the kingdoms are the centralization of worship, the institution of the monarchy, the efficacy of the prophetic word, and the outworking of the covenant curses on disobedience.<\/p>\n<h5>Centralization of Worship<\/h5>\n<p>The primary concern of the writer is the purity of the worship of the Lord. His major criterion for measuring this purity is the attitude of the kings toward centralization of worship in the Jerusalem temple as opposed to the worship of the Lord elsewhere and the continuation of Canaanite cults mingled with Yahwism at the high places. Centralization of worship at the central shrine is called for in Deuteronomy 12. Perhaps “centralization of worship” is a misnomer, for worship was always centered around the tabernacle in the periods prior to the temple; the change that is envisaged in Deuteronomy is not the centralizing of worship but rather the fact that the shrine would no longer be mobile but stationary. For the kings of the northern kingdom, this criterion becomes virtually a stereotyped formula that “he did that which was evil in the sight of the Lord and walked in the way of Jeroboam son of Nebat, who sinned and made all Israel sin along with him” (see 1 Kgs 14:16; 15:30; 16:31; 2 Kgs 3:3; 10:31; 13:2, 11; 14:24; 15:9, 18, 24, 28; 17:22). The compiler of Kings sees the rival altars with the golden calves at Dan and Bethel as the great sin of which the northern kings never repented (1 Kgs 12:25–13:34). Rejecting the primacy of Jerusalem, these altars became the rod with which to measure the northern kings. All the kings of Israel are condemned by this standard (except for Shallum, who reigned but a month, and Hoshea, the last of the northern kings)—even Zimri, the murderer of Elah, who ruled only one week before committing suicide in the flames of his own palace (16:9-20). For the kings of Judah, a different standard is used: what their attitude was to the high places where heterodox worship was allowed to flourish in the environs of Jerusalem. Only Hezekiah and Josiah receive the compiler’s unqualified endorsement for following the ways of David (2 Kgs 18:3; 22:2). Six others are commended for their zeal in suppressing idolatry, though they did not remove the high places (Asa, 1 Kgs 15:9-15; Jehoshaphat, 22:43; Jehoash, 2 Kgs 12:2-3; Amaziah, 14:3-4; Azariah, 15:3-4; Jotham, 15:34-35). The remainder of the Judean kings are condemned for their participation in the high places and their desecration of the temple itself. This one theme is the preeminent motif in the book.<\/p>\n<h5>History of the Monarchy<\/h5>\n<p>A second prominent interest for the compiler was to trace the history of the monarchy. Deuteronomy 17:14-20 provides for the day when Israel would ask for a king and charges that king with the basic religious responsibility for the people. This provision for a king, again a feature found only in Deuteronomy, becomes the basis for the compiler’s intense interest in the history of the monarchy, and particularly the religious fidelity of the kings. David becomes the model of the ideal king, the one by whom the others are measured, the one whose sons “continue long in his kingdom in the midst of Israel” (17:20; see also 1 Kgs 15:11; 2 Kgs 18:3; 22:2 for following in the ways of David, and 1 Kgs 14:8; 15:3-5; 2 Kgs 14:3; 16:2 for the reverse). The compiler wanted to show that God had been faithful to David even though David’s sons were not faithful. While both kingdoms had about the same number of kings, the northern kingdom is marked by repeated dynastic changes and regicide through its 200 years, while the dynasty of David is maintained as a lamp in the south through 350 years (1 Kgs 11:13, 32, 36; 15:4-5; 2 Kgs 8:19; 19:34; 20:6). It is the disaster that had befallen the house of David, and the consequent doubts about the promises of God, that prompted the compiler to write.<\/p>\n<h5>Efficacy of the Prophetic Word<\/h5>\n<p>Another reason why Kings can be called Deuteronomic history is its concern with the efficacy of the prophetic word. There are three passages in the Pentateuch that deal with the institution of the prophetic order: Numbers 12:1-8; Deuteronomy 13:1-5; and Deuteronomy 18:14-22. It is only in Deuteronomy 18 that the test of a true prophet is given: that what he has spoken comes about, that his words are fulfilled. Notice the number of instances where the writer calls attention to the fulfillment of the words of the prophets: 2 Samuel 7:13 in 1 Kings 8:20; 1 Kings 11:29-36 in 12:15; 1 Kings 13:1-3 in 2 Kings 23:16-18; 1 Kings 14:6-12 in 14:17-18 and 15:29; 1 Kings 16:1-4 in 16:7, 11-12; Joshua 6:26 in 1 Kings 16:34; 1 Kings 22:17 in 22:35-38; 1 Kings 21:21-29 in 2 Kings 9:7-10, 30-37 and 10:10-11, 30; 2 Kings 1:6 in 1:17; 2 Kings 21:10-15 in 24:2; 2 Kings 22:15-20 in 23:30. The writer is concerned to show that the words of the prophets were efficacious, powerful words. His concern with the prophetic order is also seen in the material devoted to Elijah and Elisha and to other prophetic figures.<\/p>\n<h5>Fulfillment of the Curses<\/h5>\n<p>Another aspect of the compiler’s interest in Deuteronomy is seen in his concern to trace the fulfillment of the covenant curses on disobedience. God’s covenant with Israel would issue in curses or blessings depending on the obedience of the people; the compiler of Kings sees the curses inflicted on the two kingdoms because of their failure to meet the demands of the covenant. He takes care to show that most of the curses of Deuteronomy 28:15-68 had some historical realization in the life of the people. Moses had warned that disobedience would “bring a nation against you from afar, from the end of the earth, as the eagle swoops down” (Dt 28:49, <span>nasb<\/span>), and the Assyrians came to Samaria and the Babylonians to Jerusalem (28:52). The siege of Samaria lasted from 724 to 722 <span>BC<\/span>, and the siege of Jerusalem from 588 to 586 <span>BC<\/span>. The dire conditions of the siege would drive the people to devouring their own children; women would feed on their afterbirths. It happened to Israel in the siege of Ben-hadad (2 Kgs 6:24-30). Just as the Lord had delighted to prosper and multiply his people, so he would not refrain from destroying them and scattering them among the peoples of the earth (Dt 28:63-67).<\/p>\n<p>In these and other ways the writer of Kings set out to write the history of Israel and Judah to solve a theological dilemma. How was one to reconcile the exile with God’s promises to the nation and David? His answer is twofold: (1) the problem was not with God but with the people’s disobedience—God remains just; (2) the end of the state does not equal the end of the people or the house of David. Here the ending of the book is instructive: Evil-merodach releases Jehoiachin from prison, elevates him above the other kings, and provides his rations (2 Kgs 25:27-30). Even during the exile, though cut down to almost nothing, the house of David still enjoys the favor and blessing of God. God has not abandoned his promises; the people should keep hope.<\/p>\n<p>Other themes in Kings also show the theological motivations underlying the compiler’s selection and arrangement of the data, particularly his use of Deuteronomy as a framework for examining the history of the people. Compare the laws governing the observance of Passover in Exodus 12:1-20 and Deuteronomy 16:1-8: whereas the Passover is centered in the family in Exodus, it is celebrated at the sanctuary in Deuteronomy. The writer of Kings is careful to show that the Passover during the reign of Josiah was celebrated in accordance with the requirements of Deuteronomy (2 Kgs 23:21-23). A passage in Deuteronomy is explicitly cited with reference to Amaziah’s keeping the law (Dt 24:16 in 2 Kgs 14:6).<\/p>\n<h5>Contrast with Chronicles<\/h5>\n<p>The interests of Kings are further highlighted when compared with the parallel accounts in Chronicles. While the writer of Kings worked in the aftermath of the destruction of Jerusalem and had to answer the “how?” and “why?” questions, the Chronicler is part of the restoration community. Here the burning theological questions were not “how?” and “why?” but rather “What continuity do we have with David? Is God still interested in us?” The need is not to account for the exile but rather to relate the postexilic and the preexilic. The building of the second temple and the ordering of worship there show up in increased detail in Chronicles in any matter pertaining to the former temple. Chronicles is a history of Judah and of the Davidic line, reflecting the fact that it alone survives after the exile. Interesting, too, are the things omitted from the account by the Chronicler. Since he is not building a case for an indictment, as was done in Samuel and Kings, he is free to omit references to David’s sin with Bathsheba (2 Sm 11) or to Solomon’s difficulties in gaining the throne (1 Kgs 1–2). Since in his day the northern kingdom had not survived, the Chronicler did not go into detail about the sins of Jeroboam (chs 13–14). Chronicles is interested more in the affairs of the temple and does not show the marked interest in prophetic matters found in Kings, so that the lives of Elijah and Elisha are omitted (1 Kgs 16—2 Kgs 10). Nor does the Chronicler recite the sins that led to the demise of the northern kingdom (2 Kgs 17:1–18:12). In all these examples one can see the interplay of the historical moment and theological concerns of the people and the compilers. Each compiler has selected and arranged the data in accordance with the concerns and needs of the community in which he was a member; comparing the two accounts throws the interests of each into sharp relief.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Content\">Content<\/p>\n\n<p>The books of Kings fall into three parts: (1) the reign of Solomon (1 Kgs 1–11); (2) the history of the divided kingdom (1 Kgs 12–2 Kgs 17); (3) the history of the surviving kingdom in Judah (2 Kgs 18–25).<\/p>\n<h5>The Reign of Solomon (1 Kgs 1–11)<\/h5>\n<p>The record begins with an account of the court intrigue surrounding Solomon’s accession to the throne, set against the backdrop of the abortive coup by Adonijah (ch 1). The dying David charges Solomon to obey the commandments of God (2:1-4) and also to take vengeance on his enemies (vv 5-9). After David’s death Solomon orders the deaths of Adonijah, Joab, and Shimei, and the banishment of Abiathar, the priest who had supported Adonijah in his bid for the throne (vv 13-46). Enemies eliminated, the kingdom was firmly established by Solomon (v 46).<\/p>\n<p>The remainder of Solomon’s reign is divided into two parts: Solomon the good, who follows in the ways of his father, David (chs 3–10); and Solomon the bad, whose heart is led astray (ch 11). While sacrificing at Gibeon, Solomon asks God to give him the gift of wisdom to rule—wisdom promptly demonstrated in the quarrel of two prostitutes about a child (ch 3). An account is given of the administrative organization of the kingdom and the incomparable wisdom of Solomon (ch 4). The compiler of Kings gives extensive coverage to the preparations (ch 5), building (chs 6–7), and dedication (ch 8) of the temple. God appeared to Solomon a second time, reminding him to keep his commandments as David had done (9:1-9). Details are given of the king’s building and commercial activities (vv 10-27). The account of the visit by the queen of Sheba is followed with elaboration of Solomon’s splendor (ch 10). But Solomon did not keep God’s commands; seduced to pagan worship by his foreign wives, he was not fully devoted to the Lord as David had been (11:4), and God determined to take away the northern tribes from the rule of his son (vv 11-13). As punishment from the hand of God, Solomon faced rebellion among conquered peoples (vv 14-25) and within Israel in the person of Jeroboam (vv 26-40).<\/p>\n<h5>History of the Divided Kingdom (1 Kgs 12—2 Kgs 17)<\/h5>\n\n<p>The united monarchy dissolved after the death of Solomon. The northern kingdom (Israel) would exist for about two centuries, would be ruled by 20 kings from nine different dynasties, and would show a history of internal weakness riddled with regicide and usurpation. In contrast, the southern kingdom would last for three and a half centuries and would be ruled by 19 kings of Davidic descent (apart from a short period under the dynastic interloper Athaliah).<\/p>\n<p>There had been a long history of independent action and even warfare between the northern and southern tribes prior to David and Solomon, so it is no surprise that the division would take place along the lines that it did. The immediate cause, however, was the unwise severity with which Rehoboam replied to the representatives of the northern tribes while negotiating for the kingship. Jeroboam, the popular hero of the earlier insurrection against Solomon, became king in the north. He immediately erected the rival sanctuaries at Dan and Bethel (1 Kgs 12); these rival altars became the measure by which the kings of Israel were condemned for following in the sins of Jeroboam.<\/p>\n<p>For two generations there would be warfare between Israel and Judah over the border areas in Benjamin claimed by both sides. Fifty years of sporadic fighting on their mutual frontier, interlaced with invasions from the Arameans in the north or the Egyptians in the south, would consume the reigns of Jeroboam, Nadab, Baasha, Elah, and Zimri in Israel and of Rehoboam, Abijam, and Asa in Judah (1 Kgs 13:1–16:20).<\/p>\n<p>The accession of Omri in Israel introduced a ruling house that would last for a total of four generations and end the dynastic instability of the northern kingdom. Though Kings gives Omri a scant eight verses (1 Kgs 16:21-28), he was among the greatest of the northern kings, forging alliances with the Phoenicians and Judah; for over a century, the Assyrians would call Israel “the house of Omri.”<\/p>\n<p>The reigns of Omri’s successors, Ahab, Ahaziah, and Jehoram, are treated at disproportionate length, taking almost a third of the total book, 16 of 47 chapters (1 Kgs 17—2 Kgs 10). This is due to the fact that the compiler of Kings incorporated extensive coverage of the lives of Elijah and Elisha, weaving a contrast between good and evil by paralleling the dynasty of Omri with these prophets. Ahab and Jezebel were used as foils for the account of Elijah, so that Ahab became a paradigm of the evil king (e.g., 2 Kgs 21:3).<\/p>\n<p>Because of this preoccupation with the dynasty of Omri and the lives of Elijah and Elisha, the equivalent period in Judah is not given as extensive coverage. During this period, the northern kingdom appears to have exercised some hegemony over Judah, as attested by the marriage of an Omride (Athaliah, 2 Kgs 8:18, 26) to Jehoram of Judah and the subservient role of Jehoshaphat to Ahab at the battle of Ramoth-gilead (1 Kgs 22). Judah’s fortunes declined in this period when Edom revolted against Jehoram (2 Kgs 8:20-22), costing Judah control over the port at Ezion-geber and consequent economic losses.<\/p>\n<p>In 842 <span>BC<\/span> Jehu, after being anointed king by a prophet (2 Kgs 9:1-13), led a coup ending the house of Omri and also killing Ahaziah of Judah (vv 14-29). Jehu’s purge also brought the death of Jezebel, Ahab’s family, members of the family of Ahaziah, and the ministers of Baal (9:30–10:36). The consequences were severe politically: the murder of the Phoenician princess Jezebel and the king of Judah cost Israel its allies to the north and south.<\/p>\n<p>Jehu’s dynasty had the longest succession of any in Israel, including Jehoahaz, Jehoash, Jeroboam II, and Zechariah, a period spanning 90 years. Jehu’s murder of Ahaziah of Judah set the stage for the one threat to the continuity of the Davidic dynasty. Queen Athaliah, herself an Omride, seized the throne and attempted a purge of Davidic pretenders. She ruled for six years, until the faithful priest Jehoiada staged a countercoup to place the child Joash on the throne of David (ch 11).<\/p>\n<p>Israel endured a half century of weakness as a result of Jehu’s coup, during which the Arameans had a free hand, reducing the forces of Jehu’s son Jehoahaz to a small army and bodyguard (2 Kgs 13:1-7).<\/p>\n<p>The reemergence of Assyria early in the ninth century <span>BC<\/span> gave relief to Israel and Judah. Assyrian armies conquered the Arameans; with that threat removed, Israel and Judah enjoyed a dramatic resurgence. Jehoash of Israel, grandson of Jehu, reconquered cities lost to the Arameans (2 Kgs 13:25); Elisha died during his reign (v 20). In the south Amaziah reconquered the Edomites (14:7). Amaziah and Jehoash renewed the warfare between the kingdoms, with the north again victorious (vv 8-14).<\/p>\n<p>Under Jeroboam II, Israel enjoyed a period of prosperity when the borders of the kingdom reached the same extent as they had under Solomon (2 Kgs 14:23-28). Uzziah (Azariah), his contemporary in Judah, also fortified Jerusalem and undertook a program of offensive operations extending Judah’s sway to the south (14:21-22; 15:1-7).<\/p>\n<p>Yet this resurgence was but a brilliant sunset in the history of the two kingdoms. After the death of Jeroboam II, the history is one of successive disasters, culminating in the fall of Israel and the subjugation of Judah to the might of Assyria. The next 30 years in Israel would see four dynasties, three represented by only one king, and repeated regicides as the northern kingdom hastened to its demise. A period of civil war and anarchy would see five kings in just over ten years (2 Kgs 15). Heavy tribute was paid to Tiglath-pileser III in both the north and south (15:19-20; 16:7-10). Israel and the Arameans forged a coalition to throw back the Assyrians and sought to press Ahaz of Judah into the fight; Ahaz appealed to Tiglath-pileser III for help. The coalition was destroyed, and Israel and Judah became vassals. Hoshea defected as soon as he felt safe, looking to Egypt for help, but it was suicide for the northern kingdom. Shalmaneser V retaliated, and the political history of the state of Israel came to an end (17:1-23). The area was resettled with other displaced populations (vv 24-41).<\/p>\n<p>Israel had faced the Arameans and survived, only to fall to Assyria. And now, similarly, Judah would outlast Assyria, only to fall to Babylon.<\/p>\n<h5>History of the Surviving Kingdom of Judah (2 Kgs 18–25)<\/h5>\n<p>Ahaz’s appeal for Assyrian aid cost him his liberty, and Judah became a vassal of the Assyrian Empire. Illegitimate worship flourished under his rule (2 Kgs 16:1-19). Ahaz was succeeded by the first of the outstanding reform kings of Judah: Hezekiah. Much of the account of his reign is given to his rebellion against Sennacherib of Assyria: the rebellion, the Assyrian envoys and threats, Isaiah’s assurances of deliverance, and the destruction of the Assyrian armies (18:9–19:37). Hezekiah’s illness was averted after a sign and oracle from Isaiah (20:1-11). As part of what appears to be negotiations toward an anti-Assyrian alliance, Hezekiah also entertained envoys from Babylon, a decision that the prophet announced would be costly (vv 12-21).<\/p>\n<p>Hezekiah was followed by Manasseh, who ruled longer than any other king of Judah (a total of 55 years). His reign was marked by great apostasy—apostasy so severe that the compiler of Kings regarded his reign as sufficient reason for the exile that was unavoidable (2 Kgs 21:1-18; cf. 23:26; 24:3-4; Jer 15:1-4). Manasseh was followed by his son Amon, a carbon copy of his father, who ruled only two years before he was deposed by the people (2 Kings 21:19-26).<\/p>\n<p>The second great reform king of Judah, Josiah, followed. In his reign the Book of the Law was found while the temple was being refurbished; he led the people in a renewal of the covenant and suppressed illegitimate worship (2 Kgs 22:1–23:14). The Assyrian Empire was in rapid decline, so Josiah extended his borders to the north, destroying the altar at Bethel and the high places throughout Samaria (23:15-20). A great Passover celebration was convened in Jerusalem, and further measures were taken to rectify worship (vv 21-25). Josiah tried to block Pharaoh Neco’s foray to assist Assyria, and he lost his life at Megiddo (vv 26-30).<\/p>\n<p>Josiah was the only king of Judah to have three of his sons succeed him. At his death the people put Jehoahaz on the throne, but Neco removed him three months later and took him to Egypt in chains (2 Kgs 23:31-33), replacing him with another son of Josiah, Eliakim, whose name was changed to Jehoiakim (vv 34-37). During his reign, Nebuchadnezzar conquered Judah, and Jehoiakim became his vassal. Late in his life Jehoiakim rebelled against Nebuchadnezzar. Jehoiakim died, leaving his son Jehoiachin to face retaliation from Babylon (24:1-10). Nebuchadnezzar besieged Jerusalem; when the city fell, Jehoiachin, the queen mother, the army, and the leaders of the land were carried away captive. Nebuchadnezzar put Mattaniah (uncle of Jehoiachin and third son of Josiah) on the throne, changing his name to Zedekiah (vv 11-17). Nine years later Zedekiah, too, would rebel against Babylon. Nebuchadnezzar besieged the city for two years and, when it fell, utterly destroyed it. Zedekiah’s sons were killed before his eyes, and then his own eyes were put out, and he was taken to Babylon (24:18–25:21). Nebuchadnezzar appointed Gedaliah to rule as governor from nearby Mizpah; he was assassinated, and the conspirators fled to Egypt (25:22-26).<\/p>\n<p>The book concludes by showing that God had not forgotten his promise to David, mentioning that in captivity Jehoiachin enjoyed favor from the hand of Evil-merodach, successor of Nebuchadnezzar (2 Kgs 25:27-30).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Chronicles, Books of First and Second.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>KINGS, Books of First and Second<\/h3>\n<p>Books continuing the history of the covenant people as recorded in Joshua, Judges, and the books of Samuel. The record in Kings begins with the events at the end of David’s reign (1 Kgs 1–2). It continues through the reign of Solomon (chs 3–11); the histories of the divided kingdoms (1 Kgs 12—2 Kgs 17); and the history of the surviving kingdom in the south, through its fall in 586 <span>BC<\/span> and the subsequent kindness shown Jehoiachin by Evil-merodach, king of Babylon, around 561 <span>BC<\/span> (2 Kgs 18–25).<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Authorship and Date<\/p>\n<p>• Sources<\/p>\n<p>• Theology and Purpose<\/p>\n<p>• Content<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"AuthorshipandDate\">Authorship and Date<\/p>\n<p>Kings was originally regarded as one book in the Hebrew canon; the division into two books of approximately equal length appeared first in the Septuagint and finally entered the Hebrew Bible in the 15th century <span>AD<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p>The book itself is anonymous, and information about its author can only be deduced by examining the concerns and perspectives of the work. The Babylonian Talmud (<em>Baba Bathra<\/em> 15a) attributes Kings to Jeremiah. Although this identification could have arisen from the tendency of later Jewish tradition to assign biblical books to prophetic authors, the theory of origin in prophetic circles fits the evidence quite well. Substantial portions are given to the lives of the prophets; 16 of 47 chapters are devoted to the lives of Elijah and Elisha (1 Kgs 17—2 Kgs 10), and there is considerable interest in other prophetic figures such as Ahijah (1 Kgs 11:29-39; 14:1-16), an unnamed man of God (13:1-10), and Micaiah (22:13-28). Possible dependence on Isaiah (2 Kgs 18–20; cf. Is 36–39) and Jeremiah (2 Kgs 24–25; cf. Jer 52) also suggest prophetic origin. The author-compiler also shows intense concern with the efficacy of the prophetic word, frequently calling attention to the fulfillment of words spoken earlier by the prophets.<\/p>\n<p>One might initially think that such a history would be unlikely for a prophet, but the evidence is to the contrary. The prophets were the guardians of the covenant relationship and are known to have produced accounts used as sources by other biblical historians. The following are among such sources: the acts of Samuel the seer, the acts of Nathan the prophet, the acts of Gad the seer (1 Chr 29:29); the acts of Nathan the prophet, the prophecy of Ahijah the Shilonite, the visions of Iddo the seer (2 Chr 9:29); the chronicles of Shemaiah the prophet and of Iddo the seer (12:15); the annotations of the prophet Iddo (13:22); and the acts of Uzziah by Isaiah the prophet (26:22). Add to this the fact that Kings is positioned in the Hebrew canon in the Former Prophets (Joshua to 2 Kings), and a consistent picture of prophetic origin emerges.<\/p>\n<p>The date of the final part of the book must be after the last events recorded. Evil-merodach’s kindness toward Jehoiachin (c. 561 <span>BC<\/span>) is the terminus of the book and therefore fixes the earliest date. Since the work shows no knowledge of the restoration period, a date before 539 <span>BC<\/span> is probable. The author’s selection of his data to answer the burning theological questions of the exilic community also suggests a date between 561 and 539 <span>BC<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Sources\">Sources<\/p>\n<p>The compiler of Kings specifically names three of the sources that he used in his work, and biblical scholars have suggested the presence of a number of other sources that may have been cited. Of course, the sources not mentioned specifically by the compiler are only the speculations of those who have studied his work and can have only varying degrees of probability. The sources both specified and alleged are as follows.<\/p>\n<h5>The Book of the Acts of Solomon<\/h5>\n<p>As 1 Kings 11:41 says, “The rest of the events in Solomon’s reign, including his wisdom, are recorded in <em>The Book of the Acts of Solomon”<\/em> (<span>nlt<\/span>). Presumably additional materials of a biographical nature were included, specifically accounts similar to the judgment between the two mothers (3:16-28) or the visit of the queen of Sheba (10:1-10). There has been debate as to whether these materials were official court records or nonofficial documents. Some scholars have attempted to isolate further materials within this section by identifying descriptions of the buildings as from temple archives (chs 6–7) and lists of administrators as from administrative documents (chs 4–5), but this must remain speculative.<\/p>\n<h5>The Book of the History of the Kings of Israel<\/h5>\n<p>This source is mentioned 17 times in Kings, usually in the closing formulas at the end of the account of the reign of a northern king. Some idea of the nature of these chronicles can be derived from looking at the type of information to which the compiler refers his readers (see 1 Kgs 14:19; 16:27; 22:39; 2 Kgs 13:12; 14:28). These passages suggest that this source was the official annals covering the reigns of the kings.<\/p>\n<h5>The Book of the History of the Kings of Judah<\/h5>\n<p>This source is mentioned in 15 passages, and as with the kings of Israel, is found in the concluding formulas to the accounts of the reigns. This source was to be consulted for additional details on individuals’ reigns (for example, see 1 Kgs 15:23; 22:45; 2 Kgs 20:20; 21:17). These sources for the histories of the two kingdoms were probably similar to the annals known from the surrounding cultures, particularly from the reigns of Assyrian kings. They were likely official court histories kept in Samaria and Jerusalem.<\/p>\n<p>In addition to these explicitly mentioned sources, scholars have suggested the compiler drew on other sources that he does not name.<\/p>\n<h5>Davidic Court History<\/h5>\n<p>Second Samuel 9–20 is often identified as a unit of material in the composition of the books of Samuel; it is variously called “the court history” or “the succession narrative.” Because of similar vocabulary and outlook, 1 Kings 1–2 are often associated with this material from Samuel. The statement of 1 Kings 2:46, “so the kingdom was now firmly in Solomon’s grip,” is taken to be the end of this record.<\/p>\n<h5>Sources for the House of Ahab<\/h5>\n<p>The reigns of individual kings are ordinarily given only brief notices; for example, the father of Ahab, Omri, is given eight verses, even though when judged by political and economic significance, he was among the greatest of the northern kings (1 Kgs 16:21-28). However, beginning with the reign of Ahab, the record becomes quite expansive, and extensive coverage is given the dynasty of Ahab through the coup by Jehu (1 Kgs 16—2 Kgs 12). The use of the stereotyped formulas for the reigns is suspended in this material, and the existence of other literature used by the compiler is probable. This material is commonly subdivided into further sources for the lives of Elijah and Elisha and the reign of Ahab.<\/p>\n<p>The Elijah section covers material in the following chapters: 1 Kings 17–19, including the feeding by the ravens, the incidents with the widow of Zarephath, the drought, the fire on Carmel, and the revelation of God at Sinai; 1 Kings 21, the affair of Naboth’s vineyard; and 2 Kings 1, the death of Ahaziah’s messengers. The reign of Ahab, which gets so much attention in Kings, is primarily a backdrop for the accounts concerning Elijah.<\/p>\n<p>The Elisha material found in 2 Kings 2–13 may have had an independent literary development from that of the Elijah accounts. It includes the following: chapter 2 (Elisha’s succession to the prophetic office, the purification of a spring, the death of mocking children); chapter 3 (on the campaign against Moab); chapter 4 (the widow’s oil, the Shunammite woman); chapter 5 (Naaman’s leprosy); chapter 6 (the Aramean attempt to capture Elisha); chapter 7 (the famine in Samaria); chapter 8 (the Shunammite’s property, the coup of Hazael); chapter 9 (the anointing of Jehu); and chapter 13 (the death of Elisha). No other portion of the OT takes the sheer delight in the miraculous that is seen in the Elisha narratives.<\/p>\n<p>In 1 Kings 16 to 2 Kings 13 there are additional incidents not directly related to the biographies of Elijah and Elisha; accounts such as the military campaigns of 1 Kings 20:1-34 and further details of Jehu’s coup (2 Kgs 9:11–10:36) are often attributed to a third source containing accounts of the dynasty of Ahab and his successors. In all three of these possible sources the orientation is toward affairs in the northern kingdom.<\/p>\n<h5>Isaiah Source<\/h5>\n<p>The account of the reign of Hezekiah contains a section (2 Kgs 18:13–20:19) that is nearly a verbatim citation of material also found in Isaiah (Is 36:1–39:8). The section records the invasion of Sennacherib, the mission of the Rabshakeh, Hezekiah’s prayer, Isaiah’s prophecy, Hezekiah’s illness, the regression of the sun, and the envoys from Merodach-baladan. The material must be regarded as based on the book of Isaiah or some other source used in both Isaiah and Kings.<\/p>\n<h5>A Prophetic Source<\/h5>\n<p>Because Kings shows great interest in the prophets and their ministries, various scholars have suggested that yet another source was used by the compiler; this would be an independent literary unit containing accounts of the prophets. This source would have contained the records for the material on Ahijah (1 Kgs 11:29-39; 14:1-16), unnamed prophets (ch 12; 20:35-43), Micaiah (22:13-28), and other references.<\/p>\n<p>Apart from the sources explicitly mentioned and inferences about their character, the remainder of the sources suggested have only varying degrees of probability. Considerable scholarly effort has gone into identifying and characterizing such sources, but it remains speculative. When considering the sources the compiler may have used, one important caution must be kept in mind. Even if such sources did exist, one cannot have confidence in a reconstruction of the compositional history. Which sources had already been integrated into a larger composition before they were used by the compiler of Kings? We cannot be certain that the life situation out of which these other sources grew has been correctly identified, nor can we know that even the compiler himself was aware of the past history of his sources. Biblical scholarship has expended considerable energy in trying to delineate the past history of the book of Kings, but it has often been at the neglect of the unity of perspective that is the product of the final compiler(s) in whose hands the book received its canonical form.<\/p>\n<p>What is important to understanding the book is not the perspective of its various sources (of which the compiler himself may have been unaware), but the perspective of the book as a whole on the history of the kingdoms. It is the outline that the compiler has imposed on the sources that establishes the teaching of the book; his sources are used in accord with his own purposes, a fact that makes the purposes for which the sources had been prepared largely irrelevant to the teaching of the book in its present form. Exploring possible sources, worthwhile in itself, must not eclipse the message of the book as a whole. This is not to imply that the books of Kings are simply a compilation of unaltered sources. The writer(s) undoubtedly exercised a measure of selectivity and literary skill in composing the historical narrative.<\/p>\n<p>One compositional technique of the compiler is quite prominent in the histories of the divided kingdoms: this is the use of formulaic introductions and conclusions to the various reigns. The formulas for both kingdoms are quite similar, differing only in minor details. For the kings of Judah, the full introductory formula is as follows: (1) year of accession synchronized with the regnal year of the northern king; (2) age of the king at his accession; (3) length of his reign; (4) name of his mother; (5) judgment on the character of the reign. The account of a Judean king’s reign is concluded as follows: (1) a reference to the chronicles of the kings of Judah for further information; (2) a statement regarding the death of the king, including the place of burial; (3) successor: “And his son reigned in his stead” (<span>rsv<\/span>). The full formula for a Judean king can be seen, for example, in the reign of Rehoboam (1 Kgs 14:21-22, 29-31).<\/p>\n<p>The formulas differ slightly for the kings of Israel; the introduction is as follows: (1) year of succession synchronized with the regnal year of the southern king; (2) length of his reign; (3) location of the royal residence; (4) condemnation for idolatry; (5) name of the king’s father. The account of an Israelite king’s reign ends as follows: (1) a reference to the chronicles of the kings of Israel for further information; (2) a statement regarding his death; (3) a statement of the succession of his son, unless a usurper follows. The full formula for an Israelite king can be seen, for example, in the reign of Baasha (1 Kgs 15:33-34; 16:5-6).<\/p>\n<p>There is some variation in the use of these patterns, but on the whole, they are consistently followed and provide the basic framework for the history of the divided kingdom. The synchronisms of the reigns provide data for constructing the chronology of the period. The variations in the formulas may reflect the characteristics of the sources the compiler was using or may reflect his own interests. The name of the mother of a Judean king is recorded, but not of an Israelite king, perhaps reflecting concern with a more exact and fuller record of the Davidic succession. The royal residence is presumed to be Jerusalem for the southern kings (though it may be mentioned) but is recorded for the northern kings since it moved several times, from Shechem to Penuel to Tirzah to Samaria. The mention of the king’s father for a northern ruler also reflects the frequent change in dynasties there, as opposed to the dynastic stability of Judah, which is reinforced by mentioning the burial of almost all its kings in the city of David.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheologyandPurpose\">Theology and Purpose<\/p>\n<p>The books of Kings record the history of the covenant people from the end of the reign of David (961 <span>BC<\/span>) through the fall of the southern kingdom (586 <span>BC<\/span>). Yet it is not history written in accord with modern expectations for history textbooks. Rather than concentrating on economic, political, and military themes as they shaped the history of the period, the compiler of Kings is motivated by theological concerns.<\/p>\n<p>Evaluation of the theology and purpose of the books of Kings is made easier by the fact that there is a parallel history for much of Kings found in the books of Chronicles. By comparing the two accounts, especially where the later Chronicler adds or deletes material found in Kings, the interests of both histories are thrown into clearer relief.<\/p>\n<p>The books of Kings were composed during the exile, likely between 560 and 539 <span>BC<\/span>. Jerusalem had been turned into rubble, and there was no longer a throne of David. Those two pillars of the popular theology—the inviolability of the temple and the throne of David (Jer 7:4; 13:13-14; 22:1-9; see 1 Kgs 8:16, 29)—had tumbled. If Israel’s faith was to survive, the burning questions that had to be answered were “How did it all happen? Can’t God keep his promises to David and to Zion? Have the promises failed?” The writer of Kings aims to deal with the bewilderment of the chosen people in response to the disasters of 722 <span>BC<\/span> (fall of Samaria) and 586 <span>BC<\/span> (fall of Jerusalem). Kings, like the book of Job, is a theodicy, a justification of the ways of God to men.<\/p>\n<p>In order to answer the question “How did it happen?” the compiler adopts the procedure of recounting the history of the covenant people in light of standards propounded in the Law. For this reason Kings could be called Pentateuchal history, or even more pointedly, Deuteronomic history, for standards propounded only in the book of Deuteronomy in the Pentateuch are used by the compiler to measure the kingdoms. Among the prominent themes selected from Deuteronomy and applied to the kingdoms are the centralization of worship, the institution of the monarchy, the efficacy of the prophetic word, and the outworking of the covenant curses on disobedience.<\/p>\n<h5>Centralization of Worship<\/h5>\n<p>The primary concern of the writer is the purity of the worship of the Lord. His major criterion for measuring this purity is the attitude of the kings toward centralization of worship in the Jerusalem temple as opposed to the worship of the Lord elsewhere and the continuation of Canaanite cults mingled with Yahwism at the high places. Centralization of worship at the central shrine is called for in Deuteronomy 12. Perhaps “centralization of worship” is a misnomer, for worship was always centered around the tabernacle in the periods prior to the temple; the change that is envisaged in Deuteronomy is not the centralizing of worship but rather the fact that the shrine would no longer be mobile but stationary. For the kings of the northern kingdom, this criterion becomes virtually a stereotyped formula that “he did that which was evil in the sight of the Lord and walked in the way of Jeroboam son of Nebat, who sinned and made all Israel sin along with him” (see 1 Kgs 14:16; 15:30; 16:31; 2 Kgs 3:3; 10:31; 13:2, 11; 14:24; 15:9, 18, 24, 28; 17:22). The compiler of Kings sees the rival altars with the golden calves at Dan and Bethel as the great sin of which the northern kings never repented (1 Kgs 12:25–13:34). Rejecting the primacy of Jerusalem, these altars became the rod with which to measure the northern kings. All the kings of Israel are condemned by this standard (except for Shallum, who reigned but a month, and Hoshea, the last of the northern kings)—even Zimri, the murderer of Elah, who ruled only one week before committing suicide in the flames of his own palace (16:9-20). For the kings of Judah, a different standard is used: what their attitude was to the high places where heterodox worship was allowed to flourish in the environs of Jerusalem. Only Hezekiah and Josiah receive the compiler’s unqualified endorsement for following the ways of David (2 Kgs 18:3; 22:2). Six others are commended for their zeal in suppressing idolatry, though they did not remove the high places (Asa, 1 Kgs 15:9-15; Jehoshaphat, 22:43; Jehoash, 2 Kgs 12:2-3; Amaziah, 14:3-4; Azariah, 15:3-4; Jotham, 15:34-35). The remainder of the Judean kings are condemned for their participation in the high places and their desecration of the temple itself. This one theme is the preeminent motif in the book.<\/p>\n<h5>History of the Monarchy<\/h5>\n<p>A second prominent interest for the compiler was to trace the history of the monarchy. Deuteronomy 17:14-20 provides for the day when Israel would ask for a king and charges that king with the basic religious responsibility for the people. This provision for a king, again a feature found only in Deuteronomy, becomes the basis for the compiler’s intense interest in the history of the monarchy, and particularly the religious fidelity of the kings. David becomes the model of the ideal king, the one by whom the others are measured, the one whose sons “continue long in his kingdom in the midst of Israel” (17:20; see also 1 Kgs 15:11; 2 Kgs 18:3; 22:2 for following in the ways of David, and 1 Kgs 14:8; 15:3-5; 2 Kgs 14:3; 16:2 for the reverse). The compiler wanted to show that God had been faithful to David even though David’s sons were not faithful. While both kingdoms had about the same number of kings, the northern kingdom is marked by repeated dynastic changes and regicide through its 200 years, while the dynasty of David is maintained as a lamp in the south through 350 years (1 Kgs 11:13, 32, 36; 15:4-5; 2 Kgs 8:19; 19:34; 20:6). It is the disaster that had befallen the house of David, and the consequent doubts about the promises of God, that prompted the compiler to write.<\/p>\n<h5>Efficacy of the Prophetic Word<\/h5>\n<p>Another reason why Kings can be called Deuteronomic history is its concern with the efficacy of the prophetic word. There are three passages in the Pentateuch that deal with the institution of the prophetic order: Numbers 12:1-8; Deuteronomy 13:1-5; and Deuteronomy 18:14-22. It is only in Deuteronomy 18 that the test of a true prophet is given: that what he has spoken comes about, that his words are fulfilled. Notice the number of instances where the writer calls attention to the fulfillment of the words of the prophets: 2 Samuel 7:13 in 1 Kings 8:20; 1 Kings 11:29-36 in 12:15; 1 Kings 13:1-3 in 2 Kings 23:16-18; 1 Kings 14:6-12 in 14:17-18 and 15:29; 1 Kings 16:1-4 in 16:7, 11-12; Joshua 6:26 in 1 Kings 16:34; 1 Kings 22:17 in 22:35-38; 1 Kings 21:21-29 in 2 Kings 9:7-10, 30-37 and 10:10-11, 30; 2 Kings 1:6 in 1:17; 2 Kings 21:10-15 in 24:2; 2 Kings 22:15-20 in 23:30. The writer is concerned to show that the words of the prophets were efficacious, powerful words. His concern with the prophetic order is also seen in the material devoted to Elijah and Elisha and to other prophetic figures.<\/p>\n<h5>Fulfillment of the Curses<\/h5>\n<p>Another aspect of the compiler’s interest in Deuteronomy is seen in his concern to trace the fulfillment of the covenant curses on disobedience. God’s covenant with Israel would issue in curses or blessings depending on the obedience of the people; the compiler of Kings sees the curses inflicted on the two kingdoms because of their failure to meet the demands of the covenant. He takes care to show that most of the curses of Deuteronomy 28:15-68 had some historical realization in the life of the people. Moses had warned that disobedience would “bring a nation against you from afar, from the end of the earth, as the eagle swoops down” (Dt 28:49, <span>nasb<\/span>), and the Assyrians came to Samaria and the Babylonians to Jerusalem (28:52). The siege of Samaria lasted from 724 to 722 <span>BC<\/span>, and the siege of Jerusalem from 588 to 586 <span>BC<\/span>. The dire conditions of the siege would drive the people to devouring their own children; women would feed on their afterbirths. It happened to Israel in the siege of Ben-hadad (2 Kgs 6:24-30). Just as the Lord had delighted to prosper and multiply his people, so he would not refrain from destroying them and scattering them among the peoples of the earth (Dt 28:63-67).<\/p>\n<p>In these and other ways the writer of Kings set out to write the history of Israel and Judah to solve a theological dilemma. How was one to reconcile the exile with God’s promises to the nation and David? His answer is twofold: (1) the problem was not with God but with the people’s disobedience—God remains just; (2) the end of the state does not equal the end of the people or the house of David. Here the ending of the book is instructive: Evil-merodach releases Jehoiachin from prison, elevates him above the other kings, and provides his rations (2 Kgs 25:27-30). Even during the exile, though cut down to almost nothing, the house of David still enjoys the favor and blessing of God. God has not abandoned his promises; the people should keep hope.<\/p>\n<p>Other themes in Kings also show the theological motivations underlying the compiler’s selection and arrangement of the data, particularly his use of Deuteronomy as a framework for examining the history of the people. Compare the laws governing the observance of Passover in Exodus 12:1-20 and Deuteronomy 16:1-8: whereas the Passover is centered in the family in Exodus, it is celebrated at the sanctuary in Deuteronomy. The writer of Kings is careful to show that the Passover during the reign of Josiah was celebrated in accordance with the requirements of Deuteronomy (2 Kgs 23:21-23). A passage in Deuteronomy is explicitly cited with reference to Amaziah’s keeping the law (Dt 24:16 in 2 Kgs 14:6).<\/p>\n<h5>Contrast with Chronicles<\/h5>\n<p>The interests of Kings are further highlighted when compared with the parallel accounts in Chronicles. While the writer of Kings worked in the aftermath of the destruction of Jerusalem and had to answer the “how?” and “why?” questions, the Chronicler is part of the restoration community. Here the burning theological questions were not “how?” and “why?” but rather “What continuity do we have with David? Is God still interested in us?” The need is not to account for the exile but rather to relate the postexilic and the preexilic. The building of the second temple and the ordering of worship there show up in increased detail in Chronicles in any matter pertaining to the former temple. Chronicles is a history of Judah and of the Davidic line, reflecting the fact that it alone survives after the exile. Interesting, too, are the things omitted from the account by the Chronicler. Since he is not building a case for an indictment, as was done in Samuel and Kings, he is free to omit references to David’s sin with Bathsheba (2 Sm 11) or to Solomon’s difficulties in gaining the throne (1 Kgs 1–2). Since in his day the northern kingdom had not survived, the Chronicler did not go into detail about the sins of Jeroboam (chs 13–14). Chronicles is interested more in the affairs of the temple and does not show the marked interest in prophetic matters found in Kings, so that the lives of Elijah and Elisha are omitted (1 Kgs 16—2 Kgs 10). Nor does the Chronicler recite the sins that led to the demise of the northern kingdom (2 Kgs 17:1–18:12). In all these examples one can see the interplay of the historical moment and theological concerns of the people and the compilers. Each compiler has selected and arranged the data in accordance with the concerns and needs of the community in which he was a member; comparing the two accounts throws the interests of each into sharp relief.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Content\">Content<\/p>\n\n<p>The books of Kings fall into three parts: (1) the reign of Solomon (1 Kgs 1–11); (2) the history of the divided kingdom (1 Kgs 12–2 Kgs 17); (3) the history of the surviving kingdom in Judah (2 Kgs 18–25).<\/p>\n<h5>The Reign of Solomon (1 Kgs 1–11)<\/h5>\n<p>The record begins with an account of the court intrigue surrounding Solomon’s accession to the throne, set against the backdrop of the abortive coup by Adonijah (ch 1). The dying David charges Solomon to obey the commandments of God (2:1-4) and also to take vengeance on his enemies (vv 5-9). After David’s death Solomon orders the deaths of Adonijah, Joab, and Shimei, and the banishment of Abiathar, the priest who had supported Adonijah in his bid for the throne (vv 13-46). Enemies eliminated, the kingdom was firmly established by Solomon (v 46).<\/p>\n<p>The remainder of Solomon’s reign is divided into two parts: Solomon the good, who follows in the ways of his father, David (chs 3–10); and Solomon the bad, whose heart is led astray (ch 11). While sacrificing at Gibeon, Solomon asks God to give him the gift of wisdom to rule—wisdom promptly demonstrated in the quarrel of two prostitutes about a child (ch 3). An account is given of the administrative organization of the kingdom and the incomparable wisdom of Solomon (ch 4). The compiler of Kings gives extensive coverage to the preparations (ch 5), building (chs 6–7), and dedication (ch 8) of the temple. God appeared to Solomon a second time, reminding him to keep his commandments as David had done (9:1-9). Details are given of the king’s building and commercial activities (vv 10-27). The account of the visit by the queen of Sheba is followed with elaboration of Solomon’s splendor (ch 10). But Solomon did not keep God’s commands; seduced to pagan worship by his foreign wives, he was not fully devoted to the Lord as David had been (11:4), and God determined to take away the northern tribes from the rule of his son (vv 11-13). As punishment from the hand of God, Solomon faced rebellion among conquered peoples (vv 14-25) and within Israel in the person of Jeroboam (vv 26-40).<\/p>\n<h5>History of the Divided Kingdom (1 Kgs 12—2 Kgs 17)<\/h5>\n\n<p>The united monarchy dissolved after the death of Solomon. The northern kingdom (Israel) would exist for about two centuries, would be ruled by 20 kings from nine different dynasties, and would show a history of internal weakness riddled with regicide and usurpation. In contrast, the southern kingdom would last for three and a half centuries and would be ruled by 19 kings of Davidic descent (apart from a short period under the dynastic interloper Athaliah).<\/p>\n<p>There had been a long history of independent action and even warfare between the northern and southern tribes prior to David and Solomon, so it is no surprise that the division would take place along the lines that it did. The immediate cause, however, was the unwise severity with which Rehoboam replied to the representatives of the northern tribes while negotiating for the kingship. Jeroboam, the popular hero of the earlier insurrection against Solomon, became king in the north. He immediately erected the rival sanctuaries at Dan and Bethel (1 Kgs 12); these rival altars became the measure by which the kings of Israel were condemned for following in the sins of Jeroboam.<\/p>\n<p>For two generations there would be warfare between Israel and Judah over the border areas in Benjamin claimed by both sides. Fifty years of sporadic fighting on their mutual frontier, interlaced with invasions from the Arameans in the north or the Egyptians in the south, would consume the reigns of Jeroboam, Nadab, Baasha, Elah, and Zimri in Israel and of Rehoboam, Abijam, and Asa in Judah (1 Kgs 13:1–16:20).<\/p>\n<p>The accession of Omri in Israel introduced a ruling house that would last for a total of four generations and end the dynastic instability of the northern kingdom. Though Kings gives Omri a scant eight verses (1 Kgs 16:21-28), he was among the greatest of the northern kings, forging alliances with the Phoenicians and Judah; for over a century, the Assyrians would call Israel “the house of Omri.”<\/p>\n<p>The reigns of Omri’s successors, Ahab, Ahaziah, and Jehoram, are treated at disproportionate length, taking almost a third of the total book, 16 of 47 chapters (1 Kgs 17—2 Kgs 10). This is due to the fact that the compiler of Kings incorporated extensive coverage of the lives of Elijah and Elisha, weaving a contrast between good and evil by paralleling the dynasty of Omri with these prophets. Ahab and Jezebel were used as foils for the account of Elijah, so that Ahab became a paradigm of the evil king (e.g., 2 Kgs 21:3).<\/p>\n<p>Because of this preoccupation with the dynasty of Omri and the lives of Elijah and Elisha, the equivalent period in Judah is not given as extensive coverage. During this period, the northern kingdom appears to have exercised some hegemony over Judah, as attested by the marriage of an Omride (Athaliah, 2 Kgs 8:18, 26) to Jehoram of Judah and the subservient role of Jehoshaphat to Ahab at the battle of Ramoth-gilead (1 Kgs 22). Judah’s fortunes declined in this period when Edom revolted against Jehoram (2 Kgs 8:20-22), costing Judah control over the port at Ezion-geber and consequent economic losses.<\/p>\n<p>In 842 <span>BC<\/span> Jehu, after being anointed king by a prophet (2 Kgs 9:1-13), led a coup ending the house of Omri and also killing Ahaziah of Judah (vv 14-29). Jehu’s purge also brought the death of Jezebel, Ahab’s family, members of the family of Ahaziah, and the ministers of Baal (9:30–10:36). The consequences were severe politically: the murder of the Phoenician princess Jezebel and the king of Judah cost Israel its allies to the north and south.<\/p>\n<p>Jehu’s dynasty had the longest succession of any in Israel, including Jehoahaz, Jehoash, Jeroboam II, and Zechariah, a period spanning 90 years. Jehu’s murder of Ahaziah of Judah set the stage for the one threat to the continuity of the Davidic dynasty. Queen Athaliah, herself an Omride, seized the throne and attempted a purge of Davidic pretenders. She ruled for six years, until the faithful priest Jehoiada staged a countercoup to place the child Joash on the throne of David (ch 11).<\/p>\n<p>Israel endured a half century of weakness as a result of Jehu’s coup, during which the Arameans had a free hand, reducing the forces of Jehu’s son Jehoahaz to a small army and bodyguard (2 Kgs 13:1-7).<\/p>\n<p>The reemergence of Assyria early in the ninth century <span>BC<\/span> gave relief to Israel and Judah. Assyrian armies conquered the Arameans; with that threat removed, Israel and Judah enjoyed a dramatic resurgence. Jehoash of Israel, grandson of Jehu, reconquered cities lost to the Arameans (2 Kgs 13:25); Elisha died during his reign (v 20). In the south Amaziah reconquered the Edomites (14:7). Amaziah and Jehoash renewed the warfare between the kingdoms, with the north again victorious (vv 8-14).<\/p>\n<p>Under Jeroboam II, Israel enjoyed a period of prosperity when the borders of the kingdom reached the same extent as they had under Solomon (2 Kgs 14:23-28). Uzziah (Azariah), his contemporary in Judah, also fortified Jerusalem and undertook a program of offensive operations extending Judah’s sway to the south (14:21-22; 15:1-7).<\/p>\n<p>Yet this resurgence was but a brilliant sunset in the history of the two kingdoms. After the death of Jeroboam II, the history is one of successive disasters, culminating in the fall of Israel and the subjugation of Judah to the might of Assyria. The next 30 years in Israel would see four dynasties, three represented by only one king, and repeated regicides as the northern kingdom hastened to its demise. A period of civil war and anarchy would see five kings in just over ten years (2 Kgs 15). Heavy tribute was paid to Tiglath-pileser III in both the north and south (15:19-20; 16:7-10). Israel and the Arameans forged a coalition to throw back the Assyrians and sought to press Ahaz of Judah into the fight; Ahaz appealed to Tiglath-pileser III for help. The coalition was destroyed, and Israel and Judah became vassals. Hoshea defected as soon as he felt safe, looking to Egypt for help, but it was suicide for the northern kingdom. Shalmaneser V retaliated, and the political history of the state of Israel came to an end (17:1-23). The area was resettled with other displaced populations (vv 24-41).<\/p>\n<p>Israel had faced the Arameans and survived, only to fall to Assyria. And now, similarly, Judah would outlast Assyria, only to fall to Babylon.<\/p>\n<h5>History of the Surviving Kingdom of Judah (2 Kgs 18–25)<\/h5>\n<p>Ahaz’s appeal for Assyrian aid cost him his liberty, and Judah became a vassal of the Assyrian Empire. Illegitimate worship flourished under his rule (2 Kgs 16:1-19). Ahaz was succeeded by the first of the outstanding reform kings of Judah: Hezekiah. Much of the account of his reign is given to his rebellion against Sennacherib of Assyria: the rebellion, the Assyrian envoys and threats, Isaiah’s assurances of deliverance, and the destruction of the Assyrian armies (18:9–19:37). Hezekiah’s illness was averted after a sign and oracle from Isaiah (20:1-11). As part of what appears to be negotiations toward an anti-Assyrian alliance, Hezekiah also entertained envoys from Babylon, a decision that the prophet announced would be costly (vv 12-21).<\/p>\n<p>Hezekiah was followed by Manasseh, who ruled longer than any other king of Judah (a total of 55 years). His reign was marked by great apostasy—apostasy so severe that the compiler of Kings regarded his reign as sufficient reason for the exile that was unavoidable (2 Kgs 21:1-18; cf. 23:26; 24:3-4; Jer 15:1-4). Manasseh was followed by his son Amon, a carbon copy of his father, who ruled only two years before he was deposed by the people (2 Kings 21:19-26).<\/p>\n<p>The second great reform king of Judah, Josiah, followed. In his reign the Book of the Law was found while the temple was being refurbished; he led the people in a renewal of the covenant and suppressed illegitimate worship (2 Kgs 22:1–23:14). The Assyrian Empire was in rapid decline, so Josiah extended his borders to the north, destroying the altar at Bethel and the high places throughout Samaria (23:15-20). A great Passover celebration was convened in Jerusalem, and further measures were taken to rectify worship (vv 21-25). Josiah tried to block Pharaoh Neco’s foray to assist Assyria, and he lost his life at Megiddo (vv 26-30).<\/p>\n<p>Josiah was the only king of Judah to have three of his sons succeed him. At his death the people put Jehoahaz on the throne, but Neco removed him three months later and took him to Egypt in chains (2 Kgs 23:31-33), replacing him with another son of Josiah, Eliakim, whose name was changed to Jehoiakim (vv 34-37). During his reign, Nebuchadnezzar conquered Judah, and Jehoiakim became his vassal. Late in his life Jehoiakim rebelled against Nebuchadnezzar. Jehoiakim died, leaving his son Jehoiachin to face retaliation from Babylon (24:1-10). Nebuchadnezzar besieged Jerusalem; when the city fell, Jehoiachin, the queen mother, the army, and the leaders of the land were carried away captive. Nebuchadnezzar put Mattaniah (uncle of Jehoiachin and third son of Josiah) on the throne, changing his name to Zedekiah (vv 11-17). Nine years later Zedekiah, too, would rebel against Babylon. Nebuchadnezzar besieged the city for two years and, when it fell, utterly destroyed it. Zedekiah’s sons were killed before his eyes, and then his own eyes were put out, and he was taken to Babylon (24:18–25:21). Nebuchadnezzar appointed Gedaliah to rule as governor from nearby Mizpah; he was assassinated, and the conspirators fled to Egypt (25:22-26).<\/p>\n<p>The book concludes by showing that God had not forgotten his promise to David, mentioning that in captivity Jehoiachin enjoyed favor from the hand of Evil-merodach, successor of Nebuchadnezzar (2 Kgs 25:27-30).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Chronicles, Books of First and Second.<\/p>","summary_ro":"KINGS, Books of First and Second Books continuing the history of the covenant people as recorded in Joshua, Judges, and the books of Samuel. The record in Kings begins with the events at the end of David’s reign (1 Kgs 1–2). It continues through the reign of Solomon (chs 3–11); the histories of the divided kingdoms (1 Kgs 12—2 Kgs 17); and the history of the surviving kingdom in the south, through its fall in 586 BC and the subsequent kindness shown Jehoiachin by Evil-merodach, king of Babylo...","summary_en":"KINGS, Books of First and Second Books continuing the history of the covenant people as recorded in Joshua, Judges, and the books of Samuel. The record in Kings begins with the events at the end of David’s reign (1 Kgs 1–2). It continues through the reign of Solomon (chs 3–11); the histories of the divided kingdoms (1 Kgs 12—2 Kgs 17); and the history of the surviving kingdom in the south, through its fall in 586 BC and the subsequent kindness shown Jehoiachin by Evil-merodach, king of Babylo...","source":"Articles\/K.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":47385,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: 2 Împărați 16:1","title_en":"Study Note: 2 Împărați 16:1","content_ro":"<p><strong>16:1-2<\/strong> The <em>seventeenth year of King Pekah’s reign<\/em> was 735 <span>BC<\/span>. At that time <em>Ahaz . . . began to rule:<\/em> He had already been co-regent for eleven years, but now he officially acceded to the throne. This marks the transition from subordination to his father, Jotham (743–735 <span>BC<\/span>), to a position of reigning in his stead (735–732 <span>BC<\/span>). Ahaz presumably had his official accession ceremony following his father’s death in 732 <span>BC<\/span>, so the author of Kings reckons Ahaz’s reign of <em>sixteen years<\/em> from 731 <span>BC<\/span>, the year after his father died, to 715 <span>BC<\/span>. See also study note on 17:1.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>16:1-2<\/strong> The <em>seventeenth year of King Pekah’s reign<\/em> was 735 <span>BC<\/span>. At that time <em>Ahaz . . . began to rule:<\/em> He had already been co-regent for eleven years, but now he officially acceded to the throne. This marks the transition from subordination to his father, Jotham (743–735 <span>BC<\/span>), to a position of reigning in his stead (735–732 <span>BC<\/span>). Ahaz presumably had his official accession ceremony following his father’s death in 732 <span>BC<\/span>, so the author of Kings reckons Ahaz’s reign of <em>sixteen years<\/em> from 731 <span>BC<\/span>, the year after his father died, to 715 <span>BC<\/span>. See also study note on 17:1.<\/p>","summary_ro":"16:1-2 The seventeenth year of King Pekah’s reign was 735 BC. At that time Ahaz . . . began to rule: He had already been co-regent for eleven years, but now he officially acceded to the throne. This marks the transition from subordination to his father, Jotham (743–735 BC), to a position of reigning in his stead (735–732 BC). Ahaz presumably had his official accession ceremony following his father’s death in 732 BC, so the author of Kings reckons Ahaz’s reign of sixteen years from 731 BC, the...","summary_en":"16:1-2 The seventeenth year of King Pekah’s reign was 735 BC. At that time Ahaz . . . began to rule: He had already been co-regent for eleven years, but now he officially acceded to the throne. This marks the transition from subordination to his father, Jotham (743–735 BC), to a position of reigning in his stead (735–732 BC). Ahaz presumably had his official accession ceremony following his father’s death in 732 BC, so the author of Kings reckons Ahaz’s reign of sixteen years from 731 BC, the...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":75011,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: 2 Împărați 16:1","title_en":"Study Note: 2 Împărați 16:1","content_ro":"<p><strong>16:1-2<\/strong> The <em>seventeenth year of King Pekah’s reign<\/em> was 735 <span>BC<\/span>. At that time <em>Ahaz . . . began to rule:<\/em> He had already been co-regent for eleven years, but now he officially acceded to the throne. This marks the transition from subordination to his father, Jotham (743–735 <span>BC<\/span>), to a position of reigning in his stead (735–732 <span>BC<\/span>). Ahaz presumably had his official accession ceremony following his father’s death in 732 <span>BC<\/span>, so the author of Kings reckons Ahaz’s reign of <em>sixteen years<\/em> from 731 <span>BC<\/span>, the year after his father died, to 715 <span>BC<\/span>. See also study note on 17:1.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>16:1-2<\/strong> The <em>seventeenth year of King Pekah’s reign<\/em> was 735 <span>BC<\/span>. At that time <em>Ahaz . . . began to rule:<\/em> He had already been co-regent for eleven years, but now he officially acceded to the throne. This marks the transition from subordination to his father, Jotham (743–735 <span>BC<\/span>), to a position of reigning in his stead (735–732 <span>BC<\/span>). Ahaz presumably had his official accession ceremony following his father’s death in 732 <span>BC<\/span>, so the author of Kings reckons Ahaz’s reign of <em>sixteen years<\/em> from 731 <span>BC<\/span>, the year after his father died, to 715 <span>BC<\/span>. See also study note on 17:1.<\/p>","summary_ro":"16:1-2 The seventeenth year of King Pekah’s reign was 735 BC. At that time Ahaz . . . began to rule: He had already been co-regent for eleven years, but now he officially acceded to the throne. This marks the transition from subordination to his father, Jotham (743–735 BC), to a position of reigning in his stead (735–732 BC). Ahaz presumably had his official accession ceremony following his father’s death in 732 BC, so the author of Kings reckons Ahaz’s reign of sixteen years from 731 BC, the...","summary_en":"16:1-2 The seventeenth year of King Pekah’s reign was 735 BC. At that time Ahaz . . . began to rule: He had already been co-regent for eleven years, but now he officially acceded to the throne. This marks the transition from subordination to his father, Jotham (743–735 BC), to a position of reigning in his stead (735–732 BC). Ahaz presumably had his official accession ceremony following his father’s death in 732 BC, so the author of Kings reckons Ahaz’s reign of sixteen years from 731 BC, the...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":102637,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: 2 Împărați 16:1","title_en":"Study Note: 2 Împărați 16:1","content_ro":"<p><strong>16:1-2<\/strong> The <em>seventeenth year of King Pekah’s reign<\/em> was 735 <span>BC<\/span>. At that time <em>Ahaz . . . began to rule:<\/em> He had already been co-regent for eleven years, but now he officially acceded to the throne. This marks the transition from subordination to his father, Jotham (743–735 <span>BC<\/span>), to a position of reigning in his stead (735–732 <span>BC<\/span>). Ahaz presumably had his official accession ceremony following his father’s death in 732 <span>BC<\/span>, so the author of Kings reckons Ahaz’s reign of <em>sixteen years<\/em> from 731 <span>BC<\/span>, the year after his father died, to 715 <span>BC<\/span>. See also study note on 17:1.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>16:1-2<\/strong> The <em>seventeenth year of King Pekah’s reign<\/em> was 735 <span>BC<\/span>. At that time <em>Ahaz . . . began to rule:<\/em> He had already been co-regent for eleven years, but now he officially acceded to the throne. This marks the transition from subordination to his father, Jotham (743–735 <span>BC<\/span>), to a position of reigning in his stead (735–732 <span>BC<\/span>). Ahaz presumably had his official accession ceremony following his father’s death in 732 <span>BC<\/span>, so the author of Kings reckons Ahaz’s reign of <em>sixteen years<\/em> from 731 <span>BC<\/span>, the year after his father died, to 715 <span>BC<\/span>. See also study note on 17:1.<\/p>","summary_ro":"16:1-2 The seventeenth year of King Pekah’s reign was 735 BC. At that time Ahaz . . . began to rule: He had already been co-regent for eleven years, but now he officially acceded to the throne. This marks the transition from subordination to his father, Jotham (743–735 BC), to a position of reigning in his stead (735–732 BC). Ahaz presumably had his official accession ceremony following his father’s death in 732 BC, so the author of Kings reckons Ahaz’s reign of sixteen years from 731 BC, the...","summary_en":"16:1-2 The seventeenth year of King Pekah’s reign was 735 BC. At that time Ahaz . . . began to rule: He had already been co-regent for eleven years, but now he officially acceded to the throne. This marks the transition from subordination to his father, Jotham (743–735 BC), to a position of reigning in his stead (735–732 BC). Ahaz presumably had his official accession ceremony following his father’s death in 732 BC, so the author of Kings reckons Ahaz’s reign of sixteen years from 731 BC, the...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":130263,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: 2 Împărați 16:1","title_en":"Study Note: 2 Împărați 16:1","content_ro":"<p><strong>16:1-2<\/strong> The <em>seventeenth year of King Pekah’s reign<\/em> was 735 <span>BC<\/span>. At that time <em>Ahaz . . . began to rule:<\/em> He had already been co-regent for eleven years, but now he officially acceded to the throne. This marks the transition from subordination to his father, Jotham (743–735 <span>BC<\/span>), to a position of reigning in his stead (735–732 <span>BC<\/span>). Ahaz presumably had his official accession ceremony following his father’s death in 732 <span>BC<\/span>, so the author of Kings reckons Ahaz’s reign of <em>sixteen years<\/em> from 731 <span>BC<\/span>, the year after his father died, to 715 <span>BC<\/span>. See also study note on 17:1.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>16:1-2<\/strong> The <em>seventeenth year of King Pekah’s reign<\/em> was 735 <span>BC<\/span>. At that time <em>Ahaz . . . began to rule:<\/em> He had already been co-regent for eleven years, but now he officially acceded to the throne. This marks the transition from subordination to his father, Jotham (743–735 <span>BC<\/span>), to a position of reigning in his stead (735–732 <span>BC<\/span>). Ahaz presumably had his official accession ceremony following his father’s death in 732 <span>BC<\/span>, so the author of Kings reckons Ahaz’s reign of <em>sixteen years<\/em> from 731 <span>BC<\/span>, the year after his father died, to 715 <span>BC<\/span>. See also study note on 17:1.<\/p>","summary_ro":"16:1-2 The seventeenth year of King Pekah’s reign was 735 BC. At that time Ahaz . . . began to rule: He had already been co-regent for eleven years, but now he officially acceded to the throne. This marks the transition from subordination to his father, Jotham (743–735 BC), to a position of reigning in his stead (735–732 BC). Ahaz presumably had his official accession ceremony following his father’s death in 732 BC, so the author of Kings reckons Ahaz’s reign of sixteen years from 731 BC, the...","summary_en":"16:1-2 The seventeenth year of King Pekah’s reign was 735 BC. At that time Ahaz . . . began to rule: He had already been co-regent for eleven years, but now he officially acceded to the throne. This marks the transition from subordination to his father, Jotham (743–735 BC), to a position of reigning in his stead (735–732 BC). Ahaz presumably had his official accession ceremony following his father’s death in 732 BC, so the author of Kings reckons Ahaz’s reign of sixteen years from 731 BC, the...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"2":[{"id":22016,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Books of First and Second Kings","title_en":"Books of First and Second Kings","content_ro":"<h3>KINGS, Books of First and Second<\/h3>\n<p>Books continuing the history of the covenant people as recorded in Joshua, Judges, and the books of Samuel. The record in Kings begins with the events at the end of David’s reign (1 Kgs 1–2). It continues through the reign of Solomon (chs 3–11); the histories of the divided kingdoms (1 Kgs 12—2 Kgs 17); and the history of the surviving kingdom in the south, through its fall in 586 <span>BC<\/span> and the subsequent kindness shown Jehoiachin by Evil-merodach, king of Babylon, around 561 <span>BC<\/span> (2 Kgs 18–25).<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Authorship and Date<\/p>\n<p>• Sources<\/p>\n<p>• Theology and Purpose<\/p>\n<p>• Content<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"AuthorshipandDate\">Authorship and Date<\/p>\n<p>Kings was originally regarded as one book in the Hebrew canon; the division into two books of approximately equal length appeared first in the Septuagint and finally entered the Hebrew Bible in the 15th century <span>AD<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p>The book itself is anonymous, and information about its author can only be deduced by examining the concerns and perspectives of the work. The Babylonian Talmud (<em>Baba Bathra<\/em> 15a) attributes Kings to Jeremiah. Although this identification could have arisen from the tendency of later Jewish tradition to assign biblical books to prophetic authors, the theory of origin in prophetic circles fits the evidence quite well. Substantial portions are given to the lives of the prophets; 16 of 47 chapters are devoted to the lives of Elijah and Elisha (1 Kgs 17—2 Kgs 10), and there is considerable interest in other prophetic figures such as Ahijah (1 Kgs 11:29-39; 14:1-16), an unnamed man of God (13:1-10), and Micaiah (22:13-28). Possible dependence on Isaiah (2 Kgs 18–20; cf. Is 36–39) and Jeremiah (2 Kgs 24–25; cf. Jer 52) also suggest prophetic origin. The author-compiler also shows intense concern with the efficacy of the prophetic word, frequently calling attention to the fulfillment of words spoken earlier by the prophets.<\/p>\n<p>One might initially think that such a history would be unlikely for a prophet, but the evidence is to the contrary. The prophets were the guardians of the covenant relationship and are known to have produced accounts used as sources by other biblical historians. The following are among such sources: the acts of Samuel the seer, the acts of Nathan the prophet, the acts of Gad the seer (1 Chr 29:29); the acts of Nathan the prophet, the prophecy of Ahijah the Shilonite, the visions of Iddo the seer (2 Chr 9:29); the chronicles of Shemaiah the prophet and of Iddo the seer (12:15); the annotations of the prophet Iddo (13:22); and the acts of Uzziah by Isaiah the prophet (26:22). Add to this the fact that Kings is positioned in the Hebrew canon in the Former Prophets (Joshua to 2 Kings), and a consistent picture of prophetic origin emerges.<\/p>\n<p>The date of the final part of the book must be after the last events recorded. Evil-merodach’s kindness toward Jehoiachin (c. 561 <span>BC<\/span>) is the terminus of the book and therefore fixes the earliest date. Since the work shows no knowledge of the restoration period, a date before 539 <span>BC<\/span> is probable. The author’s selection of his data to answer the burning theological questions of the exilic community also suggests a date between 561 and 539 <span>BC<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Sources\">Sources<\/p>\n<p>The compiler of Kings specifically names three of the sources that he used in his work, and biblical scholars have suggested the presence of a number of other sources that may have been cited. Of course, the sources not mentioned specifically by the compiler are only the speculations of those who have studied his work and can have only varying degrees of probability. The sources both specified and alleged are as follows.<\/p>\n<h5>The Book of the Acts of Solomon<\/h5>\n<p>As 1 Kings 11:41 says, “The rest of the events in Solomon’s reign, including his wisdom, are recorded in <em>The Book of the Acts of Solomon”<\/em> (<span>nlt<\/span>). Presumably additional materials of a biographical nature were included, specifically accounts similar to the judgment between the two mothers (3:16-28) or the visit of the queen of Sheba (10:1-10). There has been debate as to whether these materials were official court records or nonofficial documents. Some scholars have attempted to isolate further materials within this section by identifying descriptions of the buildings as from temple archives (chs 6–7) and lists of administrators as from administrative documents (chs 4–5), but this must remain speculative.<\/p>\n<h5>The Book of the History of the Kings of Israel<\/h5>\n<p>This source is mentioned 17 times in Kings, usually in the closing formulas at the end of the account of the reign of a northern king. Some idea of the nature of these chronicles can be derived from looking at the type of information to which the compiler refers his readers (see 1 Kgs 14:19; 16:27; 22:39; 2 Kgs 13:12; 14:28). These passages suggest that this source was the official annals covering the reigns of the kings.<\/p>\n<h5>The Book of the History of the Kings of Judah<\/h5>\n<p>This source is mentioned in 15 passages, and as with the kings of Israel, is found in the concluding formulas to the accounts of the reigns. This source was to be consulted for additional details on individuals’ reigns (for example, see 1 Kgs 15:23; 22:45; 2 Kgs 20:20; 21:17). These sources for the histories of the two kingdoms were probably similar to the annals known from the surrounding cultures, particularly from the reigns of Assyrian kings. They were likely official court histories kept in Samaria and Jerusalem.<\/p>\n<p>In addition to these explicitly mentioned sources, scholars have suggested the compiler drew on other sources that he does not name.<\/p>\n<h5>Davidic Court History<\/h5>\n<p>Second Samuel 9–20 is often identified as a unit of material in the composition of the books of Samuel; it is variously called “the court history” or “the succession narrative.” Because of similar vocabulary and outlook, 1 Kings 1–2 are often associated with this material from Samuel. The statement of 1 Kings 2:46, “so the kingdom was now firmly in Solomon’s grip,” is taken to be the end of this record.<\/p>\n<h5>Sources for the House of Ahab<\/h5>\n<p>The reigns of individual kings are ordinarily given only brief notices; for example, the father of Ahab, Omri, is given eight verses, even though when judged by political and economic significance, he was among the greatest of the northern kings (1 Kgs 16:21-28). However, beginning with the reign of Ahab, the record becomes quite expansive, and extensive coverage is given the dynasty of Ahab through the coup by Jehu (1 Kgs 16—2 Kgs 12). The use of the stereotyped formulas for the reigns is suspended in this material, and the existence of other literature used by the compiler is probable. This material is commonly subdivided into further sources for the lives of Elijah and Elisha and the reign of Ahab.<\/p>\n<p>The Elijah section covers material in the following chapters: 1 Kings 17–19, including the feeding by the ravens, the incidents with the widow of Zarephath, the drought, the fire on Carmel, and the revelation of God at Sinai; 1 Kings 21, the affair of Naboth’s vineyard; and 2 Kings 1, the death of Ahaziah’s messengers. The reign of Ahab, which gets so much attention in Kings, is primarily a backdrop for the accounts concerning Elijah.<\/p>\n<p>The Elisha material found in 2 Kings 2–13 may have had an independent literary development from that of the Elijah accounts. It includes the following: chapter 2 (Elisha’s succession to the prophetic office, the purification of a spring, the death of mocking children); chapter 3 (on the campaign against Moab); chapter 4 (the widow’s oil, the Shunammite woman); chapter 5 (Naaman’s leprosy); chapter 6 (the Aramean attempt to capture Elisha); chapter 7 (the famine in Samaria); chapter 8 (the Shunammite’s property, the coup of Hazael); chapter 9 (the anointing of Jehu); and chapter 13 (the death of Elisha). No other portion of the OT takes the sheer delight in the miraculous that is seen in the Elisha narratives.<\/p>\n<p>In 1 Kings 16 to 2 Kings 13 there are additional incidents not directly related to the biographies of Elijah and Elisha; accounts such as the military campaigns of 1 Kings 20:1-34 and further details of Jehu’s coup (2 Kgs 9:11–10:36) are often attributed to a third source containing accounts of the dynasty of Ahab and his successors. In all three of these possible sources the orientation is toward affairs in the northern kingdom.<\/p>\n<h5>Isaiah Source<\/h5>\n<p>The account of the reign of Hezekiah contains a section (2 Kgs 18:13–20:19) that is nearly a verbatim citation of material also found in Isaiah (Is 36:1–39:8). The section records the invasion of Sennacherib, the mission of the Rabshakeh, Hezekiah’s prayer, Isaiah’s prophecy, Hezekiah’s illness, the regression of the sun, and the envoys from Merodach-baladan. The material must be regarded as based on the book of Isaiah or some other source used in both Isaiah and Kings.<\/p>\n<h5>A Prophetic Source<\/h5>\n<p>Because Kings shows great interest in the prophets and their ministries, various scholars have suggested that yet another source was used by the compiler; this would be an independent literary unit containing accounts of the prophets. This source would have contained the records for the material on Ahijah (1 Kgs 11:29-39; 14:1-16), unnamed prophets (ch 12; 20:35-43), Micaiah (22:13-28), and other references.<\/p>\n<p>Apart from the sources explicitly mentioned and inferences about their character, the remainder of the sources suggested have only varying degrees of probability. Considerable scholarly effort has gone into identifying and characterizing such sources, but it remains speculative. When considering the sources the compiler may have used, one important caution must be kept in mind. Even if such sources did exist, one cannot have confidence in a reconstruction of the compositional history. Which sources had already been integrated into a larger composition before they were used by the compiler of Kings? We cannot be certain that the life situation out of which these other sources grew has been correctly identified, nor can we know that even the compiler himself was aware of the past history of his sources. Biblical scholarship has expended considerable energy in trying to delineate the past history of the book of Kings, but it has often been at the neglect of the unity of perspective that is the product of the final compiler(s) in whose hands the book received its canonical form.<\/p>\n<p>What is important to understanding the book is not the perspective of its various sources (of which the compiler himself may have been unaware), but the perspective of the book as a whole on the history of the kingdoms. It is the outline that the compiler has imposed on the sources that establishes the teaching of the book; his sources are used in accord with his own purposes, a fact that makes the purposes for which the sources had been prepared largely irrelevant to the teaching of the book in its present form. Exploring possible sources, worthwhile in itself, must not eclipse the message of the book as a whole. This is not to imply that the books of Kings are simply a compilation of unaltered sources. The writer(s) undoubtedly exercised a measure of selectivity and literary skill in composing the historical narrative.<\/p>\n<p>One compositional technique of the compiler is quite prominent in the histories of the divided kingdoms: this is the use of formulaic introductions and conclusions to the various reigns. The formulas for both kingdoms are quite similar, differing only in minor details. For the kings of Judah, the full introductory formula is as follows: (1) year of accession synchronized with the regnal year of the northern king; (2) age of the king at his accession; (3) length of his reign; (4) name of his mother; (5) judgment on the character of the reign. The account of a Judean king’s reign is concluded as follows: (1) a reference to the chronicles of the kings of Judah for further information; (2) a statement regarding the death of the king, including the place of burial; (3) successor: “And his son reigned in his stead” (<span>rsv<\/span>). The full formula for a Judean king can be seen, for example, in the reign of Rehoboam (1 Kgs 14:21-22, 29-31).<\/p>\n<p>The formulas differ slightly for the kings of Israel; the introduction is as follows: (1) year of succession synchronized with the regnal year of the southern king; (2) length of his reign; (3) location of the royal residence; (4) condemnation for idolatry; (5) name of the king’s father. The account of an Israelite king’s reign ends as follows: (1) a reference to the chronicles of the kings of Israel for further information; (2) a statement regarding his death; (3) a statement of the succession of his son, unless a usurper follows. The full formula for an Israelite king can be seen, for example, in the reign of Baasha (1 Kgs 15:33-34; 16:5-6).<\/p>\n<p>There is some variation in the use of these patterns, but on the whole, they are consistently followed and provide the basic framework for the history of the divided kingdom. The synchronisms of the reigns provide data for constructing the chronology of the period. The variations in the formulas may reflect the characteristics of the sources the compiler was using or may reflect his own interests. The name of the mother of a Judean king is recorded, but not of an Israelite king, perhaps reflecting concern with a more exact and fuller record of the Davidic succession. The royal residence is presumed to be Jerusalem for the southern kings (though it may be mentioned) but is recorded for the northern kings since it moved several times, from Shechem to Penuel to Tirzah to Samaria. The mention of the king’s father for a northern ruler also reflects the frequent change in dynasties there, as opposed to the dynastic stability of Judah, which is reinforced by mentioning the burial of almost all its kings in the city of David.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheologyandPurpose\">Theology and Purpose<\/p>\n<p>The books of Kings record the history of the covenant people from the end of the reign of David (961 <span>BC<\/span>) through the fall of the southern kingdom (586 <span>BC<\/span>). Yet it is not history written in accord with modern expectations for history textbooks. Rather than concentrating on economic, political, and military themes as they shaped the history of the period, the compiler of Kings is motivated by theological concerns.<\/p>\n<p>Evaluation of the theology and purpose of the books of Kings is made easier by the fact that there is a parallel history for much of Kings found in the books of Chronicles. By comparing the two accounts, especially where the later Chronicler adds or deletes material found in Kings, the interests of both histories are thrown into clearer relief.<\/p>\n<p>The books of Kings were composed during the exile, likely between 560 and 539 <span>BC<\/span>. Jerusalem had been turned into rubble, and there was no longer a throne of David. Those two pillars of the popular theology—the inviolability of the temple and the throne of David (Jer 7:4; 13:13-14; 22:1-9; see 1 Kgs 8:16, 29)—had tumbled. If Israel’s faith was to survive, the burning questions that had to be answered were “How did it all happen? Can’t God keep his promises to David and to Zion? Have the promises failed?” The writer of Kings aims to deal with the bewilderment of the chosen people in response to the disasters of 722 <span>BC<\/span> (fall of Samaria) and 586 <span>BC<\/span> (fall of Jerusalem). Kings, like the book of Job, is a theodicy, a justification of the ways of God to men.<\/p>\n<p>In order to answer the question “How did it happen?” the compiler adopts the procedure of recounting the history of the covenant people in light of standards propounded in the Law. For this reason Kings could be called Pentateuchal history, or even more pointedly, Deuteronomic history, for standards propounded only in the book of Deuteronomy in the Pentateuch are used by the compiler to measure the kingdoms. Among the prominent themes selected from Deuteronomy and applied to the kingdoms are the centralization of worship, the institution of the monarchy, the efficacy of the prophetic word, and the outworking of the covenant curses on disobedience.<\/p>\n<h5>Centralization of Worship<\/h5>\n<p>The primary concern of the writer is the purity of the worship of the Lord. His major criterion for measuring this purity is the attitude of the kings toward centralization of worship in the Jerusalem temple as opposed to the worship of the Lord elsewhere and the continuation of Canaanite cults mingled with Yahwism at the high places. Centralization of worship at the central shrine is called for in Deuteronomy 12. Perhaps “centralization of worship” is a misnomer, for worship was always centered around the tabernacle in the periods prior to the temple; the change that is envisaged in Deuteronomy is not the centralizing of worship but rather the fact that the shrine would no longer be mobile but stationary. For the kings of the northern kingdom, this criterion becomes virtually a stereotyped formula that “he did that which was evil in the sight of the Lord and walked in the way of Jeroboam son of Nebat, who sinned and made all Israel sin along with him” (see 1 Kgs 14:16; 15:30; 16:31; 2 Kgs 3:3; 10:31; 13:2, 11; 14:24; 15:9, 18, 24, 28; 17:22). The compiler of Kings sees the rival altars with the golden calves at Dan and Bethel as the great sin of which the northern kings never repented (1 Kgs 12:25–13:34). Rejecting the primacy of Jerusalem, these altars became the rod with which to measure the northern kings. All the kings of Israel are condemned by this standard (except for Shallum, who reigned but a month, and Hoshea, the last of the northern kings)—even Zimri, the murderer of Elah, who ruled only one week before committing suicide in the flames of his own palace (16:9-20). For the kings of Judah, a different standard is used: what their attitude was to the high places where heterodox worship was allowed to flourish in the environs of Jerusalem. Only Hezekiah and Josiah receive the compiler’s unqualified endorsement for following the ways of David (2 Kgs 18:3; 22:2). Six others are commended for their zeal in suppressing idolatry, though they did not remove the high places (Asa, 1 Kgs 15:9-15; Jehoshaphat, 22:43; Jehoash, 2 Kgs 12:2-3; Amaziah, 14:3-4; Azariah, 15:3-4; Jotham, 15:34-35). The remainder of the Judean kings are condemned for their participation in the high places and their desecration of the temple itself. This one theme is the preeminent motif in the book.<\/p>\n<h5>History of the Monarchy<\/h5>\n<p>A second prominent interest for the compiler was to trace the history of the monarchy. Deuteronomy 17:14-20 provides for the day when Israel would ask for a king and charges that king with the basic religious responsibility for the people. This provision for a king, again a feature found only in Deuteronomy, becomes the basis for the compiler’s intense interest in the history of the monarchy, and particularly the religious fidelity of the kings. David becomes the model of the ideal king, the one by whom the others are measured, the one whose sons “continue long in his kingdom in the midst of Israel” (17:20; see also 1 Kgs 15:11; 2 Kgs 18:3; 22:2 for following in the ways of David, and 1 Kgs 14:8; 15:3-5; 2 Kgs 14:3; 16:2 for the reverse). The compiler wanted to show that God had been faithful to David even though David’s sons were not faithful. While both kingdoms had about the same number of kings, the northern kingdom is marked by repeated dynastic changes and regicide through its 200 years, while the dynasty of David is maintained as a lamp in the south through 350 years (1 Kgs 11:13, 32, 36; 15:4-5; 2 Kgs 8:19; 19:34; 20:6). It is the disaster that had befallen the house of David, and the consequent doubts about the promises of God, that prompted the compiler to write.<\/p>\n<h5>Efficacy of the Prophetic Word<\/h5>\n<p>Another reason why Kings can be called Deuteronomic history is its concern with the efficacy of the prophetic word. There are three passages in the Pentateuch that deal with the institution of the prophetic order: Numbers 12:1-8; Deuteronomy 13:1-5; and Deuteronomy 18:14-22. It is only in Deuteronomy 18 that the test of a true prophet is given: that what he has spoken comes about, that his words are fulfilled. Notice the number of instances where the writer calls attention to the fulfillment of the words of the prophets: 2 Samuel 7:13 in 1 Kings 8:20; 1 Kings 11:29-36 in 12:15; 1 Kings 13:1-3 in 2 Kings 23:16-18; 1 Kings 14:6-12 in 14:17-18 and 15:29; 1 Kings 16:1-4 in 16:7, 11-12; Joshua 6:26 in 1 Kings 16:34; 1 Kings 22:17 in 22:35-38; 1 Kings 21:21-29 in 2 Kings 9:7-10, 30-37 and 10:10-11, 30; 2 Kings 1:6 in 1:17; 2 Kings 21:10-15 in 24:2; 2 Kings 22:15-20 in 23:30. The writer is concerned to show that the words of the prophets were efficacious, powerful words. His concern with the prophetic order is also seen in the material devoted to Elijah and Elisha and to other prophetic figures.<\/p>\n<h5>Fulfillment of the Curses<\/h5>\n<p>Another aspect of the compiler’s interest in Deuteronomy is seen in his concern to trace the fulfillment of the covenant curses on disobedience. God’s covenant with Israel would issue in curses or blessings depending on the obedience of the people; the compiler of Kings sees the curses inflicted on the two kingdoms because of their failure to meet the demands of the covenant. He takes care to show that most of the curses of Deuteronomy 28:15-68 had some historical realization in the life of the people. Moses had warned that disobedience would “bring a nation against you from afar, from the end of the earth, as the eagle swoops down” (Dt 28:49, <span>nasb<\/span>), and the Assyrians came to Samaria and the Babylonians to Jerusalem (28:52). The siege of Samaria lasted from 724 to 722 <span>BC<\/span>, and the siege of Jerusalem from 588 to 586 <span>BC<\/span>. The dire conditions of the siege would drive the people to devouring their own children; women would feed on their afterbirths. It happened to Israel in the siege of Ben-hadad (2 Kgs 6:24-30). Just as the Lord had delighted to prosper and multiply his people, so he would not refrain from destroying them and scattering them among the peoples of the earth (Dt 28:63-67).<\/p>\n<p>In these and other ways the writer of Kings set out to write the history of Israel and Judah to solve a theological dilemma. How was one to reconcile the exile with God’s promises to the nation and David? His answer is twofold: (1) the problem was not with God but with the people’s disobedience—God remains just; (2) the end of the state does not equal the end of the people or the house of David. Here the ending of the book is instructive: Evil-merodach releases Jehoiachin from prison, elevates him above the other kings, and provides his rations (2 Kgs 25:27-30). Even during the exile, though cut down to almost nothing, the house of David still enjoys the favor and blessing of God. God has not abandoned his promises; the people should keep hope.<\/p>\n<p>Other themes in Kings also show the theological motivations underlying the compiler’s selection and arrangement of the data, particularly his use of Deuteronomy as a framework for examining the history of the people. Compare the laws governing the observance of Passover in Exodus 12:1-20 and Deuteronomy 16:1-8: whereas the Passover is centered in the family in Exodus, it is celebrated at the sanctuary in Deuteronomy. The writer of Kings is careful to show that the Passover during the reign of Josiah was celebrated in accordance with the requirements of Deuteronomy (2 Kgs 23:21-23). A passage in Deuteronomy is explicitly cited with reference to Amaziah’s keeping the law (Dt 24:16 in 2 Kgs 14:6).<\/p>\n<h5>Contrast with Chronicles<\/h5>\n<p>The interests of Kings are further highlighted when compared with the parallel accounts in Chronicles. While the writer of Kings worked in the aftermath of the destruction of Jerusalem and had to answer the “how?” and “why?” questions, the Chronicler is part of the restoration community. Here the burning theological questions were not “how?” and “why?” but rather “What continuity do we have with David? Is God still interested in us?” The need is not to account for the exile but rather to relate the postexilic and the preexilic. The building of the second temple and the ordering of worship there show up in increased detail in Chronicles in any matter pertaining to the former temple. Chronicles is a history of Judah and of the Davidic line, reflecting the fact that it alone survives after the exile. Interesting, too, are the things omitted from the account by the Chronicler. Since he is not building a case for an indictment, as was done in Samuel and Kings, he is free to omit references to David’s sin with Bathsheba (2 Sm 11) or to Solomon’s difficulties in gaining the throne (1 Kgs 1–2). Since in his day the northern kingdom had not survived, the Chronicler did not go into detail about the sins of Jeroboam (chs 13–14). Chronicles is interested more in the affairs of the temple and does not show the marked interest in prophetic matters found in Kings, so that the lives of Elijah and Elisha are omitted (1 Kgs 16—2 Kgs 10). Nor does the Chronicler recite the sins that led to the demise of the northern kingdom (2 Kgs 17:1–18:12). In all these examples one can see the interplay of the historical moment and theological concerns of the people and the compilers. Each compiler has selected and arranged the data in accordance with the concerns and needs of the community in which he was a member; comparing the two accounts throws the interests of each into sharp relief.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Content\">Content<\/p>\n\n<p>The books of Kings fall into three parts: (1) the reign of Solomon (1 Kgs 1–11); (2) the history of the divided kingdom (1 Kgs 12–2 Kgs 17); (3) the history of the surviving kingdom in Judah (2 Kgs 18–25).<\/p>\n<h5>The Reign of Solomon (1 Kgs 1–11)<\/h5>\n<p>The record begins with an account of the court intrigue surrounding Solomon’s accession to the throne, set against the backdrop of the abortive coup by Adonijah (ch 1). The dying David charges Solomon to obey the commandments of God (2:1-4) and also to take vengeance on his enemies (vv 5-9). After David’s death Solomon orders the deaths of Adonijah, Joab, and Shimei, and the banishment of Abiathar, the priest who had supported Adonijah in his bid for the throne (vv 13-46). Enemies eliminated, the kingdom was firmly established by Solomon (v 46).<\/p>\n<p>The remainder of Solomon’s reign is divided into two parts: Solomon the good, who follows in the ways of his father, David (chs 3–10); and Solomon the bad, whose heart is led astray (ch 11). While sacrificing at Gibeon, Solomon asks God to give him the gift of wisdom to rule—wisdom promptly demonstrated in the quarrel of two prostitutes about a child (ch 3). An account is given of the administrative organization of the kingdom and the incomparable wisdom of Solomon (ch 4). The compiler of Kings gives extensive coverage to the preparations (ch 5), building (chs 6–7), and dedication (ch 8) of the temple. God appeared to Solomon a second time, reminding him to keep his commandments as David had done (9:1-9). Details are given of the king’s building and commercial activities (vv 10-27). The account of the visit by the queen of Sheba is followed with elaboration of Solomon’s splendor (ch 10). But Solomon did not keep God’s commands; seduced to pagan worship by his foreign wives, he was not fully devoted to the Lord as David had been (11:4), and God determined to take away the northern tribes from the rule of his son (vv 11-13). As punishment from the hand of God, Solomon faced rebellion among conquered peoples (vv 14-25) and within Israel in the person of Jeroboam (vv 26-40).<\/p>\n<h5>History of the Divided Kingdom (1 Kgs 12—2 Kgs 17)<\/h5>\n\n<p>The united monarchy dissolved after the death of Solomon. The northern kingdom (Israel) would exist for about two centuries, would be ruled by 20 kings from nine different dynasties, and would show a history of internal weakness riddled with regicide and usurpation. In contrast, the southern kingdom would last for three and a half centuries and would be ruled by 19 kings of Davidic descent (apart from a short period under the dynastic interloper Athaliah).<\/p>\n<p>There had been a long history of independent action and even warfare between the northern and southern tribes prior to David and Solomon, so it is no surprise that the division would take place along the lines that it did. The immediate cause, however, was the unwise severity with which Rehoboam replied to the representatives of the northern tribes while negotiating for the kingship. Jeroboam, the popular hero of the earlier insurrection against Solomon, became king in the north. He immediately erected the rival sanctuaries at Dan and Bethel (1 Kgs 12); these rival altars became the measure by which the kings of Israel were condemned for following in the sins of Jeroboam.<\/p>\n<p>For two generations there would be warfare between Israel and Judah over the border areas in Benjamin claimed by both sides. Fifty years of sporadic fighting on their mutual frontier, interlaced with invasions from the Arameans in the north or the Egyptians in the south, would consume the reigns of Jeroboam, Nadab, Baasha, Elah, and Zimri in Israel and of Rehoboam, Abijam, and Asa in Judah (1 Kgs 13:1–16:20).<\/p>\n<p>The accession of Omri in Israel introduced a ruling house that would last for a total of four generations and end the dynastic instability of the northern kingdom. Though Kings gives Omri a scant eight verses (1 Kgs 16:21-28), he was among the greatest of the northern kings, forging alliances with the Phoenicians and Judah; for over a century, the Assyrians would call Israel “the house of Omri.”<\/p>\n<p>The reigns of Omri’s successors, Ahab, Ahaziah, and Jehoram, are treated at disproportionate length, taking almost a third of the total book, 16 of 47 chapters (1 Kgs 17—2 Kgs 10). This is due to the fact that the compiler of Kings incorporated extensive coverage of the lives of Elijah and Elisha, weaving a contrast between good and evil by paralleling the dynasty of Omri with these prophets. Ahab and Jezebel were used as foils for the account of Elijah, so that Ahab became a paradigm of the evil king (e.g., 2 Kgs 21:3).<\/p>\n<p>Because of this preoccupation with the dynasty of Omri and the lives of Elijah and Elisha, the equivalent period in Judah is not given as extensive coverage. During this period, the northern kingdom appears to have exercised some hegemony over Judah, as attested by the marriage of an Omride (Athaliah, 2 Kgs 8:18, 26) to Jehoram of Judah and the subservient role of Jehoshaphat to Ahab at the battle of Ramoth-gilead (1 Kgs 22). Judah’s fortunes declined in this period when Edom revolted against Jehoram (2 Kgs 8:20-22), costing Judah control over the port at Ezion-geber and consequent economic losses.<\/p>\n<p>In 842 <span>BC<\/span> Jehu, after being anointed king by a prophet (2 Kgs 9:1-13), led a coup ending the house of Omri and also killing Ahaziah of Judah (vv 14-29). Jehu’s purge also brought the death of Jezebel, Ahab’s family, members of the family of Ahaziah, and the ministers of Baal (9:30–10:36). The consequences were severe politically: the murder of the Phoenician princess Jezebel and the king of Judah cost Israel its allies to the north and south.<\/p>\n<p>Jehu’s dynasty had the longest succession of any in Israel, including Jehoahaz, Jehoash, Jeroboam II, and Zechariah, a period spanning 90 years. Jehu’s murder of Ahaziah of Judah set the stage for the one threat to the continuity of the Davidic dynasty. Queen Athaliah, herself an Omride, seized the throne and attempted a purge of Davidic pretenders. She ruled for six years, until the faithful priest Jehoiada staged a countercoup to place the child Joash on the throne of David (ch 11).<\/p>\n<p>Israel endured a half century of weakness as a result of Jehu’s coup, during which the Arameans had a free hand, reducing the forces of Jehu’s son Jehoahaz to a small army and bodyguard (2 Kgs 13:1-7).<\/p>\n<p>The reemergence of Assyria early in the ninth century <span>BC<\/span> gave relief to Israel and Judah. Assyrian armies conquered the Arameans; with that threat removed, Israel and Judah enjoyed a dramatic resurgence. Jehoash of Israel, grandson of Jehu, reconquered cities lost to the Arameans (2 Kgs 13:25); Elisha died during his reign (v 20). In the south Amaziah reconquered the Edomites (14:7). Amaziah and Jehoash renewed the warfare between the kingdoms, with the north again victorious (vv 8-14).<\/p>\n<p>Under Jeroboam II, Israel enjoyed a period of prosperity when the borders of the kingdom reached the same extent as they had under Solomon (2 Kgs 14:23-28). Uzziah (Azariah), his contemporary in Judah, also fortified Jerusalem and undertook a program of offensive operations extending Judah’s sway to the south (14:21-22; 15:1-7).<\/p>\n<p>Yet this resurgence was but a brilliant sunset in the history of the two kingdoms. After the death of Jeroboam II, the history is one of successive disasters, culminating in the fall of Israel and the subjugation of Judah to the might of Assyria. The next 30 years in Israel would see four dynasties, three represented by only one king, and repeated regicides as the northern kingdom hastened to its demise. A period of civil war and anarchy would see five kings in just over ten years (2 Kgs 15). Heavy tribute was paid to Tiglath-pileser III in both the north and south (15:19-20; 16:7-10). Israel and the Arameans forged a coalition to throw back the Assyrians and sought to press Ahaz of Judah into the fight; Ahaz appealed to Tiglath-pileser III for help. The coalition was destroyed, and Israel and Judah became vassals. Hoshea defected as soon as he felt safe, looking to Egypt for help, but it was suicide for the northern kingdom. Shalmaneser V retaliated, and the political history of the state of Israel came to an end (17:1-23). The area was resettled with other displaced populations (vv 24-41).<\/p>\n<p>Israel had faced the Arameans and survived, only to fall to Assyria. And now, similarly, Judah would outlast Assyria, only to fall to Babylon.<\/p>\n<h5>History of the Surviving Kingdom of Judah (2 Kgs 18–25)<\/h5>\n<p>Ahaz’s appeal for Assyrian aid cost him his liberty, and Judah became a vassal of the Assyrian Empire. Illegitimate worship flourished under his rule (2 Kgs 16:1-19). Ahaz was succeeded by the first of the outstanding reform kings of Judah: Hezekiah. Much of the account of his reign is given to his rebellion against Sennacherib of Assyria: the rebellion, the Assyrian envoys and threats, Isaiah’s assurances of deliverance, and the destruction of the Assyrian armies (18:9–19:37). Hezekiah’s illness was averted after a sign and oracle from Isaiah (20:1-11). As part of what appears to be negotiations toward an anti-Assyrian alliance, Hezekiah also entertained envoys from Babylon, a decision that the prophet announced would be costly (vv 12-21).<\/p>\n<p>Hezekiah was followed by Manasseh, who ruled longer than any other king of Judah (a total of 55 years). His reign was marked by great apostasy—apostasy so severe that the compiler of Kings regarded his reign as sufficient reason for the exile that was unavoidable (2 Kgs 21:1-18; cf. 23:26; 24:3-4; Jer 15:1-4). Manasseh was followed by his son Amon, a carbon copy of his father, who ruled only two years before he was deposed by the people (2 Kings 21:19-26).<\/p>\n<p>The second great reform king of Judah, Josiah, followed. In his reign the Book of the Law was found while the temple was being refurbished; he led the people in a renewal of the covenant and suppressed illegitimate worship (2 Kgs 22:1–23:14). The Assyrian Empire was in rapid decline, so Josiah extended his borders to the north, destroying the altar at Bethel and the high places throughout Samaria (23:15-20). A great Passover celebration was convened in Jerusalem, and further measures were taken to rectify worship (vv 21-25). Josiah tried to block Pharaoh Neco’s foray to assist Assyria, and he lost his life at Megiddo (vv 26-30).<\/p>\n<p>Josiah was the only king of Judah to have three of his sons succeed him. At his death the people put Jehoahaz on the throne, but Neco removed him three months later and took him to Egypt in chains (2 Kgs 23:31-33), replacing him with another son of Josiah, Eliakim, whose name was changed to Jehoiakim (vv 34-37). During his reign, Nebuchadnezzar conquered Judah, and Jehoiakim became his vassal. Late in his life Jehoiakim rebelled against Nebuchadnezzar. Jehoiakim died, leaving his son Jehoiachin to face retaliation from Babylon (24:1-10). Nebuchadnezzar besieged Jerusalem; when the city fell, Jehoiachin, the queen mother, the army, and the leaders of the land were carried away captive. Nebuchadnezzar put Mattaniah (uncle of Jehoiachin and third son of Josiah) on the throne, changing his name to Zedekiah (vv 11-17). Nine years later Zedekiah, too, would rebel against Babylon. Nebuchadnezzar besieged the city for two years and, when it fell, utterly destroyed it. Zedekiah’s sons were killed before his eyes, and then his own eyes were put out, and he was taken to Babylon (24:18–25:21). Nebuchadnezzar appointed Gedaliah to rule as governor from nearby Mizpah; he was assassinated, and the conspirators fled to Egypt (25:22-26).<\/p>\n<p>The book concludes by showing that God had not forgotten his promise to David, mentioning that in captivity Jehoiachin enjoyed favor from the hand of Evil-merodach, successor of Nebuchadnezzar (2 Kgs 25:27-30).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Chronicles, Books of First and Second.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>KINGS, Books of First and Second<\/h3>\n<p>Books continuing the history of the covenant people as recorded in Joshua, Judges, and the books of Samuel. The record in Kings begins with the events at the end of David’s reign (1 Kgs 1–2). It continues through the reign of Solomon (chs 3–11); the histories of the divided kingdoms (1 Kgs 12—2 Kgs 17); and the history of the surviving kingdom in the south, through its fall in 586 <span>BC<\/span> and the subsequent kindness shown Jehoiachin by Evil-merodach, king of Babylon, around 561 <span>BC<\/span> (2 Kgs 18–25).<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Authorship and Date<\/p>\n<p>• Sources<\/p>\n<p>• Theology and Purpose<\/p>\n<p>• Content<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"AuthorshipandDate\">Authorship and Date<\/p>\n<p>Kings was originally regarded as one book in the Hebrew canon; the division into two books of approximately equal length appeared first in the Septuagint and finally entered the Hebrew Bible in the 15th century <span>AD<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p>The book itself is anonymous, and information about its author can only be deduced by examining the concerns and perspectives of the work. The Babylonian Talmud (<em>Baba Bathra<\/em> 15a) attributes Kings to Jeremiah. Although this identification could have arisen from the tendency of later Jewish tradition to assign biblical books to prophetic authors, the theory of origin in prophetic circles fits the evidence quite well. Substantial portions are given to the lives of the prophets; 16 of 47 chapters are devoted to the lives of Elijah and Elisha (1 Kgs 17—2 Kgs 10), and there is considerable interest in other prophetic figures such as Ahijah (1 Kgs 11:29-39; 14:1-16), an unnamed man of God (13:1-10), and Micaiah (22:13-28). Possible dependence on Isaiah (2 Kgs 18–20; cf. Is 36–39) and Jeremiah (2 Kgs 24–25; cf. Jer 52) also suggest prophetic origin. The author-compiler also shows intense concern with the efficacy of the prophetic word, frequently calling attention to the fulfillment of words spoken earlier by the prophets.<\/p>\n<p>One might initially think that such a history would be unlikely for a prophet, but the evidence is to the contrary. The prophets were the guardians of the covenant relationship and are known to have produced accounts used as sources by other biblical historians. The following are among such sources: the acts of Samuel the seer, the acts of Nathan the prophet, the acts of Gad the seer (1 Chr 29:29); the acts of Nathan the prophet, the prophecy of Ahijah the Shilonite, the visions of Iddo the seer (2 Chr 9:29); the chronicles of Shemaiah the prophet and of Iddo the seer (12:15); the annotations of the prophet Iddo (13:22); and the acts of Uzziah by Isaiah the prophet (26:22). Add to this the fact that Kings is positioned in the Hebrew canon in the Former Prophets (Joshua to 2 Kings), and a consistent picture of prophetic origin emerges.<\/p>\n<p>The date of the final part of the book must be after the last events recorded. Evil-merodach’s kindness toward Jehoiachin (c. 561 <span>BC<\/span>) is the terminus of the book and therefore fixes the earliest date. Since the work shows no knowledge of the restoration period, a date before 539 <span>BC<\/span> is probable. The author’s selection of his data to answer the burning theological questions of the exilic community also suggests a date between 561 and 539 <span>BC<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Sources\">Sources<\/p>\n<p>The compiler of Kings specifically names three of the sources that he used in his work, and biblical scholars have suggested the presence of a number of other sources that may have been cited. Of course, the sources not mentioned specifically by the compiler are only the speculations of those who have studied his work and can have only varying degrees of probability. The sources both specified and alleged are as follows.<\/p>\n<h5>The Book of the Acts of Solomon<\/h5>\n<p>As 1 Kings 11:41 says, “The rest of the events in Solomon’s reign, including his wisdom, are recorded in <em>The Book of the Acts of Solomon”<\/em> (<span>nlt<\/span>). Presumably additional materials of a biographical nature were included, specifically accounts similar to the judgment between the two mothers (3:16-28) or the visit of the queen of Sheba (10:1-10). There has been debate as to whether these materials were official court records or nonofficial documents. Some scholars have attempted to isolate further materials within this section by identifying descriptions of the buildings as from temple archives (chs 6–7) and lists of administrators as from administrative documents (chs 4–5), but this must remain speculative.<\/p>\n<h5>The Book of the History of the Kings of Israel<\/h5>\n<p>This source is mentioned 17 times in Kings, usually in the closing formulas at the end of the account of the reign of a northern king. Some idea of the nature of these chronicles can be derived from looking at the type of information to which the compiler refers his readers (see 1 Kgs 14:19; 16:27; 22:39; 2 Kgs 13:12; 14:28). These passages suggest that this source was the official annals covering the reigns of the kings.<\/p>\n<h5>The Book of the History of the Kings of Judah<\/h5>\n<p>This source is mentioned in 15 passages, and as with the kings of Israel, is found in the concluding formulas to the accounts of the reigns. This source was to be consulted for additional details on individuals’ reigns (for example, see 1 Kgs 15:23; 22:45; 2 Kgs 20:20; 21:17). These sources for the histories of the two kingdoms were probably similar to the annals known from the surrounding cultures, particularly from the reigns of Assyrian kings. They were likely official court histories kept in Samaria and Jerusalem.<\/p>\n<p>In addition to these explicitly mentioned sources, scholars have suggested the compiler drew on other sources that he does not name.<\/p>\n<h5>Davidic Court History<\/h5>\n<p>Second Samuel 9–20 is often identified as a unit of material in the composition of the books of Samuel; it is variously called “the court history” or “the succession narrative.” Because of similar vocabulary and outlook, 1 Kings 1–2 are often associated with this material from Samuel. The statement of 1 Kings 2:46, “so the kingdom was now firmly in Solomon’s grip,” is taken to be the end of this record.<\/p>\n<h5>Sources for the House of Ahab<\/h5>\n<p>The reigns of individual kings are ordinarily given only brief notices; for example, the father of Ahab, Omri, is given eight verses, even though when judged by political and economic significance, he was among the greatest of the northern kings (1 Kgs 16:21-28). However, beginning with the reign of Ahab, the record becomes quite expansive, and extensive coverage is given the dynasty of Ahab through the coup by Jehu (1 Kgs 16—2 Kgs 12). The use of the stereotyped formulas for the reigns is suspended in this material, and the existence of other literature used by the compiler is probable. This material is commonly subdivided into further sources for the lives of Elijah and Elisha and the reign of Ahab.<\/p>\n<p>The Elijah section covers material in the following chapters: 1 Kings 17–19, including the feeding by the ravens, the incidents with the widow of Zarephath, the drought, the fire on Carmel, and the revelation of God at Sinai; 1 Kings 21, the affair of Naboth’s vineyard; and 2 Kings 1, the death of Ahaziah’s messengers. The reign of Ahab, which gets so much attention in Kings, is primarily a backdrop for the accounts concerning Elijah.<\/p>\n<p>The Elisha material found in 2 Kings 2–13 may have had an independent literary development from that of the Elijah accounts. It includes the following: chapter 2 (Elisha’s succession to the prophetic office, the purification of a spring, the death of mocking children); chapter 3 (on the campaign against Moab); chapter 4 (the widow’s oil, the Shunammite woman); chapter 5 (Naaman’s leprosy); chapter 6 (the Aramean attempt to capture Elisha); chapter 7 (the famine in Samaria); chapter 8 (the Shunammite’s property, the coup of Hazael); chapter 9 (the anointing of Jehu); and chapter 13 (the death of Elisha). No other portion of the OT takes the sheer delight in the miraculous that is seen in the Elisha narratives.<\/p>\n<p>In 1 Kings 16 to 2 Kings 13 there are additional incidents not directly related to the biographies of Elijah and Elisha; accounts such as the military campaigns of 1 Kings 20:1-34 and further details of Jehu’s coup (2 Kgs 9:11–10:36) are often attributed to a third source containing accounts of the dynasty of Ahab and his successors. In all three of these possible sources the orientation is toward affairs in the northern kingdom.<\/p>\n<h5>Isaiah Source<\/h5>\n<p>The account of the reign of Hezekiah contains a section (2 Kgs 18:13–20:19) that is nearly a verbatim citation of material also found in Isaiah (Is 36:1–39:8). The section records the invasion of Sennacherib, the mission of the Rabshakeh, Hezekiah’s prayer, Isaiah’s prophecy, Hezekiah’s illness, the regression of the sun, and the envoys from Merodach-baladan. The material must be regarded as based on the book of Isaiah or some other source used in both Isaiah and Kings.<\/p>\n<h5>A Prophetic Source<\/h5>\n<p>Because Kings shows great interest in the prophets and their ministries, various scholars have suggested that yet another source was used by the compiler; this would be an independent literary unit containing accounts of the prophets. This source would have contained the records for the material on Ahijah (1 Kgs 11:29-39; 14:1-16), unnamed prophets (ch 12; 20:35-43), Micaiah (22:13-28), and other references.<\/p>\n<p>Apart from the sources explicitly mentioned and inferences about their character, the remainder of the sources suggested have only varying degrees of probability. Considerable scholarly effort has gone into identifying and characterizing such sources, but it remains speculative. When considering the sources the compiler may have used, one important caution must be kept in mind. Even if such sources did exist, one cannot have confidence in a reconstruction of the compositional history. Which sources had already been integrated into a larger composition before they were used by the compiler of Kings? We cannot be certain that the life situation out of which these other sources grew has been correctly identified, nor can we know that even the compiler himself was aware of the past history of his sources. Biblical scholarship has expended considerable energy in trying to delineate the past history of the book of Kings, but it has often been at the neglect of the unity of perspective that is the product of the final compiler(s) in whose hands the book received its canonical form.<\/p>\n<p>What is important to understanding the book is not the perspective of its various sources (of which the compiler himself may have been unaware), but the perspective of the book as a whole on the history of the kingdoms. It is the outline that the compiler has imposed on the sources that establishes the teaching of the book; his sources are used in accord with his own purposes, a fact that makes the purposes for which the sources had been prepared largely irrelevant to the teaching of the book in its present form. Exploring possible sources, worthwhile in itself, must not eclipse the message of the book as a whole. This is not to imply that the books of Kings are simply a compilation of unaltered sources. The writer(s) undoubtedly exercised a measure of selectivity and literary skill in composing the historical narrative.<\/p>\n<p>One compositional technique of the compiler is quite prominent in the histories of the divided kingdoms: this is the use of formulaic introductions and conclusions to the various reigns. The formulas for both kingdoms are quite similar, differing only in minor details. For the kings of Judah, the full introductory formula is as follows: (1) year of accession synchronized with the regnal year of the northern king; (2) age of the king at his accession; (3) length of his reign; (4) name of his mother; (5) judgment on the character of the reign. The account of a Judean king’s reign is concluded as follows: (1) a reference to the chronicles of the kings of Judah for further information; (2) a statement regarding the death of the king, including the place of burial; (3) successor: “And his son reigned in his stead” (<span>rsv<\/span>). The full formula for a Judean king can be seen, for example, in the reign of Rehoboam (1 Kgs 14:21-22, 29-31).<\/p>\n<p>The formulas differ slightly for the kings of Israel; the introduction is as follows: (1) year of succession synchronized with the regnal year of the southern king; (2) length of his reign; (3) location of the royal residence; (4) condemnation for idolatry; (5) name of the king’s father. The account of an Israelite king’s reign ends as follows: (1) a reference to the chronicles of the kings of Israel for further information; (2) a statement regarding his death; (3) a statement of the succession of his son, unless a usurper follows. The full formula for an Israelite king can be seen, for example, in the reign of Baasha (1 Kgs 15:33-34; 16:5-6).<\/p>\n<p>There is some variation in the use of these patterns, but on the whole, they are consistently followed and provide the basic framework for the history of the divided kingdom. The synchronisms of the reigns provide data for constructing the chronology of the period. The variations in the formulas may reflect the characteristics of the sources the compiler was using or may reflect his own interests. The name of the mother of a Judean king is recorded, but not of an Israelite king, perhaps reflecting concern with a more exact and fuller record of the Davidic succession. The royal residence is presumed to be Jerusalem for the southern kings (though it may be mentioned) but is recorded for the northern kings since it moved several times, from Shechem to Penuel to Tirzah to Samaria. The mention of the king’s father for a northern ruler also reflects the frequent change in dynasties there, as opposed to the dynastic stability of Judah, which is reinforced by mentioning the burial of almost all its kings in the city of David.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheologyandPurpose\">Theology and Purpose<\/p>\n<p>The books of Kings record the history of the covenant people from the end of the reign of David (961 <span>BC<\/span>) through the fall of the southern kingdom (586 <span>BC<\/span>). Yet it is not history written in accord with modern expectations for history textbooks. Rather than concentrating on economic, political, and military themes as they shaped the history of the period, the compiler of Kings is motivated by theological concerns.<\/p>\n<p>Evaluation of the theology and purpose of the books of Kings is made easier by the fact that there is a parallel history for much of Kings found in the books of Chronicles. By comparing the two accounts, especially where the later Chronicler adds or deletes material found in Kings, the interests of both histories are thrown into clearer relief.<\/p>\n<p>The books of Kings were composed during the exile, likely between 560 and 539 <span>BC<\/span>. Jerusalem had been turned into rubble, and there was no longer a throne of David. Those two pillars of the popular theology—the inviolability of the temple and the throne of David (Jer 7:4; 13:13-14; 22:1-9; see 1 Kgs 8:16, 29)—had tumbled. If Israel’s faith was to survive, the burning questions that had to be answered were “How did it all happen? Can’t God keep his promises to David and to Zion? Have the promises failed?” The writer of Kings aims to deal with the bewilderment of the chosen people in response to the disasters of 722 <span>BC<\/span> (fall of Samaria) and 586 <span>BC<\/span> (fall of Jerusalem). Kings, like the book of Job, is a theodicy, a justification of the ways of God to men.<\/p>\n<p>In order to answer the question “How did it happen?” the compiler adopts the procedure of recounting the history of the covenant people in light of standards propounded in the Law. For this reason Kings could be called Pentateuchal history, or even more pointedly, Deuteronomic history, for standards propounded only in the book of Deuteronomy in the Pentateuch are used by the compiler to measure the kingdoms. Among the prominent themes selected from Deuteronomy and applied to the kingdoms are the centralization of worship, the institution of the monarchy, the efficacy of the prophetic word, and the outworking of the covenant curses on disobedience.<\/p>\n<h5>Centralization of Worship<\/h5>\n<p>The primary concern of the writer is the purity of the worship of the Lord. His major criterion for measuring this purity is the attitude of the kings toward centralization of worship in the Jerusalem temple as opposed to the worship of the Lord elsewhere and the continuation of Canaanite cults mingled with Yahwism at the high places. Centralization of worship at the central shrine is called for in Deuteronomy 12. Perhaps “centralization of worship” is a misnomer, for worship was always centered around the tabernacle in the periods prior to the temple; the change that is envisaged in Deuteronomy is not the centralizing of worship but rather the fact that the shrine would no longer be mobile but stationary. For the kings of the northern kingdom, this criterion becomes virtually a stereotyped formula that “he did that which was evil in the sight of the Lord and walked in the way of Jeroboam son of Nebat, who sinned and made all Israel sin along with him” (see 1 Kgs 14:16; 15:30; 16:31; 2 Kgs 3:3; 10:31; 13:2, 11; 14:24; 15:9, 18, 24, 28; 17:22). The compiler of Kings sees the rival altars with the golden calves at Dan and Bethel as the great sin of which the northern kings never repented (1 Kgs 12:25–13:34). Rejecting the primacy of Jerusalem, these altars became the rod with which to measure the northern kings. All the kings of Israel are condemned by this standard (except for Shallum, who reigned but a month, and Hoshea, the last of the northern kings)—even Zimri, the murderer of Elah, who ruled only one week before committing suicide in the flames of his own palace (16:9-20). For the kings of Judah, a different standard is used: what their attitude was to the high places where heterodox worship was allowed to flourish in the environs of Jerusalem. Only Hezekiah and Josiah receive the compiler’s unqualified endorsement for following the ways of David (2 Kgs 18:3; 22:2). Six others are commended for their zeal in suppressing idolatry, though they did not remove the high places (Asa, 1 Kgs 15:9-15; Jehoshaphat, 22:43; Jehoash, 2 Kgs 12:2-3; Amaziah, 14:3-4; Azariah, 15:3-4; Jotham, 15:34-35). The remainder of the Judean kings are condemned for their participation in the high places and their desecration of the temple itself. This one theme is the preeminent motif in the book.<\/p>\n<h5>History of the Monarchy<\/h5>\n<p>A second prominent interest for the compiler was to trace the history of the monarchy. Deuteronomy 17:14-20 provides for the day when Israel would ask for a king and charges that king with the basic religious responsibility for the people. This provision for a king, again a feature found only in Deuteronomy, becomes the basis for the compiler’s intense interest in the history of the monarchy, and particularly the religious fidelity of the kings. David becomes the model of the ideal king, the one by whom the others are measured, the one whose sons “continue long in his kingdom in the midst of Israel” (17:20; see also 1 Kgs 15:11; 2 Kgs 18:3; 22:2 for following in the ways of David, and 1 Kgs 14:8; 15:3-5; 2 Kgs 14:3; 16:2 for the reverse). The compiler wanted to show that God had been faithful to David even though David’s sons were not faithful. While both kingdoms had about the same number of kings, the northern kingdom is marked by repeated dynastic changes and regicide through its 200 years, while the dynasty of David is maintained as a lamp in the south through 350 years (1 Kgs 11:13, 32, 36; 15:4-5; 2 Kgs 8:19; 19:34; 20:6). It is the disaster that had befallen the house of David, and the consequent doubts about the promises of God, that prompted the compiler to write.<\/p>\n<h5>Efficacy of the Prophetic Word<\/h5>\n<p>Another reason why Kings can be called Deuteronomic history is its concern with the efficacy of the prophetic word. There are three passages in the Pentateuch that deal with the institution of the prophetic order: Numbers 12:1-8; Deuteronomy 13:1-5; and Deuteronomy 18:14-22. It is only in Deuteronomy 18 that the test of a true prophet is given: that what he has spoken comes about, that his words are fulfilled. Notice the number of instances where the writer calls attention to the fulfillment of the words of the prophets: 2 Samuel 7:13 in 1 Kings 8:20; 1 Kings 11:29-36 in 12:15; 1 Kings 13:1-3 in 2 Kings 23:16-18; 1 Kings 14:6-12 in 14:17-18 and 15:29; 1 Kings 16:1-4 in 16:7, 11-12; Joshua 6:26 in 1 Kings 16:34; 1 Kings 22:17 in 22:35-38; 1 Kings 21:21-29 in 2 Kings 9:7-10, 30-37 and 10:10-11, 30; 2 Kings 1:6 in 1:17; 2 Kings 21:10-15 in 24:2; 2 Kings 22:15-20 in 23:30. The writer is concerned to show that the words of the prophets were efficacious, powerful words. His concern with the prophetic order is also seen in the material devoted to Elijah and Elisha and to other prophetic figures.<\/p>\n<h5>Fulfillment of the Curses<\/h5>\n<p>Another aspect of the compiler’s interest in Deuteronomy is seen in his concern to trace the fulfillment of the covenant curses on disobedience. God’s covenant with Israel would issue in curses or blessings depending on the obedience of the people; the compiler of Kings sees the curses inflicted on the two kingdoms because of their failure to meet the demands of the covenant. He takes care to show that most of the curses of Deuteronomy 28:15-68 had some historical realization in the life of the people. Moses had warned that disobedience would “bring a nation against you from afar, from the end of the earth, as the eagle swoops down” (Dt 28:49, <span>nasb<\/span>), and the Assyrians came to Samaria and the Babylonians to Jerusalem (28:52). The siege of Samaria lasted from 724 to 722 <span>BC<\/span>, and the siege of Jerusalem from 588 to 586 <span>BC<\/span>. The dire conditions of the siege would drive the people to devouring their own children; women would feed on their afterbirths. It happened to Israel in the siege of Ben-hadad (2 Kgs 6:24-30). Just as the Lord had delighted to prosper and multiply his people, so he would not refrain from destroying them and scattering them among the peoples of the earth (Dt 28:63-67).<\/p>\n<p>In these and other ways the writer of Kings set out to write the history of Israel and Judah to solve a theological dilemma. How was one to reconcile the exile with God’s promises to the nation and David? His answer is twofold: (1) the problem was not with God but with the people’s disobedience—God remains just; (2) the end of the state does not equal the end of the people or the house of David. Here the ending of the book is instructive: Evil-merodach releases Jehoiachin from prison, elevates him above the other kings, and provides his rations (2 Kgs 25:27-30). Even during the exile, though cut down to almost nothing, the house of David still enjoys the favor and blessing of God. God has not abandoned his promises; the people should keep hope.<\/p>\n<p>Other themes in Kings also show the theological motivations underlying the compiler’s selection and arrangement of the data, particularly his use of Deuteronomy as a framework for examining the history of the people. Compare the laws governing the observance of Passover in Exodus 12:1-20 and Deuteronomy 16:1-8: whereas the Passover is centered in the family in Exodus, it is celebrated at the sanctuary in Deuteronomy. The writer of Kings is careful to show that the Passover during the reign of Josiah was celebrated in accordance with the requirements of Deuteronomy (2 Kgs 23:21-23). A passage in Deuteronomy is explicitly cited with reference to Amaziah’s keeping the law (Dt 24:16 in 2 Kgs 14:6).<\/p>\n<h5>Contrast with Chronicles<\/h5>\n<p>The interests of Kings are further highlighted when compared with the parallel accounts in Chronicles. While the writer of Kings worked in the aftermath of the destruction of Jerusalem and had to answer the “how?” and “why?” questions, the Chronicler is part of the restoration community. Here the burning theological questions were not “how?” and “why?” but rather “What continuity do we have with David? Is God still interested in us?” The need is not to account for the exile but rather to relate the postexilic and the preexilic. The building of the second temple and the ordering of worship there show up in increased detail in Chronicles in any matter pertaining to the former temple. Chronicles is a history of Judah and of the Davidic line, reflecting the fact that it alone survives after the exile. Interesting, too, are the things omitted from the account by the Chronicler. Since he is not building a case for an indictment, as was done in Samuel and Kings, he is free to omit references to David’s sin with Bathsheba (2 Sm 11) or to Solomon’s difficulties in gaining the throne (1 Kgs 1–2). Since in his day the northern kingdom had not survived, the Chronicler did not go into detail about the sins of Jeroboam (chs 13–14). Chronicles is interested more in the affairs of the temple and does not show the marked interest in prophetic matters found in Kings, so that the lives of Elijah and Elisha are omitted (1 Kgs 16—2 Kgs 10). Nor does the Chronicler recite the sins that led to the demise of the northern kingdom (2 Kgs 17:1–18:12). In all these examples one can see the interplay of the historical moment and theological concerns of the people and the compilers. Each compiler has selected and arranged the data in accordance with the concerns and needs of the community in which he was a member; comparing the two accounts throws the interests of each into sharp relief.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Content\">Content<\/p>\n\n<p>The books of Kings fall into three parts: (1) the reign of Solomon (1 Kgs 1–11); (2) the history of the divided kingdom (1 Kgs 12–2 Kgs 17); (3) the history of the surviving kingdom in Judah (2 Kgs 18–25).<\/p>\n<h5>The Reign of Solomon (1 Kgs 1–11)<\/h5>\n<p>The record begins with an account of the court intrigue surrounding Solomon’s accession to the throne, set against the backdrop of the abortive coup by Adonijah (ch 1). The dying David charges Solomon to obey the commandments of God (2:1-4) and also to take vengeance on his enemies (vv 5-9). After David’s death Solomon orders the deaths of Adonijah, Joab, and Shimei, and the banishment of Abiathar, the priest who had supported Adonijah in his bid for the throne (vv 13-46). Enemies eliminated, the kingdom was firmly established by Solomon (v 46).<\/p>\n<p>The remainder of Solomon’s reign is divided into two parts: Solomon the good, who follows in the ways of his father, David (chs 3–10); and Solomon the bad, whose heart is led astray (ch 11). While sacrificing at Gibeon, Solomon asks God to give him the gift of wisdom to rule—wisdom promptly demonstrated in the quarrel of two prostitutes about a child (ch 3). An account is given of the administrative organization of the kingdom and the incomparable wisdom of Solomon (ch 4). The compiler of Kings gives extensive coverage to the preparations (ch 5), building (chs 6–7), and dedication (ch 8) of the temple. God appeared to Solomon a second time, reminding him to keep his commandments as David had done (9:1-9). Details are given of the king’s building and commercial activities (vv 10-27). The account of the visit by the queen of Sheba is followed with elaboration of Solomon’s splendor (ch 10). But Solomon did not keep God’s commands; seduced to pagan worship by his foreign wives, he was not fully devoted to the Lord as David had been (11:4), and God determined to take away the northern tribes from the rule of his son (vv 11-13). As punishment from the hand of God, Solomon faced rebellion among conquered peoples (vv 14-25) and within Israel in the person of Jeroboam (vv 26-40).<\/p>\n<h5>History of the Divided Kingdom (1 Kgs 12—2 Kgs 17)<\/h5>\n\n<p>The united monarchy dissolved after the death of Solomon. The northern kingdom (Israel) would exist for about two centuries, would be ruled by 20 kings from nine different dynasties, and would show a history of internal weakness riddled with regicide and usurpation. In contrast, the southern kingdom would last for three and a half centuries and would be ruled by 19 kings of Davidic descent (apart from a short period under the dynastic interloper Athaliah).<\/p>\n<p>There had been a long history of independent action and even warfare between the northern and southern tribes prior to David and Solomon, so it is no surprise that the division would take place along the lines that it did. The immediate cause, however, was the unwise severity with which Rehoboam replied to the representatives of the northern tribes while negotiating for the kingship. Jeroboam, the popular hero of the earlier insurrection against Solomon, became king in the north. He immediately erected the rival sanctuaries at Dan and Bethel (1 Kgs 12); these rival altars became the measure by which the kings of Israel were condemned for following in the sins of Jeroboam.<\/p>\n<p>For two generations there would be warfare between Israel and Judah over the border areas in Benjamin claimed by both sides. Fifty years of sporadic fighting on their mutual frontier, interlaced with invasions from the Arameans in the north or the Egyptians in the south, would consume the reigns of Jeroboam, Nadab, Baasha, Elah, and Zimri in Israel and of Rehoboam, Abijam, and Asa in Judah (1 Kgs 13:1–16:20).<\/p>\n<p>The accession of Omri in Israel introduced a ruling house that would last for a total of four generations and end the dynastic instability of the northern kingdom. Though Kings gives Omri a scant eight verses (1 Kgs 16:21-28), he was among the greatest of the northern kings, forging alliances with the Phoenicians and Judah; for over a century, the Assyrians would call Israel “the house of Omri.”<\/p>\n<p>The reigns of Omri’s successors, Ahab, Ahaziah, and Jehoram, are treated at disproportionate length, taking almost a third of the total book, 16 of 47 chapters (1 Kgs 17—2 Kgs 10). This is due to the fact that the compiler of Kings incorporated extensive coverage of the lives of Elijah and Elisha, weaving a contrast between good and evil by paralleling the dynasty of Omri with these prophets. Ahab and Jezebel were used as foils for the account of Elijah, so that Ahab became a paradigm of the evil king (e.g., 2 Kgs 21:3).<\/p>\n<p>Because of this preoccupation with the dynasty of Omri and the lives of Elijah and Elisha, the equivalent period in Judah is not given as extensive coverage. During this period, the northern kingdom appears to have exercised some hegemony over Judah, as attested by the marriage of an Omride (Athaliah, 2 Kgs 8:18, 26) to Jehoram of Judah and the subservient role of Jehoshaphat to Ahab at the battle of Ramoth-gilead (1 Kgs 22). Judah’s fortunes declined in this period when Edom revolted against Jehoram (2 Kgs 8:20-22), costing Judah control over the port at Ezion-geber and consequent economic losses.<\/p>\n<p>In 842 <span>BC<\/span> Jehu, after being anointed king by a prophet (2 Kgs 9:1-13), led a coup ending the house of Omri and also killing Ahaziah of Judah (vv 14-29). Jehu’s purge also brought the death of Jezebel, Ahab’s family, members of the family of Ahaziah, and the ministers of Baal (9:30–10:36). The consequences were severe politically: the murder of the Phoenician princess Jezebel and the king of Judah cost Israel its allies to the north and south.<\/p>\n<p>Jehu’s dynasty had the longest succession of any in Israel, including Jehoahaz, Jehoash, Jeroboam II, and Zechariah, a period spanning 90 years. Jehu’s murder of Ahaziah of Judah set the stage for the one threat to the continuity of the Davidic dynasty. Queen Athaliah, herself an Omride, seized the throne and attempted a purge of Davidic pretenders. She ruled for six years, until the faithful priest Jehoiada staged a countercoup to place the child Joash on the throne of David (ch 11).<\/p>\n<p>Israel endured a half century of weakness as a result of Jehu’s coup, during which the Arameans had a free hand, reducing the forces of Jehu’s son Jehoahaz to a small army and bodyguard (2 Kgs 13:1-7).<\/p>\n<p>The reemergence of Assyria early in the ninth century <span>BC<\/span> gave relief to Israel and Judah. Assyrian armies conquered the Arameans; with that threat removed, Israel and Judah enjoyed a dramatic resurgence. Jehoash of Israel, grandson of Jehu, reconquered cities lost to the Arameans (2 Kgs 13:25); Elisha died during his reign (v 20). In the south Amaziah reconquered the Edomites (14:7). Amaziah and Jehoash renewed the warfare between the kingdoms, with the north again victorious (vv 8-14).<\/p>\n<p>Under Jeroboam II, Israel enjoyed a period of prosperity when the borders of the kingdom reached the same extent as they had under Solomon (2 Kgs 14:23-28). Uzziah (Azariah), his contemporary in Judah, also fortified Jerusalem and undertook a program of offensive operations extending Judah’s sway to the south (14:21-22; 15:1-7).<\/p>\n<p>Yet this resurgence was but a brilliant sunset in the history of the two kingdoms. After the death of Jeroboam II, the history is one of successive disasters, culminating in the fall of Israel and the subjugation of Judah to the might of Assyria. The next 30 years in Israel would see four dynasties, three represented by only one king, and repeated regicides as the northern kingdom hastened to its demise. A period of civil war and anarchy would see five kings in just over ten years (2 Kgs 15). Heavy tribute was paid to Tiglath-pileser III in both the north and south (15:19-20; 16:7-10). Israel and the Arameans forged a coalition to throw back the Assyrians and sought to press Ahaz of Judah into the fight; Ahaz appealed to Tiglath-pileser III for help. The coalition was destroyed, and Israel and Judah became vassals. Hoshea defected as soon as he felt safe, looking to Egypt for help, but it was suicide for the northern kingdom. Shalmaneser V retaliated, and the political history of the state of Israel came to an end (17:1-23). The area was resettled with other displaced populations (vv 24-41).<\/p>\n<p>Israel had faced the Arameans and survived, only to fall to Assyria. And now, similarly, Judah would outlast Assyria, only to fall to Babylon.<\/p>\n<h5>History of the Surviving Kingdom of Judah (2 Kgs 18–25)<\/h5>\n<p>Ahaz’s appeal for Assyrian aid cost him his liberty, and Judah became a vassal of the Assyrian Empire. Illegitimate worship flourished under his rule (2 Kgs 16:1-19). Ahaz was succeeded by the first of the outstanding reform kings of Judah: Hezekiah. Much of the account of his reign is given to his rebellion against Sennacherib of Assyria: the rebellion, the Assyrian envoys and threats, Isaiah’s assurances of deliverance, and the destruction of the Assyrian armies (18:9–19:37). Hezekiah’s illness was averted after a sign and oracle from Isaiah (20:1-11). As part of what appears to be negotiations toward an anti-Assyrian alliance, Hezekiah also entertained envoys from Babylon, a decision that the prophet announced would be costly (vv 12-21).<\/p>\n<p>Hezekiah was followed by Manasseh, who ruled longer than any other king of Judah (a total of 55 years). His reign was marked by great apostasy—apostasy so severe that the compiler of Kings regarded his reign as sufficient reason for the exile that was unavoidable (2 Kgs 21:1-18; cf. 23:26; 24:3-4; Jer 15:1-4). Manasseh was followed by his son Amon, a carbon copy of his father, who ruled only two years before he was deposed by the people (2 Kings 21:19-26).<\/p>\n<p>The second great reform king of Judah, Josiah, followed. In his reign the Book of the Law was found while the temple was being refurbished; he led the people in a renewal of the covenant and suppressed illegitimate worship (2 Kgs 22:1–23:14). The Assyrian Empire was in rapid decline, so Josiah extended his borders to the north, destroying the altar at Bethel and the high places throughout Samaria (23:15-20). A great Passover celebration was convened in Jerusalem, and further measures were taken to rectify worship (vv 21-25). Josiah tried to block Pharaoh Neco’s foray to assist Assyria, and he lost his life at Megiddo (vv 26-30).<\/p>\n<p>Josiah was the only king of Judah to have three of his sons succeed him. At his death the people put Jehoahaz on the throne, but Neco removed him three months later and took him to Egypt in chains (2 Kgs 23:31-33), replacing him with another son of Josiah, Eliakim, whose name was changed to Jehoiakim (vv 34-37). During his reign, Nebuchadnezzar conquered Judah, and Jehoiakim became his vassal. Late in his life Jehoiakim rebelled against Nebuchadnezzar. Jehoiakim died, leaving his son Jehoiachin to face retaliation from Babylon (24:1-10). Nebuchadnezzar besieged Jerusalem; when the city fell, Jehoiachin, the queen mother, the army, and the leaders of the land were carried away captive. Nebuchadnezzar put Mattaniah (uncle of Jehoiachin and third son of Josiah) on the throne, changing his name to Zedekiah (vv 11-17). Nine years later Zedekiah, too, would rebel against Babylon. Nebuchadnezzar besieged the city for two years and, when it fell, utterly destroyed it. Zedekiah’s sons were killed before his eyes, and then his own eyes were put out, and he was taken to Babylon (24:18–25:21). Nebuchadnezzar appointed Gedaliah to rule as governor from nearby Mizpah; he was assassinated, and the conspirators fled to Egypt (25:22-26).<\/p>\n<p>The book concludes by showing that God had not forgotten his promise to David, mentioning that in captivity Jehoiachin enjoyed favor from the hand of Evil-merodach, successor of Nebuchadnezzar (2 Kgs 25:27-30).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Chronicles, Books of First and Second.<\/p>","summary_ro":"KINGS, Books of First and Second Books continuing the history of the covenant people as recorded in Joshua, Judges, and the books of Samuel. The record in Kings begins with the events at the end of David’s reign (1 Kgs 1–2). It continues through the reign of Solomon (chs 3–11); the histories of the divided kingdoms (1 Kgs 12—2 Kgs 17); and the history of the surviving kingdom in the south, through its fall in 586 BC and the subsequent kindness shown Jehoiachin by Evil-merodach, king of Babylo...","summary_en":"KINGS, Books of First and Second Books continuing the history of the covenant people as recorded in Joshua, Judges, and the books of Samuel. The record in Kings begins with the events at the end of David’s reign (1 Kgs 1–2). It continues through the reign of Solomon (chs 3–11); the histories of the divided kingdoms (1 Kgs 12—2 Kgs 17); and the history of the surviving kingdom in the south, through its fall in 586 BC and the subsequent kindness shown Jehoiachin by Evil-merodach, king of Babylo...","source":"Articles\/K.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":47386,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: 2 Împărați 16:2","title_en":"Study Note: 2 Împărați 16:2","content_ro":"<p><strong>16:2-3<\/strong> Again, <em>his ancestor David<\/em> serves as the standard for measuring the spiritual character of Judah’s kings (14:3; 1 Kgs 15:3, 11). • <em>the example of the kings of Israel:<\/em> Ahaz was one of Judah’s most wicked kings. He indulged in the apostate religion of Israel and the <em>pagan<\/em> practices of other nations to the extent of <em>even sacrificing his own son in the fire<\/em> (see Jer 19:5; 32:35). Although Levitical regulations prohibited such sacrifices as an abomination detestable to the Lord (Lev 18:10; 20:1-5), the practice was repeated among God’s people (Isa 30:33; Jer 7:31) until Josiah’s reforms (2 Kgs 23:10).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>16:2-3<\/strong> Again, <em>his ancestor David<\/em> serves as the standard for measuring the spiritual character of Judah’s kings (14:3; 1 Kgs 15:3, 11). • <em>the example of the kings of Israel:<\/em> Ahaz was one of Judah’s most wicked kings. He indulged in the apostate religion of Israel and the <em>pagan<\/em> practices of other nations to the extent of <em>even sacrificing his own son in the fire<\/em> (see Jer 19:5; 32:35). Although Levitical regulations prohibited such sacrifices as an abomination detestable to the Lord (Lev 18:10; 20:1-5), the practice was repeated among God’s people (Isa 30:33; Jer 7:31) until Josiah’s reforms (2 Kgs 23:10).<\/p>","summary_ro":"16:2-3 Again, his ancestor David serves as the standard for measuring the spiritual character of Judah’s kings (14:3; 1 Kgs 15:3, 11). • the example of the kings of Israel: Ahaz was one of Judah’s most wicked kings. He indulged in the apostate religion of Israel and the pagan practices of other nations to the extent of even sacrificing his own son in the fire (see Jer 19:5; 32:35). Although Levitical regulations prohibited such sacrifices as an abomination detestable to the Lord (Lev 18:10; 2...","summary_en":"16:2-3 Again, his ancestor David serves as the standard for measuring the spiritual character of Judah’s kings (14:3; 1 Kgs 15:3, 11). • the example of the kings of Israel: Ahaz was one of Judah’s most wicked kings. He indulged in the apostate religion of Israel and the pagan practices of other nations to the extent of even sacrificing his own son in the fire (see Jer 19:5; 32:35). Although Levitical regulations prohibited such sacrifices as an abomination detestable to the Lord (Lev 18:10; 2...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":75012,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: 2 Împărați 16:2","title_en":"Study Note: 2 Împărați 16:2","content_ro":"<p><strong>16:2-3<\/strong> Again, <em>his ancestor David<\/em> serves as the standard for measuring the spiritual character of Judah’s kings (14:3; 1 Kgs 15:3, 11). • <em>the example of the kings of Israel:<\/em> Ahaz was one of Judah’s most wicked kings. He indulged in the apostate religion of Israel and the <em>pagan<\/em> practices of other nations to the extent of <em>even sacrificing his own son in the fire<\/em> (see Jer 19:5; 32:35). Although Levitical regulations prohibited such sacrifices as an abomination detestable to the Lord (Lev 18:10; 20:1-5), the practice was repeated among God’s people (Isa 30:33; Jer 7:31) until Josiah’s reforms (2 Kgs 23:10).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>16:2-3<\/strong> Again, <em>his ancestor David<\/em> serves as the standard for measuring the spiritual character of Judah’s kings (14:3; 1 Kgs 15:3, 11). • <em>the example of the kings of Israel:<\/em> Ahaz was one of Judah’s most wicked kings. He indulged in the apostate religion of Israel and the <em>pagan<\/em> practices of other nations to the extent of <em>even sacrificing his own son in the fire<\/em> (see Jer 19:5; 32:35). Although Levitical regulations prohibited such sacrifices as an abomination detestable to the Lord (Lev 18:10; 20:1-5), the practice was repeated among God’s people (Isa 30:33; Jer 7:31) until Josiah’s reforms (2 Kgs 23:10).<\/p>","summary_ro":"16:2-3 Again, his ancestor David serves as the standard for measuring the spiritual character of Judah’s kings (14:3; 1 Kgs 15:3, 11). • the example of the kings of Israel: Ahaz was one of Judah’s most wicked kings. He indulged in the apostate religion of Israel and the pagan practices of other nations to the extent of even sacrificing his own son in the fire (see Jer 19:5; 32:35). Although Levitical regulations prohibited such sacrifices as an abomination detestable to the Lord (Lev 18:10; 2...","summary_en":"16:2-3 Again, his ancestor David serves as the standard for measuring the spiritual character of Judah’s kings (14:3; 1 Kgs 15:3, 11). • the example of the kings of Israel: Ahaz was one of Judah’s most wicked kings. He indulged in the apostate religion of Israel and the pagan practices of other nations to the extent of even sacrificing his own son in the fire (see Jer 19:5; 32:35). Although Levitical regulations prohibited such sacrifices as an abomination detestable to the Lord (Lev 18:10; 2...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":102638,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: 2 Împărați 16:2","title_en":"Study Note: 2 Împărați 16:2","content_ro":"<p><strong>16:2-3<\/strong> Again, <em>his ancestor David<\/em> serves as the standard for measuring the spiritual character of Judah’s kings (14:3; 1 Kgs 15:3, 11). • <em>the example of the kings of Israel:<\/em> Ahaz was one of Judah’s most wicked kings. He indulged in the apostate religion of Israel and the <em>pagan<\/em> practices of other nations to the extent of <em>even sacrificing his own son in the fire<\/em> (see Jer 19:5; 32:35). Although Levitical regulations prohibited such sacrifices as an abomination detestable to the Lord (Lev 18:10; 20:1-5), the practice was repeated among God’s people (Isa 30:33; Jer 7:31) until Josiah’s reforms (2 Kgs 23:10).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>16:2-3<\/strong> Again, <em>his ancestor David<\/em> serves as the standard for measuring the spiritual character of Judah’s kings (14:3; 1 Kgs 15:3, 11). • <em>the example of the kings of Israel:<\/em> Ahaz was one of Judah’s most wicked kings. He indulged in the apostate religion of Israel and the <em>pagan<\/em> practices of other nations to the extent of <em>even sacrificing his own son in the fire<\/em> (see Jer 19:5; 32:35). Although Levitical regulations prohibited such sacrifices as an abomination detestable to the Lord (Lev 18:10; 20:1-5), the practice was repeated among God’s people (Isa 30:33; Jer 7:31) until Josiah’s reforms (2 Kgs 23:10).<\/p>","summary_ro":"16:2-3 Again, his ancestor David serves as the standard for measuring the spiritual character of Judah’s kings (14:3; 1 Kgs 15:3, 11). • the example of the kings of Israel: Ahaz was one of Judah’s most wicked kings. He indulged in the apostate religion of Israel and the pagan practices of other nations to the extent of even sacrificing his own son in the fire (see Jer 19:5; 32:35). Although Levitical regulations prohibited such sacrifices as an abomination detestable to the Lord (Lev 18:10; 2...","summary_en":"16:2-3 Again, his ancestor David serves as the standard for measuring the spiritual character of Judah’s kings (14:3; 1 Kgs 15:3, 11). • the example of the kings of Israel: Ahaz was one of Judah’s most wicked kings. He indulged in the apostate religion of Israel and the pagan practices of other nations to the extent of even sacrificing his own son in the fire (see Jer 19:5; 32:35). Although Levitical regulations prohibited such sacrifices as an abomination detestable to the Lord (Lev 18:10; 2...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":130264,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: 2 Împărați 16:2","title_en":"Study Note: 2 Împărați 16:2","content_ro":"<p><strong>16:2-3<\/strong> Again, <em>his ancestor David<\/em> serves as the standard for measuring the spiritual character of Judah’s kings (14:3; 1 Kgs 15:3, 11). • <em>the example of the kings of Israel:<\/em> Ahaz was one of Judah’s most wicked kings. He indulged in the apostate religion of Israel and the <em>pagan<\/em> practices of other nations to the extent of <em>even sacrificing his own son in the fire<\/em> (see Jer 19:5; 32:35). Although Levitical regulations prohibited such sacrifices as an abomination detestable to the Lord (Lev 18:10; 20:1-5), the practice was repeated among God’s people (Isa 30:33; Jer 7:31) until Josiah’s reforms (2 Kgs 23:10).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>16:2-3<\/strong> Again, <em>his ancestor David<\/em> serves as the standard for measuring the spiritual character of Judah’s kings (14:3; 1 Kgs 15:3, 11). • <em>the example of the kings of Israel:<\/em> Ahaz was one of Judah’s most wicked kings. He indulged in the apostate religion of Israel and the <em>pagan<\/em> practices of other nations to the extent of <em>even sacrificing his own son in the fire<\/em> (see Jer 19:5; 32:35). Although Levitical regulations prohibited such sacrifices as an abomination detestable to the Lord (Lev 18:10; 20:1-5), the practice was repeated among God’s people (Isa 30:33; Jer 7:31) until Josiah’s reforms (2 Kgs 23:10).<\/p>","summary_ro":"16:2-3 Again, his ancestor David serves as the standard for measuring the spiritual character of Judah’s kings (14:3; 1 Kgs 15:3, 11). • the example of the kings of Israel: Ahaz was one of Judah’s most wicked kings. He indulged in the apostate religion of Israel and the pagan practices of other nations to the extent of even sacrificing his own son in the fire (see Jer 19:5; 32:35). Although Levitical regulations prohibited such sacrifices as an abomination detestable to the Lord (Lev 18:10; 2...","summary_en":"16:2-3 Again, his ancestor David serves as the standard for measuring the spiritual character of Judah’s kings (14:3; 1 Kgs 15:3, 11). • the example of the kings of Israel: Ahaz was one of Judah’s most wicked kings. He indulged in the apostate religion of Israel and the pagan practices of other nations to the extent of even sacrificing his own son in the fire (see Jer 19:5; 32:35). Although Levitical regulations prohibited such sacrifices as an abomination detestable to the Lord (Lev 18:10; 2...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"3":[{"id":258,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Abomination","title_en":"Abomination","content_ro":"<h3>ABOMINATION<\/h3>\n<p>Repugnant or detestable act, person, or thing. The idea of abomination derives from the specific demands God’s holiness makes upon his people. Adjectives frequently used for abominations in the OT are “abhorrent,” “loathsome,” “unclean,” and “rejected.”<\/p>\n<p>Of the four major Hebrew words translated “abomination,” the one most frequently used indicates violation of an established custom or ritual that, in turn, brings the judgment of God. Examples range from defective sacrifices (Dt 17:1) to magic and divination (Dt 18:12) or idolatrous practices (2 Kgs 16:3). A second Hebrew word refers to the meat of certain kinds of animals that was ritually defiling, whether touched or eaten (Lv 11:10-13). A third word designates three-day-old sacrificial meat (Lv 7:18). A fourth word refers almost exclusively to idolatrous objects of pagan origin (Jer 4:1; 7:30). Apart from the specialized usage of “abomination of desolation,” the Greek word for “abomination” is used infrequently in the NT (Lk 16:15; Rom 2:22; Ti 1:16; Rv 17:4-5; 21:8, 27) and is translated by many English words. The primary connotation is anything that is abhorrent to a holy God.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Cleanness and Uncleanness, Regulations Concerning; Dietary Laws (After Moses).<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>ABOMINATION<\/h3>\n<p>Repugnant or detestable act, person, or thing. The idea of abomination derives from the specific demands God’s holiness makes upon his people. Adjectives frequently used for abominations in the OT are “abhorrent,” “loathsome,” “unclean,” and “rejected.”<\/p>\n<p>Of the four major Hebrew words translated “abomination,” the one most frequently used indicates violation of an established custom or ritual that, in turn, brings the judgment of God. Examples range from defective sacrifices (Dt 17:1) to magic and divination (Dt 18:12) or idolatrous practices (2 Kgs 16:3). A second Hebrew word refers to the meat of certain kinds of animals that was ritually defiling, whether touched or eaten (Lv 11:10-13). A third word designates three-day-old sacrificial meat (Lv 7:18). A fourth word refers almost exclusively to idolatrous objects of pagan origin (Jer 4:1; 7:30). Apart from the specialized usage of “abomination of desolation,” the Greek word for “abomination” is used infrequently in the NT (Lk 16:15; Rom 2:22; Ti 1:16; Rv 17:4-5; 21:8, 27) and is translated by many English words. The primary connotation is anything that is abhorrent to a holy God.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Cleanness and Uncleanness, Regulations Concerning; Dietary Laws (After Moses).<\/p>","summary_ro":"ABOMINATION Repugnant or detestable act, person, or thing. The idea of abomination derives from the specific demands God’s holiness makes upon his people. Adjectives frequently used for abominations in the OT are “abhorrent,” “loathsome,” “unclean,” and “rejected.” Of the four major Hebrew words translated “abomination,” the one most frequently used indicates violation of an established custom or ritual that, in turn, brings the judgment of God. Examples range from defective sacrifices (Dt 17...","summary_en":"ABOMINATION Repugnant or detestable act, person, or thing. The idea of abomination derives from the specific demands God’s holiness makes upon his people. Adjectives frequently used for abominations in the OT are “abhorrent,” “loathsome,” “unclean,” and “rejected.” Of the four major Hebrew words translated “abomination,” the one most frequently used indicates violation of an established custom or ritual that, in turn, brings the judgment of God. Examples range from defective sacrifices (Dt 17...","source":"Articles\/A.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":8953,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Place of the Dead","title_en":"Place of the Dead","content_ro":"<h3>DEAD, Place of the<\/h3>\n<p>Term covering a number of descriptive biblical images of the whereabouts of those who have died. Those images include Sheol and “the pit” in the OT, plus hades, Gehenna, paradise, and “Abraham’s bosom” in the NT. As their understanding advanced, the Hebrews’ idea of what happens at death changed from rather hazy beginnings to a developed concept found in the NT.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"IntheOldTestament\">In the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>The OT contains meager information about the dead. At death, according to some OT passages, one descends to Sheol (often translated as “grave,” “hell,” “pit,” or simply “the dead”), which at times means merely that one is laid in a grave (Nm 16:30, 33), but more often indicates an underworld. The abode of the dead is pictured as a place beneath the earth to which one “goes down” (Gn 42:38; Prv 15:24; Ez 26:20) and as a place of gloomy darkness (Jb 10:21-22), silence (Pss 94:17; 115:17), and forgetfulness (Ps 88:12). God is not remembered there and his praises are never sung (Pss 6:5; 30:9; 115:17). Even God himself, it was believed, does not remember those who are there (Ps 88:5, 11; Is 38:18). The dead were seen as permanently cut off from contact with the Lord and from participating in his activity in history. Even though the border between life and death was considered fluid (as shown by a resurrection in 2 Kgs 4:32-37 and by Samuel’s ghost in 1 Sm 28:7-25), communication with the dead was forbidden to the Jews (Dt 18:11). (Worshiping the dead was a common practice in the nations surrounding Israel.)<\/p>\n<p>Although one’s fate in the underworld could not properly be called life, it was a kind of existence, perhaps even in the company of one’s countrymen and ancestors (Gn 25:8; Ez 32:17-30). The realm of the dead was not beyond the reach of God’s power (Ps 139:8; Am 9:2; Jon 2:2). Although Sheol was pictured as a hungry monster wolfing down the living (Prv 27:20; 30:16), God’s power could save one from its grasp (Pss 49:15; 86:13). By the end of the OT period, there was even hope that one would finally be delivered from Sheol (Jb 14:13-22; 19:25-27; Pss 49:15; 73:23-28), although only Daniel expressed that hope clearly (Dn 12:1-2). So although the ancient Hebrews never looked forward to death in the same way that the apostle Paul could in the NT (2 Cor 5:1-8; Phil 1:21-23), nevertheless they did come to understand that death was not a hopeless state.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"IntheIntertestamentalWritings\">In the Intertestamental Writings<\/p>\n<p>Between the exile and the beginning of the NT period (586 <span>BC<\/span>–<span>AD<\/span> 30, overlapping with the end of the OT), contact with the religions of Persia and Greece stimulated the Jews to clarify their ideas about life after death. When the OT was translated into Greek, the Greek name for the underworld, “hades,” was used to translate the Hebrew “Sheol.” In the NT, hades was carried over to become the common name for the abode of the dead.<\/p>\n<p>Along with new names came new ideas. Many different notions circulated about the place of the dead. A common one appears in the pseudepigraphal 1 Enoch 22, where the dead are said to be kept in hollow places in a great mountain waiting for the final judgment. One relatively pleasant section was reserved for the righteous and one full of torments for the wicked. Other writers continued the OT concept of hades or Sheol as a place of separation from God and from happiness (Ecclus 14:12, 16; 17:27-28).<\/p>\n<p>During that period, the Jews also began to use a new term, “Gehenna” (Hebrew “Hinnom”), the name of a valley south of Jerusalem. The valley was noted in the OT period for the abomination of child sacrifices (2 Kgs 16:3; 21:6; 23:10) and in the NT period for its smoldering garbage. Gehenna became a designation for the final place of the wicked dead, a place of fiery torment (1 Enoch 90:20-27; 2 Esd 7:70). Over against that place of punishment stood “paradise” (a Persian name for a pleasure garden), a place where the righteous would enjoy blessedness.<\/p>\n<p>All those concepts—hades, Gehenna, paradise—were molded by NT writers into forms most appropriate to the revelation of Christ.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"IntheNewTestament\">In the New Testament<\/p>\n<p>Although the NT uses a variety of terms for the abode of the dead, it contains surprisingly few references to it—about 35 verses in all. Those passages are concentrated in the Gospels and the book of Revelation. The apostle Paul said a lot about heaven, but only Jesus and John said much about hell.<\/p>\n<p>The word “hades” is attributed to Jesus only once, in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus (Lk 16:23). In that parable hades is a place of torment where the wicked go at death. The torment is described as a “flame” that afflicts a person physically despite bodily death. All comfort is refused to those in agony.<\/p>\n<p>Although the wicked go to hades as soon as they die, their ultimate destination is Gehenna, a place of fire and worms, both indicating corruption (Mt 5:22, 29-30; 18:9; Mk 9:48, quoting from Is 66:24). Jesus also referred to Gehenna as “the outer darkness” where there will be “weeping and gnashing of teeth” (Mt 8:12; 22:13; 25:30). Evidently, after the final judgment, the wicked are sent there at the command of Christ (Jn 5:22, 27; Acts 10:42; 17:31; 2 Tm 4:1). That place of torment picks up the negative side of the OT concept of Sheol as a place of separation from God.<\/p>\n<p>As a preacher of repentance, Jesus stressed the danger of Gehenna. He had much less to say about the place of the righteous when they die. Ultimately, though, the righteous would enter into “the kingdom,” instead of Gehenna, after the last judgment (Mt 25:34). Jesus twice indicated that the righteous enter a blessed state immediately at death. Luke 16:22 refers to the dead Lazarus as being in “Abraham’s bosom,” a place of comfort and peace. Luke 23:43 calls the same place paradise in a promise that the dying thief would join Jesus there at death. Paul’s wording about paradise seems to align it with heaven (2 Cor 12:2-3), and John associates paradise with the new heaven and new earth (Rv 2:7; 21:1-2; 22:1-2).<\/p>\n<p>Paul and other writers of the NT epistles had little to say about the abode of the wicked dead. Paul spoke only in passing of “the abyss”—his term for the pit of Sheol (Rom 10:7). His reference to Christ’s descent to the “lower parts of the earth” (Eph 4:9) is probably only his way of saying that Christ, having died, went to the place of the dead. (“The lowest earth” was a term used by Jewish rabbis for Sheol\/hades\/Gehenna.) Peter spoke of Christ’s going in “spirit” after his death to some “prison” where he “preached to the spirits” (1 Pt 3:18-20). Interpretations of that passage differ. Some think that Christ entered hades and preached to the fallen angels of Noah’s day (“sons of God,” Gn 6:1-4), not that he preached to imprisoned human spirits. In 2 Peter 2:4 the prison for spirits (usually translated “hell”) comes from “Tartarus,” another Greek name for the underworld.<\/p>\n<p>Paul had much to say about the abode of the righteous dead. In his earliest letters he never mentioned their location, only that they would be resurrected (1 Cor 15; 1 Thes 4:13-17). After facing almost certain death himself (2 Cor 1:8-11), he began to discuss where the dead “went.” To die means to be with Christ, Paul said, and thus is better than life (Phil 1:23). To be “away from the body” is to be “at home with the Lord” (2 Cor 5:8). Paul probably meant that the righteous dead went directly to paradise to be with Jesus (cf. 2 Cor 12:2-4, where Paul called paradise “the third heaven”). Death has absolutely no power to separate Christians from Christ (Rom 8:38-39). Instead, it brings them into the presence of God.<\/p>\n<p>The book of Revelation contains much about the abode of the dead, especially the wicked dead. It uses two names for that place: “the abyss,” the home or prison of all evil spirits; and “hades,” the name for the place of the human dead. From the abyss (or bottomless pit) come the demonic forms that torment humanity (Rv 9:1-11) and the satanic “beast,” who kills the two witnesses and carries the “great prostitute” on its back (11:7; 17). There Satan himself will be imprisoned (20:2-3). Jesus described it as a place prepared for the devil and his angels (cf. Mt 25:41). The good news for Christians is that the abyss, or hades, is not an autonomous realm. The book of Revelation begins with Jesus’ announcement that he has the keys to hades (Rv 1:18), and in the end he will force it to give up its dead (20:13). Until then, the key to the abyss is not in the hand of Satan, but hangs on a heavenly key ring to be distributed only to the messengers of God (9:1; 20:1). In the end, hades, death, and the wicked will be cast into the lake of fire (Gehenna), where they will suffer eternal torment (19:20; 20:10, 14-15; 21:8).<\/p>\n<p>John, the writer of the Revelation, agreed with Paul that the righteous will not share the fate of the wicked at death. Instead of going to hades, they go to heaven. The martyrs appear under the altar, calling to God to avenge them (Rv 6:9-11). In another image innumerable Christians appear before the throne of God, praising him (7:9-17). Those believers, shepherded by Christ himself, suffer no hunger, thirst, discomfort, or sorrow.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Conclusion\">Conclusion<\/p>\n<p>In summary, the place of the dead began in the OT as an undifferentiated, hazy idea of a place of separation from life and God. Later writers came to see that instead of one place for all (Sheol), there must be two. According to Christian teaching, the wicked enter the underworld, hades, a place of torment, where they suffer until the time of judgment; ultimately they will be cast into Gehenna, the lake of fire. Christ—not the devil—is in control of hades, as he is of the rest of creation. The righteous do not go to hades, but go directly to paradise (“Abraham’s bosom” or heaven). There they are with Christ; faith has become sight, suffering has become blessedness, and prayer has become praise. Christians believe that death, although fearful as the “last enemy,” has no torment for them. It has no power to separate them from their Lord. Rather, it brings them face-to-face with the One they love.<\/p>\n<p>This meeting may occur as soon as one dies or as soon as one is resurrected—the intervening time is of no consequence, because it is nothing more than just a time of sleep. In other words, the very next experience after death for the believer will be that of meeting Christ.<\/p>\n<p>Both Old and New Testaments speak of death as sleep. Commonly in the OT, when a person dies, he is said to go to sleep with his fathers (e.g., Dt 31:16; 2 Sm 7:12). Jesus himself spoke of death as sleep (Mt 9:24; Jn 11:11). So did the apostle Paul (1 Cor 11:30; 15:20, 51; 1 Thes 4:14). At least in some of these references it would seem that it is the temporary nature of death that is the reason why it is spoken of as sleep. Even in the OT passage Daniel 12:2, it is said that death is a sleep, until the dead rise up—some to everlasting life and some to shame and everlasting contempt.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Gehenna; Hades; Heaven; Hell; Intermediate State; Paradise; Sheol.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>DEAD, Place of the<\/h3>\n<p>Term covering a number of descriptive biblical images of the whereabouts of those who have died. Those images include Sheol and “the pit” in the OT, plus hades, Gehenna, paradise, and “Abraham’s bosom” in the NT. As their understanding advanced, the Hebrews’ idea of what happens at death changed from rather hazy beginnings to a developed concept found in the NT.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"IntheOldTestament\">In the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>The OT contains meager information about the dead. At death, according to some OT passages, one descends to Sheol (often translated as “grave,” “hell,” “pit,” or simply “the dead”), which at times means merely that one is laid in a grave (Nm 16:30, 33), but more often indicates an underworld. The abode of the dead is pictured as a place beneath the earth to which one “goes down” (Gn 42:38; Prv 15:24; Ez 26:20) and as a place of gloomy darkness (Jb 10:21-22), silence (Pss 94:17; 115:17), and forgetfulness (Ps 88:12). God is not remembered there and his praises are never sung (Pss 6:5; 30:9; 115:17). Even God himself, it was believed, does not remember those who are there (Ps 88:5, 11; Is 38:18). The dead were seen as permanently cut off from contact with the Lord and from participating in his activity in history. Even though the border between life and death was considered fluid (as shown by a resurrection in 2 Kgs 4:32-37 and by Samuel’s ghost in 1 Sm 28:7-25), communication with the dead was forbidden to the Jews (Dt 18:11). (Worshiping the dead was a common practice in the nations surrounding Israel.)<\/p>\n<p>Although one’s fate in the underworld could not properly be called life, it was a kind of existence, perhaps even in the company of one’s countrymen and ancestors (Gn 25:8; Ez 32:17-30). The realm of the dead was not beyond the reach of God’s power (Ps 139:8; Am 9:2; Jon 2:2). Although Sheol was pictured as a hungry monster wolfing down the living (Prv 27:20; 30:16), God’s power could save one from its grasp (Pss 49:15; 86:13). By the end of the OT period, there was even hope that one would finally be delivered from Sheol (Jb 14:13-22; 19:25-27; Pss 49:15; 73:23-28), although only Daniel expressed that hope clearly (Dn 12:1-2). So although the ancient Hebrews never looked forward to death in the same way that the apostle Paul could in the NT (2 Cor 5:1-8; Phil 1:21-23), nevertheless they did come to understand that death was not a hopeless state.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"IntheIntertestamentalWritings\">In the Intertestamental Writings<\/p>\n<p>Between the exile and the beginning of the NT period (586 <span>BC<\/span>–<span>AD<\/span> 30, overlapping with the end of the OT), contact with the religions of Persia and Greece stimulated the Jews to clarify their ideas about life after death. When the OT was translated into Greek, the Greek name for the underworld, “hades,” was used to translate the Hebrew “Sheol.” In the NT, hades was carried over to become the common name for the abode of the dead.<\/p>\n<p>Along with new names came new ideas. Many different notions circulated about the place of the dead. A common one appears in the pseudepigraphal 1 Enoch 22, where the dead are said to be kept in hollow places in a great mountain waiting for the final judgment. One relatively pleasant section was reserved for the righteous and one full of torments for the wicked. Other writers continued the OT concept of hades or Sheol as a place of separation from God and from happiness (Ecclus 14:12, 16; 17:27-28).<\/p>\n<p>During that period, the Jews also began to use a new term, “Gehenna” (Hebrew “Hinnom”), the name of a valley south of Jerusalem. The valley was noted in the OT period for the abomination of child sacrifices (2 Kgs 16:3; 21:6; 23:10) and in the NT period for its smoldering garbage. Gehenna became a designation for the final place of the wicked dead, a place of fiery torment (1 Enoch 90:20-27; 2 Esd 7:70). Over against that place of punishment stood “paradise” (a Persian name for a pleasure garden), a place where the righteous would enjoy blessedness.<\/p>\n<p>All those concepts—hades, Gehenna, paradise—were molded by NT writers into forms most appropriate to the revelation of Christ.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"IntheNewTestament\">In the New Testament<\/p>\n<p>Although the NT uses a variety of terms for the abode of the dead, it contains surprisingly few references to it—about 35 verses in all. Those passages are concentrated in the Gospels and the book of Revelation. The apostle Paul said a lot about heaven, but only Jesus and John said much about hell.<\/p>\n<p>The word “hades” is attributed to Jesus only once, in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus (Lk 16:23). In that parable hades is a place of torment where the wicked go at death. The torment is described as a “flame” that afflicts a person physically despite bodily death. All comfort is refused to those in agony.<\/p>\n<p>Although the wicked go to hades as soon as they die, their ultimate destination is Gehenna, a place of fire and worms, both indicating corruption (Mt 5:22, 29-30; 18:9; Mk 9:48, quoting from Is 66:24). Jesus also referred to Gehenna as “the outer darkness” where there will be “weeping and gnashing of teeth” (Mt 8:12; 22:13; 25:30). Evidently, after the final judgment, the wicked are sent there at the command of Christ (Jn 5:22, 27; Acts 10:42; 17:31; 2 Tm 4:1). That place of torment picks up the negative side of the OT concept of Sheol as a place of separation from God.<\/p>\n<p>As a preacher of repentance, Jesus stressed the danger of Gehenna. He had much less to say about the place of the righteous when they die. Ultimately, though, the righteous would enter into “the kingdom,” instead of Gehenna, after the last judgment (Mt 25:34). Jesus twice indicated that the righteous enter a blessed state immediately at death. Luke 16:22 refers to the dead Lazarus as being in “Abraham’s bosom,” a place of comfort and peace. Luke 23:43 calls the same place paradise in a promise that the dying thief would join Jesus there at death. Paul’s wording about paradise seems to align it with heaven (2 Cor 12:2-3), and John associates paradise with the new heaven and new earth (Rv 2:7; 21:1-2; 22:1-2).<\/p>\n<p>Paul and other writers of the NT epistles had little to say about the abode of the wicked dead. Paul spoke only in passing of “the abyss”—his term for the pit of Sheol (Rom 10:7). His reference to Christ’s descent to the “lower parts of the earth” (Eph 4:9) is probably only his way of saying that Christ, having died, went to the place of the dead. (“The lowest earth” was a term used by Jewish rabbis for Sheol\/hades\/Gehenna.) Peter spoke of Christ’s going in “spirit” after his death to some “prison” where he “preached to the spirits” (1 Pt 3:18-20). Interpretations of that passage differ. Some think that Christ entered hades and preached to the fallen angels of Noah’s day (“sons of God,” Gn 6:1-4), not that he preached to imprisoned human spirits. In 2 Peter 2:4 the prison for spirits (usually translated “hell”) comes from “Tartarus,” another Greek name for the underworld.<\/p>\n<p>Paul had much to say about the abode of the righteous dead. In his earliest letters he never mentioned their location, only that they would be resurrected (1 Cor 15; 1 Thes 4:13-17). After facing almost certain death himself (2 Cor 1:8-11), he began to discuss where the dead “went.” To die means to be with Christ, Paul said, and thus is better than life (Phil 1:23). To be “away from the body” is to be “at home with the Lord” (2 Cor 5:8). Paul probably meant that the righteous dead went directly to paradise to be with Jesus (cf. 2 Cor 12:2-4, where Paul called paradise “the third heaven”). Death has absolutely no power to separate Christians from Christ (Rom 8:38-39). Instead, it brings them into the presence of God.<\/p>\n<p>The book of Revelation contains much about the abode of the dead, especially the wicked dead. It uses two names for that place: “the abyss,” the home or prison of all evil spirits; and “hades,” the name for the place of the human dead. From the abyss (or bottomless pit) come the demonic forms that torment humanity (Rv 9:1-11) and the satanic “beast,” who kills the two witnesses and carries the “great prostitute” on its back (11:7; 17). There Satan himself will be imprisoned (20:2-3). Jesus described it as a place prepared for the devil and his angels (cf. Mt 25:41). The good news for Christians is that the abyss, or hades, is not an autonomous realm. The book of Revelation begins with Jesus’ announcement that he has the keys to hades (Rv 1:18), and in the end he will force it to give up its dead (20:13). Until then, the key to the abyss is not in the hand of Satan, but hangs on a heavenly key ring to be distributed only to the messengers of God (9:1; 20:1). In the end, hades, death, and the wicked will be cast into the lake of fire (Gehenna), where they will suffer eternal torment (19:20; 20:10, 14-15; 21:8).<\/p>\n<p>John, the writer of the Revelation, agreed with Paul that the righteous will not share the fate of the wicked at death. Instead of going to hades, they go to heaven. The martyrs appear under the altar, calling to God to avenge them (Rv 6:9-11). In another image innumerable Christians appear before the throne of God, praising him (7:9-17). Those believers, shepherded by Christ himself, suffer no hunger, thirst, discomfort, or sorrow.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Conclusion\">Conclusion<\/p>\n<p>In summary, the place of the dead began in the OT as an undifferentiated, hazy idea of a place of separation from life and God. Later writers came to see that instead of one place for all (Sheol), there must be two. According to Christian teaching, the wicked enter the underworld, hades, a place of torment, where they suffer until the time of judgment; ultimately they will be cast into Gehenna, the lake of fire. Christ—not the devil—is in control of hades, as he is of the rest of creation. The righteous do not go to hades, but go directly to paradise (“Abraham’s bosom” or heaven). There they are with Christ; faith has become sight, suffering has become blessedness, and prayer has become praise. Christians believe that death, although fearful as the “last enemy,” has no torment for them. It has no power to separate them from their Lord. Rather, it brings them face-to-face with the One they love.<\/p>\n<p>This meeting may occur as soon as one dies or as soon as one is resurrected—the intervening time is of no consequence, because it is nothing more than just a time of sleep. In other words, the very next experience after death for the believer will be that of meeting Christ.<\/p>\n<p>Both Old and New Testaments speak of death as sleep. Commonly in the OT, when a person dies, he is said to go to sleep with his fathers (e.g., Dt 31:16; 2 Sm 7:12). Jesus himself spoke of death as sleep (Mt 9:24; Jn 11:11). So did the apostle Paul (1 Cor 11:30; 15:20, 51; 1 Thes 4:14). At least in some of these references it would seem that it is the temporary nature of death that is the reason why it is spoken of as sleep. Even in the OT passage Daniel 12:2, it is said that death is a sleep, until the dead rise up—some to everlasting life and some to shame and everlasting contempt.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Gehenna; Hades; Heaven; Hell; Intermediate State; Paradise; Sheol.<\/p>","summary_ro":"DEAD, Place of the Term covering a number of descriptive biblical images of the whereabouts of those who have died. Those images include Sheol and “the pit” in the OT, plus hades, Gehenna, paradise, and “Abraham’s bosom” in the NT. As their understanding advanced, the Hebrews’ idea of what happens at death changed from rather hazy beginnings to a developed concept found in the NT. In the Old Testament The OT contains meager information about the dead. At death, according to some OT passages, ...","summary_en":"DEAD, Place of the Term covering a number of descriptive biblical images of the whereabouts of those who have died. Those images include Sheol and “the pit” in the OT, plus hades, Gehenna, paradise, and “Abraham’s bosom” in the NT. As their understanding advanced, the Hebrews’ idea of what happens at death changed from rather hazy beginnings to a developed concept found in the NT. In the Old Testament The OT contains meager information about the dead. At death, according to some OT passages, ...","source":"Articles\/D.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":13353,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Gehenna*","title_en":"Gehenna*","content_ro":"<h3>GEHENNA*<\/h3>\n<p>English transliteration of the Greek form of an Aramaic word, which is derived from the Hebrew phrase “the Valley of [the son(s) of] Hinnom.” The name properly designates a deep valley delimiting the territories of the tribes of Benjamin and Judah (Jos 15:8; 18:16). It is commonly identified with Wadi el-Rababi that runs from beneath the western wall of the Old City, forming a deep ravine south of Jerusalem.<\/p>\n<p>The place became notorious because of the idolatrous practices that were carried out there in the days of Judah’s kings Ahaz and Manasseh, especially involving the heinous crime of infant sacrifices associated with the Molech ceremonies (2 Kgs 16:3; 21:6; 2 Chr 28:3; 33:6; Jer 19:6; 32:35). The spiritual reformation of King Josiah brought an end to these sinister proceedings (2 Kgs 23:10). The prophet Jeremiah referred to the valley in picturing God’s judgment upon his people (Jer 2:23; 7:30-32; 19:5-6).<\/p>\n<p>Subsequently, the valley appears to have been used for the burning of the city’s refuse and the dead bodies of criminals. Interestingly, a well-established tradition locates the scene of Judas’s suicide and the consequent purchase of the Potter’s Field on the south side of this valley.<\/p>\n<p>The ravine’s reputation for extreme wickedness gave rise, especially during the intertestamental period, to use of its name as a term for the place of final punishment for the wicked (1 Enoch 18:11-16; 27:1-3; 54:1ff.; 56:3-4; 90:26; 2 Esd 7:36; cf. Is 30:33; 66:24; Dn 7:10). Jesus himself utilizes the term to designate the final abode of the unrepentant wicked (Mt 5:22; 10:28; 18:9). Since Gehenna is a fiery abyss (Mk 9:43), it is also the lake of fire (Mt 13:42, 50; Rv 20:14-15) to which all the godless will ultimately be consigned (Mt 23:15, 33), together with Satan and his devils (Mt 25:41; Rv 19:20; 20:10).<\/p>\n<p>Gehenna must be carefully differentiated from other terms relative to the afterlife or final state. Whereas the OT “Sheol” and NT “hades” uniformly designate the temporary abode of the dead (before the last Day of Judgment), “Gehenna” specifies the final place where the wicked will suffer everlasting punishment (cf. Ps 49:14-15 with Mt 10:28). The Greek form “Tartarus” occurs only in 2 Peter 2:4 and identifies the particular abode of the angels who fell in the primeval satanic revolt.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Dead, Place of the; Death; Hades; Hell; Sheol.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>GEHENNA*<\/h3>\n<p>English transliteration of the Greek form of an Aramaic word, which is derived from the Hebrew phrase “the Valley of [the son(s) of] Hinnom.” The name properly designates a deep valley delimiting the territories of the tribes of Benjamin and Judah (Jos 15:8; 18:16). It is commonly identified with Wadi el-Rababi that runs from beneath the western wall of the Old City, forming a deep ravine south of Jerusalem.<\/p>\n<p>The place became notorious because of the idolatrous practices that were carried out there in the days of Judah’s kings Ahaz and Manasseh, especially involving the heinous crime of infant sacrifices associated with the Molech ceremonies (2 Kgs 16:3; 21:6; 2 Chr 28:3; 33:6; Jer 19:6; 32:35). The spiritual reformation of King Josiah brought an end to these sinister proceedings (2 Kgs 23:10). The prophet Jeremiah referred to the valley in picturing God’s judgment upon his people (Jer 2:23; 7:30-32; 19:5-6).<\/p>\n<p>Subsequently, the valley appears to have been used for the burning of the city’s refuse and the dead bodies of criminals. Interestingly, a well-established tradition locates the scene of Judas’s suicide and the consequent purchase of the Potter’s Field on the south side of this valley.<\/p>\n<p>The ravine’s reputation for extreme wickedness gave rise, especially during the intertestamental period, to use of its name as a term for the place of final punishment for the wicked (1 Enoch 18:11-16; 27:1-3; 54:1ff.; 56:3-4; 90:26; 2 Esd 7:36; cf. Is 30:33; 66:24; Dn 7:10). Jesus himself utilizes the term to designate the final abode of the unrepentant wicked (Mt 5:22; 10:28; 18:9). Since Gehenna is a fiery abyss (Mk 9:43), it is also the lake of fire (Mt 13:42, 50; Rv 20:14-15) to which all the godless will ultimately be consigned (Mt 23:15, 33), together with Satan and his devils (Mt 25:41; Rv 19:20; 20:10).<\/p>\n<p>Gehenna must be carefully differentiated from other terms relative to the afterlife or final state. Whereas the OT “Sheol” and NT “hades” uniformly designate the temporary abode of the dead (before the last Day of Judgment), “Gehenna” specifies the final place where the wicked will suffer everlasting punishment (cf. Ps 49:14-15 with Mt 10:28). The Greek form “Tartarus” occurs only in 2 Peter 2:4 and identifies the particular abode of the angels who fell in the primeval satanic revolt.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Dead, Place of the; Death; Hades; Hell; Sheol.<\/p>","summary_ro":"GEHENNA* English transliteration of the Greek form of an Aramaic word, which is derived from the Hebrew phrase “the Valley of [the son(s) of] Hinnom.” The name properly designates a deep valley delimiting the territories of the tribes of Benjamin and Judah (Jos 15:8; 18:16). It is commonly identified with Wadi el-Rababi that runs from beneath the western wall of the Old City, forming a deep ravine south of Jerusalem. The place became notorious because of the idolatrous practices that were car...","summary_en":"GEHENNA* English transliteration of the Greek form of an Aramaic word, which is derived from the Hebrew phrase “the Valley of [the son(s) of] Hinnom.” The name properly designates a deep valley delimiting the territories of the tribes of Benjamin and Judah (Jos 15:8; 18:16). It is commonly identified with Wadi el-Rababi that runs from beneath the western wall of the Old City, forming a deep ravine south of Jerusalem. The place became notorious because of the idolatrous practices that were car...","source":"Articles\/G.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":16404,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"High Place","title_en":"High Place","content_ro":"<h3>HIGH PLACE<\/h3>\n<p>Phrase commonly translated from the Hebrew bamah, which apparently derived from a word originally meaning “the back (or ridge) of an animal.” Thus it came to refer to a height or hill or a stone burial cairn. Usually it was an elevated worship center, such as the ones referred to in Numbers 33:51-52, 1 Samuel 9:13-14, 2 Kings 12:3, 2 Chronicles 21:11, and Ezekiel 36:1-2. But sometimes (as in 2 Kgs 23:8) it was a <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">bamah<\/span> of the gate, a sanctuary with no special reference to height, located at the city gate as in Dan and Beersheba. It might even have been placed in a declivity (Jer 7:31).<\/p>\n<p>That a <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">bamah<\/span> might simply be a burial place with commemorative stelae or memorial stones is clear from such a passage as Ezekiel 43:7. An illustration of such a <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">bamah<\/span> is the so-called Gezer high place. This Bronze Age center with its 10 huge pillars is now interpreted as a mortuary shrine instead of a sanctuary in the strict sense of the term.<\/p>\n<p>A second word translated “high place” is <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">ramah<\/span> (elevation), from the Hebrew meaning “to be high.” Ezekiel used this term to refer to illicit worship centers (16:24-25, 31-39) that evidently had no necessary connection with height.<\/p>\n<p>One of the best-known and best-preserved of all high places in the vicinity of Palestine is the great high place at Petra, discovered by George L. Robinson in 1900. Located on a ridge west of the Khazneh, or treasury, it consists of a large rectangular court and adjacent altars. The court is about 47 feet (14.3 meters) long and 21 feet (6.4 meters) wide and is cut into the rock platform to a depth of 18 inches (45.7 centimeters). West of the court stand a square and a round altar, each hewn from the solid rock. South of the court is a pool measuring about eight and a half by nine and a half feet (2.6 by 2.9 meters) and cut four feet (1.2 meters) into the rock. South of the pool stand two sacred obelisks or pillars, also cut out of the solid rock. This whole complex is reached from a lower terrace by two flights of stairs. At this center the ancient Nabatean inhabitants of Petra evidently engaged in feasts and sacrifices to honor their gods. Though the worship center in its present form does not date before the first century <span>BC<\/span>, it preserves an ancient tradition of Transjordan and illustrates the pagan and Israelite high places of OT times.<\/p>\n<p>The pagan high place was usually located on a physical height, where one could feel closer to the god. Its first essential was an altar, which might be a heap of earth, unhewn stones, or a unit cut out of the solid rock. Second, there was a stone pillar (Dt 12:3) or obelisk <em>(<\/em><span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">matsebah<\/span><em>)<\/em> representing the male deity and having phallic associations; third, a tree or pole <em>(<\/em><span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">asherah<\/span><em>)<\/em> representing the female deity (a fertility goddess); and fourth, a laver for ceremonial washings. A sanctuary with an image of the deity also required a building of some sort to protect it (2 Kgs 17:29).<\/p>\n<p>At these pagan high places sacrifices of animals and sometimes of human beings took place, and religious prostitution or homosexual acts were common. It is natural that such practices should develop in a context of sympathetic magic, where promiscuity and breeding among human beings was supposed to influence animals and crops.<\/p>\n<p>The Hebrews had legitimate high places between the time of the destruction of the tabernacle at Shiloh and construction of the temple, though there was little similarity to pagan accoutrements or practices, apart from the presence of an altar and the offering of sacrifices. At one high place the people ate a sacrificial meal before Samuel anointed Saul king (1 Sm 9:12–10:1). The tabernacle was located at the high place of Gibeon during the reign of David (1 Chr 16:39; 21:29). Solomon offered sacrifices at several high places (1 Kgs 3:2-3), and at the high place of Gibeon he met God and was granted the gift of wisdom for his administration (vv 4-15). Once Solomon’s temple was completed, high places were eliminated and were off-limits for the Hebrews.<\/p>\n<p>When the Hebrews entered Canaan, they encountered pagan peoples who had long worshiped at high places. God commanded the Israelites to destroy those sanctuaries (Nm 33:51-52) to avoid contamination by them, but the warning went largely unheeded. At the height of the Hebrew kingdom, after Solomon had completed the temple, he built high places for the god Chemosh of Moab, Molech of Ammon, and other gods of his pagan wives. For this sin God determined to split the Hebrew kingdom (1 Kgs 11:7-11).<\/p>\n<p>After the division of the kingdom, Jeroboam established high places at Dan and Bethel, and Ahab and others proliferated their construction. Judgment was prophesied (1 Kgs 13:2-3; 2 Kgs 17:7-18), and ultimately the kingdom of Israel went into captivity to Assyria for her idolatry.<\/p>\n<p>Rehoboam, the first king of the southern kingdom, spread high places all over his domain (1 Kgs 14:23-24). Though King Asa launched a revival of true religion, he did not remove the high places (15:12-14). Jehoshaphat also initiated revival, but again the high places remained (22:43). On the other hand, his son Jehoram and his wife, Athaliah, encouraged their construction (2 Chr 21:11). Joash, during his revival, did not eliminate the high places (2 Kgs 12:3), nor did the good king Uzziah in similar efforts (15:3-4). Ahaz made no pretense of faithfulness to God, and actively encouraged the idolatry of the pagan sanctuaries (16:3-4). Finally, Hezekiah launched a campaign against the high places (2 Chr 31:1), but his policies were reversed during the reign of his wicked son Manasseh (2 Kgs 21:2-9). Josiah led the last Judean revival and again attacked the high places (23:5, 8).<\/p>\n<p>The prophets Isaiah (Is 15:2; 16:12), Jeremiah (Jer 48:35), Ezekiel (Ez 6:3), Hosea (Hos 10:8), and Amos (Am 7:9) roundly condemned these centers of idolatry. <em>See<\/em> Canaanite Deities and Religion; Gods and Goddesses; Grove; Idols, Idolatry.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>HIGH PLACE<\/h3>\n<p>Phrase commonly translated from the Hebrew bamah, which apparently derived from a word originally meaning “the back (or ridge) of an animal.” Thus it came to refer to a height or hill or a stone burial cairn. Usually it was an elevated worship center, such as the ones referred to in Numbers 33:51-52, 1 Samuel 9:13-14, 2 Kings 12:3, 2 Chronicles 21:11, and Ezekiel 36:1-2. But sometimes (as in 2 Kgs 23:8) it was a <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">bamah<\/span> of the gate, a sanctuary with no special reference to height, located at the city gate as in Dan and Beersheba. It might even have been placed in a declivity (Jer 7:31).<\/p>\n<p>That a <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">bamah<\/span> might simply be a burial place with commemorative stelae or memorial stones is clear from such a passage as Ezekiel 43:7. An illustration of such a <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">bamah<\/span> is the so-called Gezer high place. This Bronze Age center with its 10 huge pillars is now interpreted as a mortuary shrine instead of a sanctuary in the strict sense of the term.<\/p>\n<p>A second word translated “high place” is <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">ramah<\/span> (elevation), from the Hebrew meaning “to be high.” Ezekiel used this term to refer to illicit worship centers (16:24-25, 31-39) that evidently had no necessary connection with height.<\/p>\n<p>One of the best-known and best-preserved of all high places in the vicinity of Palestine is the great high place at Petra, discovered by George L. Robinson in 1900. Located on a ridge west of the Khazneh, or treasury, it consists of a large rectangular court and adjacent altars. The court is about 47 feet (14.3 meters) long and 21 feet (6.4 meters) wide and is cut into the rock platform to a depth of 18 inches (45.7 centimeters). West of the court stand a square and a round altar, each hewn from the solid rock. South of the court is a pool measuring about eight and a half by nine and a half feet (2.6 by 2.9 meters) and cut four feet (1.2 meters) into the rock. South of the pool stand two sacred obelisks or pillars, also cut out of the solid rock. This whole complex is reached from a lower terrace by two flights of stairs. At this center the ancient Nabatean inhabitants of Petra evidently engaged in feasts and sacrifices to honor their gods. Though the worship center in its present form does not date before the first century <span>BC<\/span>, it preserves an ancient tradition of Transjordan and illustrates the pagan and Israelite high places of OT times.<\/p>\n<p>The pagan high place was usually located on a physical height, where one could feel closer to the god. Its first essential was an altar, which might be a heap of earth, unhewn stones, or a unit cut out of the solid rock. Second, there was a stone pillar (Dt 12:3) or obelisk <em>(<\/em><span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">matsebah<\/span><em>)<\/em> representing the male deity and having phallic associations; third, a tree or pole <em>(<\/em><span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">asherah<\/span><em>)<\/em> representing the female deity (a fertility goddess); and fourth, a laver for ceremonial washings. A sanctuary with an image of the deity also required a building of some sort to protect it (2 Kgs 17:29).<\/p>\n<p>At these pagan high places sacrifices of animals and sometimes of human beings took place, and religious prostitution or homosexual acts were common. It is natural that such practices should develop in a context of sympathetic magic, where promiscuity and breeding among human beings was supposed to influence animals and crops.<\/p>\n<p>The Hebrews had legitimate high places between the time of the destruction of the tabernacle at Shiloh and construction of the temple, though there was little similarity to pagan accoutrements or practices, apart from the presence of an altar and the offering of sacrifices. At one high place the people ate a sacrificial meal before Samuel anointed Saul king (1 Sm 9:12–10:1). The tabernacle was located at the high place of Gibeon during the reign of David (1 Chr 16:39; 21:29). Solomon offered sacrifices at several high places (1 Kgs 3:2-3), and at the high place of Gibeon he met God and was granted the gift of wisdom for his administration (vv 4-15). Once Solomon’s temple was completed, high places were eliminated and were off-limits for the Hebrews.<\/p>\n<p>When the Hebrews entered Canaan, they encountered pagan peoples who had long worshiped at high places. God commanded the Israelites to destroy those sanctuaries (Nm 33:51-52) to avoid contamination by them, but the warning went largely unheeded. At the height of the Hebrew kingdom, after Solomon had completed the temple, he built high places for the god Chemosh of Moab, Molech of Ammon, and other gods of his pagan wives. For this sin God determined to split the Hebrew kingdom (1 Kgs 11:7-11).<\/p>\n<p>After the division of the kingdom, Jeroboam established high places at Dan and Bethel, and Ahab and others proliferated their construction. Judgment was prophesied (1 Kgs 13:2-3; 2 Kgs 17:7-18), and ultimately the kingdom of Israel went into captivity to Assyria for her idolatry.<\/p>\n<p>Rehoboam, the first king of the southern kingdom, spread high places all over his domain (1 Kgs 14:23-24). Though King Asa launched a revival of true religion, he did not remove the high places (15:12-14). Jehoshaphat also initiated revival, but again the high places remained (22:43). On the other hand, his son Jehoram and his wife, Athaliah, encouraged their construction (2 Chr 21:11). Joash, during his revival, did not eliminate the high places (2 Kgs 12:3), nor did the good king Uzziah in similar efforts (15:3-4). Ahaz made no pretense of faithfulness to God, and actively encouraged the idolatry of the pagan sanctuaries (16:3-4). Finally, Hezekiah launched a campaign against the high places (2 Chr 31:1), but his policies were reversed during the reign of his wicked son Manasseh (2 Kgs 21:2-9). Josiah led the last Judean revival and again attacked the high places (23:5, 8).<\/p>\n<p>The prophets Isaiah (Is 15:2; 16:12), Jeremiah (Jer 48:35), Ezekiel (Ez 6:3), Hosea (Hos 10:8), and Amos (Am 7:9) roundly condemned these centers of idolatry. <em>See<\/em> Canaanite Deities and Religion; Gods and Goddesses; Grove; Idols, Idolatry.<\/p>","summary_ro":"HIGH PLACE Phrase commonly translated from the Hebrew bamah, which apparently derived from a word originally meaning “the back (or ridge) of an animal.” Thus it came to refer to a height or hill or a stone burial cairn. Usually it was an elevated worship center, such as the ones referred to in Numbers 33:51-52, 1 Samuel 9:13-14, 2 Kings 12:3, 2 Chronicles 21:11, and Ezekiel 36:1-2. But sometimes (as in 2 Kgs 23:8) it was a bamah of the gate, a sanctuary with no special reference to height, lo...","summary_en":"HIGH PLACE Phrase commonly translated from the Hebrew bamah, which apparently derived from a word originally meaning “the back (or ridge) of an animal.” Thus it came to refer to a height or hill or a stone burial cairn. Usually it was an elevated worship center, such as the ones referred to in Numbers 33:51-52, 1 Samuel 9:13-14, 2 Kings 12:3, 2 Chronicles 21:11, and Ezekiel 36:1-2. But sometimes (as in 2 Kgs 23:8) it was a bamah of the gate, a sanctuary with no special reference to height, lo...","source":"Articles\/H.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":40017,"type":"textbox","type_label":"Notă explicativă","type_icon":"💡","type_color":"#8b5cf6","title_ro":"Did Jephthah Offer His Daughter as a Human Sacrifice?","title_en":"Jephthah Offer His Daughter as a Human Sacrifice?, Did","content_ro":"<h3>Did Jephthah Offer His Daughter as a Human Sacrifice?<\/h3>\n<blockquote><p>We know that human sacrifice was practiced at that time, though it was abhorred by the Hebrews and prohibited in the Mosaic law (Lv 18:21; cf. Ex 13:13). Did Jephthah, however, have his daughter killed? The text points to this sad reality. Indeed, the father’s cry seems conclusive proof that her life was to be forfeited as a sacrifice, and the language and tone of the Hebrew text bears this out. The theory that she was spared to become the founder of a sisterhood of perpetual virgins is of very late, medieval origin. The daughter exhibited extraordinary self-denial in her understanding of and respect for her father’s commitment. Such a sacrifice was by no means infrequent in Israel, and common in other cultures, however repugnant it seems to us today. For other evidences of its practice, see 2 Kings 16:3, 17:17, 21:6, Jeremiah 7:31, and Micah 6:7. That this took place illustrates how deeply ingrained Canaanite religious practice was in Israel during this dark age.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>We should not think that God was pleased with this sacrifice. In fact, God had provided a way out for anyone who had made a rash vow. Those who made rash vows were commanded to confess their sins and then make an offering for sin, whether it be a sheep, a bird, or even fine flour (see Lv 5:4-13).<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Did Jephthah Offer His Daughter as a Human Sacrifice?<\/h3>\n<blockquote><p>We know that human sacrifice was practiced at that time, though it was abhorred by the Hebrews and prohibited in the Mosaic law (Lv 18:21; cf. Ex 13:13). Did Jephthah, however, have his daughter killed? The text points to this sad reality. Indeed, the father’s cry seems conclusive proof that her life was to be forfeited as a sacrifice, and the language and tone of the Hebrew text bears this out. The theory that she was spared to become the founder of a sisterhood of perpetual virgins is of very late, medieval origin. The daughter exhibited extraordinary self-denial in her understanding of and respect for her father’s commitment. Such a sacrifice was by no means infrequent in Israel, and common in other cultures, however repugnant it seems to us today. For other evidences of its practice, see 2 Kings 16:3, 17:17, 21:6, Jeremiah 7:31, and Micah 6:7. That this took place illustrates how deeply ingrained Canaanite religious practice was in Israel during this dark age.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>We should not think that God was pleased with this sacrifice. In fact, God had provided a way out for anyone who had made a rash vow. Those who made rash vows were commanded to confess their sins and then make an offering for sin, whether it be a sheep, a bird, or even fine flour (see Lv 5:4-13).<\/p>","summary_ro":"Did Jephthah Offer His Daughter as a Human Sacrifice? We know that human sacrifice was practiced at that time, though it was abhorred by the Hebrews and prohibited in the Mosaic law (Lv 18:21; cf. Ex 13:13). Did Jephthah, however, have his daughter killed? The text points to this sad reality. Indeed, the father’s cry seems conclusive proof that her life was to be forfeited as a sacrifice, and the language and tone of the Hebrew text bears this out. The theory that she was spared to become the...","summary_en":"Did Jephthah Offer His Daughter as a Human Sacrifice? We know that human sacrifice was practiced at that time, though it was abhorred by the Hebrews and prohibited in the Mosaic law (Lv 18:21; cf. Ex 13:13). Did Jephthah, however, have his daughter killed? The text points to this sad reality. Indeed, the father’s cry seems conclusive proof that her life was to be forfeited as a sacrifice, and the language and tone of the Hebrew text bears this out. The theory that she was spared to become the...","source":"Textboxes\/Textboxes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":62096,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Purity and Identity","title_en":"Purity and Identity","content_ro":"<h3>Purity and Identity<\/h3>\n<p>God is holy, and he made a covenant with Israel to establish a holy nation (Exod 19:4-6; Lev 19:2). Israel’s identity as God’s people required purity in worship and in social relationships. God knew that if his people mingled with their pagan neighbors, they would be drawn into their detestable worship practices (see Num 25:1-9). Their failure to maintain purity and their assimilation to the surrounding cultures ultimately led to their destruction and exile (2 Kgs 17:5-23).<\/p>\n<p>When Ezra wrote to the Jews who had returned to Jerusalem, one of his main purposes was to remind them of their need to remain pure in their beliefs and commitments. After arriving in Jerusalem, Ezra found that the people had intermarried with pagan foreigners, even though doing so was not permitted in God’s law (see Deut 7:3-4; Josh 23:12-13). As a result, their identity as God’s holy nation was in danger of disintegrating once again (Ezra 9:1-2).<\/p>\n<p>To impress on his readers the need for separation from these foreigners, Ezra recounts how those who first returned to Jerusalem refused to cooperate with the pagan people living around them (4:1-5). These people claimed to worship the same God, but they actually worshiped several gods in addition to Israel’s God. If the Jews had joined with these people, they soon would have compromised their beliefs and become ungodly, just as Israel had done before the Exile (see Exod 34:15-16; 1 Kgs 11:1-5; 2 Kgs 16:3). Those early leaders of the Jews in Judea understood the danger of accommodating these foreigners. They learned from their ancestors’ experience and refused to compromise the purity of their faith for the sake of peace. They carefully followed God’s instructions in everything they did (Ezra 3:2, 9; 6:18). If they were going to identify themselves as “the servants of the God of heaven and earth” (5:11), they would need to please and serve him and no other gods.<\/p>\n<p>Believers today are identified as God’s holy people (1 Pet 2:9), a title that speaks of purity. Paul admonished the Corinthians to refrain from marrying unbelievers—for Christ and Satan have no fellowship (2 Cor 6:14-15). Righteousness and unrighteousness do not mix. The people of God must dissociate themselves from all behavior that defiles, instead clothing themselves with attitudes and actions that befit their holy status (Col 3:5-15).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 27:46–28:5; Exod 19:4-6; 34:15-16; Lev 19:2; Deut 7:3-4; Josh 23:12-13; 1 Kgs 11:1-5; Ezra 4:1-5; 5:11; 9:1–10:11; Mal 2:15; 1 Cor 6:15-20; 2 Cor 6:14-18; 2 Tim 2:21-22; 1 Pet 2:9-10<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Purity and Identity<\/h3>\n<p>God is holy, and he made a covenant with Israel to establish a holy nation (Exod 19:4-6; Lev 19:2). Israel’s identity as God’s people required purity in worship and in social relationships. God knew that if his people mingled with their pagan neighbors, they would be drawn into their detestable worship practices (see Num 25:1-9). Their failure to maintain purity and their assimilation to the surrounding cultures ultimately led to their destruction and exile (2 Kgs 17:5-23).<\/p>\n<p>When Ezra wrote to the Jews who had returned to Jerusalem, one of his main purposes was to remind them of their need to remain pure in their beliefs and commitments. After arriving in Jerusalem, Ezra found that the people had intermarried with pagan foreigners, even though doing so was not permitted in God’s law (see Deut 7:3-4; Josh 23:12-13). As a result, their identity as God’s holy nation was in danger of disintegrating once again (Ezra 9:1-2).<\/p>\n<p>To impress on his readers the need for separation from these foreigners, Ezra recounts how those who first returned to Jerusalem refused to cooperate with the pagan people living around them (4:1-5). These people claimed to worship the same God, but they actually worshiped several gods in addition to Israel’s God. If the Jews had joined with these people, they soon would have compromised their beliefs and become ungodly, just as Israel had done before the Exile (see Exod 34:15-16; 1 Kgs 11:1-5; 2 Kgs 16:3). Those early leaders of the Jews in Judea understood the danger of accommodating these foreigners. They learned from their ancestors’ experience and refused to compromise the purity of their faith for the sake of peace. They carefully followed God’s instructions in everything they did (Ezra 3:2, 9; 6:18). If they were going to identify themselves as “the servants of the God of heaven and earth” (5:11), they would need to please and serve him and no other gods.<\/p>\n<p>Believers today are identified as God’s holy people (1 Pet 2:9), a title that speaks of purity. Paul admonished the Corinthians to refrain from marrying unbelievers—for Christ and Satan have no fellowship (2 Cor 6:14-15). Righteousness and unrighteousness do not mix. The people of God must dissociate themselves from all behavior that defiles, instead clothing themselves with attitudes and actions that befit their holy status (Col 3:5-15).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 27:46–28:5; Exod 19:4-6; 34:15-16; Lev 19:2; Deut 7:3-4; Josh 23:12-13; 1 Kgs 11:1-5; Ezra 4:1-5; 5:11; 9:1–10:11; Mal 2:15; 1 Cor 6:15-20; 2 Cor 6:14-18; 2 Tim 2:21-22; 1 Pet 2:9-10<\/p>","summary_ro":"Purity and Identity God is holy, and he made a covenant with Israel to establish a holy nation (Exod 19:4-6; Lev 19:2). Israel’s identity as God’s people required purity in worship and in social relationships. God knew that if his people mingled with their pagan neighbors, they would be drawn into their detestable worship practices (see Num 25:1-9). Their failure to maintain purity and their assimilation to the surrounding cultures ultimately led to their destruction and exile (2 Kgs 17:5-23)...","summary_en":"Purity and Identity God is holy, and he made a covenant with Israel to establish a holy nation (Exod 19:4-6; Lev 19:2). Israel’s identity as God’s people required purity in worship and in social relationships. God knew that if his people mingled with their pagan neighbors, they would be drawn into their detestable worship practices (see Num 25:1-9). Their failure to maintain purity and their assimilation to the surrounding cultures ultimately led to their destruction and exile (2 Kgs 17:5-23)...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":89722,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Purity and Identity","title_en":"Purity and Identity","content_ro":"<h3>Purity and Identity<\/h3>\n<p>God is holy, and he made a covenant with Israel to establish a holy nation (Exod 19:4-6; Lev 19:2). Israel’s identity as God’s people required purity in worship and in social relationships. God knew that if his people mingled with their pagan neighbors, they would be drawn into their detestable worship practices (see Num 25:1-9). Their failure to maintain purity and their assimilation to the surrounding cultures ultimately led to their destruction and exile (2 Kgs 17:5-23).<\/p>\n<p>When Ezra wrote to the Jews who had returned to Jerusalem, one of his main purposes was to remind them of their need to remain pure in their beliefs and commitments. After arriving in Jerusalem, Ezra found that the people had intermarried with pagan foreigners, even though doing so was not permitted in God’s law (see Deut 7:3-4; Josh 23:12-13). As a result, their identity as God’s holy nation was in danger of disintegrating once again (Ezra 9:1-2).<\/p>\n<p>To impress on his readers the need for separation from these foreigners, Ezra recounts how those who first returned to Jerusalem refused to cooperate with the pagan people living around them (4:1-5). These people claimed to worship the same God, but they actually worshiped several gods in addition to Israel’s God. If the Jews had joined with these people, they soon would have compromised their beliefs and become ungodly, just as Israel had done before the Exile (see Exod 34:15-16; 1 Kgs 11:1-5; 2 Kgs 16:3). Those early leaders of the Jews in Judea understood the danger of accommodating these foreigners. They learned from their ancestors’ experience and refused to compromise the purity of their faith for the sake of peace. They carefully followed God’s instructions in everything they did (Ezra 3:2, 9; 6:18). If they were going to identify themselves as “the servants of the God of heaven and earth” (5:11), they would need to please and serve him and no other gods.<\/p>\n<p>Believers today are identified as God’s holy people (1 Pet 2:9), a title that speaks of purity. Paul admonished the Corinthians to refrain from marrying unbelievers—for Christ and Satan have no fellowship (2 Cor 6:14-15). Righteousness and unrighteousness do not mix. The people of God must dissociate themselves from all behavior that defiles, instead clothing themselves with attitudes and actions that befit their holy status (Col 3:5-15).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 27:46–28:5; Exod 19:4-6; 34:15-16; Lev 19:2; Deut 7:3-4; Josh 23:12-13; 1 Kgs 11:1-5; Ezra 4:1-5; 5:11; 9:1–10:11; Mal 2:15; 1 Cor 6:15-20; 2 Cor 6:14-18; 2 Tim 2:21-22; 1 Pet 2:9-10<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Purity and Identity<\/h3>\n<p>God is holy, and he made a covenant with Israel to establish a holy nation (Exod 19:4-6; Lev 19:2). Israel’s identity as God’s people required purity in worship and in social relationships. God knew that if his people mingled with their pagan neighbors, they would be drawn into their detestable worship practices (see Num 25:1-9). Their failure to maintain purity and their assimilation to the surrounding cultures ultimately led to their destruction and exile (2 Kgs 17:5-23).<\/p>\n<p>When Ezra wrote to the Jews who had returned to Jerusalem, one of his main purposes was to remind them of their need to remain pure in their beliefs and commitments. After arriving in Jerusalem, Ezra found that the people had intermarried with pagan foreigners, even though doing so was not permitted in God’s law (see Deut 7:3-4; Josh 23:12-13). As a result, their identity as God’s holy nation was in danger of disintegrating once again (Ezra 9:1-2).<\/p>\n<p>To impress on his readers the need for separation from these foreigners, Ezra recounts how those who first returned to Jerusalem refused to cooperate with the pagan people living around them (4:1-5). These people claimed to worship the same God, but they actually worshiped several gods in addition to Israel’s God. If the Jews had joined with these people, they soon would have compromised their beliefs and become ungodly, just as Israel had done before the Exile (see Exod 34:15-16; 1 Kgs 11:1-5; 2 Kgs 16:3). Those early leaders of the Jews in Judea understood the danger of accommodating these foreigners. They learned from their ancestors’ experience and refused to compromise the purity of their faith for the sake of peace. They carefully followed God’s instructions in everything they did (Ezra 3:2, 9; 6:18). If they were going to identify themselves as “the servants of the God of heaven and earth” (5:11), they would need to please and serve him and no other gods.<\/p>\n<p>Believers today are identified as God’s holy people (1 Pet 2:9), a title that speaks of purity. Paul admonished the Corinthians to refrain from marrying unbelievers—for Christ and Satan have no fellowship (2 Cor 6:14-15). Righteousness and unrighteousness do not mix. The people of God must dissociate themselves from all behavior that defiles, instead clothing themselves with attitudes and actions that befit their holy status (Col 3:5-15).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 27:46–28:5; Exod 19:4-6; 34:15-16; Lev 19:2; Deut 7:3-4; Josh 23:12-13; 1 Kgs 11:1-5; Ezra 4:1-5; 5:11; 9:1–10:11; Mal 2:15; 1 Cor 6:15-20; 2 Cor 6:14-18; 2 Tim 2:21-22; 1 Pet 2:9-10<\/p>","summary_ro":"Purity and Identity God is holy, and he made a covenant with Israel to establish a holy nation (Exod 19:4-6; Lev 19:2). Israel’s identity as God’s people required purity in worship and in social relationships. God knew that if his people mingled with their pagan neighbors, they would be drawn into their detestable worship practices (see Num 25:1-9). Their failure to maintain purity and their assimilation to the surrounding cultures ultimately led to their destruction and exile (2 Kgs 17:5-23)...","summary_en":"Purity and Identity God is holy, and he made a covenant with Israel to establish a holy nation (Exod 19:4-6; Lev 19:2). Israel’s identity as God’s people required purity in worship and in social relationships. God knew that if his people mingled with their pagan neighbors, they would be drawn into their detestable worship practices (see Num 25:1-9). Their failure to maintain purity and their assimilation to the surrounding cultures ultimately led to their destruction and exile (2 Kgs 17:5-23)...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":117348,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Purity and Identity","title_en":"Purity and Identity","content_ro":"<h3>Purity and Identity<\/h3>\n<p>God is holy, and he made a covenant with Israel to establish a holy nation (Exod 19:4-6; Lev 19:2). Israel’s identity as God’s people required purity in worship and in social relationships. God knew that if his people mingled with their pagan neighbors, they would be drawn into their detestable worship practices (see Num 25:1-9). Their failure to maintain purity and their assimilation to the surrounding cultures ultimately led to their destruction and exile (2 Kgs 17:5-23).<\/p>\n<p>When Ezra wrote to the Jews who had returned to Jerusalem, one of his main purposes was to remind them of their need to remain pure in their beliefs and commitments. After arriving in Jerusalem, Ezra found that the people had intermarried with pagan foreigners, even though doing so was not permitted in God’s law (see Deut 7:3-4; Josh 23:12-13). As a result, their identity as God’s holy nation was in danger of disintegrating once again (Ezra 9:1-2).<\/p>\n<p>To impress on his readers the need for separation from these foreigners, Ezra recounts how those who first returned to Jerusalem refused to cooperate with the pagan people living around them (4:1-5). These people claimed to worship the same God, but they actually worshiped several gods in addition to Israel’s God. If the Jews had joined with these people, they soon would have compromised their beliefs and become ungodly, just as Israel had done before the Exile (see Exod 34:15-16; 1 Kgs 11:1-5; 2 Kgs 16:3). Those early leaders of the Jews in Judea understood the danger of accommodating these foreigners. They learned from their ancestors’ experience and refused to compromise the purity of their faith for the sake of peace. They carefully followed God’s instructions in everything they did (Ezra 3:2, 9; 6:18). If they were going to identify themselves as “the servants of the God of heaven and earth” (5:11), they would need to please and serve him and no other gods.<\/p>\n<p>Believers today are identified as God’s holy people (1 Pet 2:9), a title that speaks of purity. Paul admonished the Corinthians to refrain from marrying unbelievers—for Christ and Satan have no fellowship (2 Cor 6:14-15). Righteousness and unrighteousness do not mix. The people of God must dissociate themselves from all behavior that defiles, instead clothing themselves with attitudes and actions that befit their holy status (Col 3:5-15).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 27:46–28:5; Exod 19:4-6; 34:15-16; Lev 19:2; Deut 7:3-4; Josh 23:12-13; 1 Kgs 11:1-5; Ezra 4:1-5; 5:11; 9:1–10:11; Mal 2:15; 1 Cor 6:15-20; 2 Cor 6:14-18; 2 Tim 2:21-22; 1 Pet 2:9-10<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Purity and Identity<\/h3>\n<p>God is holy, and he made a covenant with Israel to establish a holy nation (Exod 19:4-6; Lev 19:2). Israel’s identity as God’s people required purity in worship and in social relationships. God knew that if his people mingled with their pagan neighbors, they would be drawn into their detestable worship practices (see Num 25:1-9). Their failure to maintain purity and their assimilation to the surrounding cultures ultimately led to their destruction and exile (2 Kgs 17:5-23).<\/p>\n<p>When Ezra wrote to the Jews who had returned to Jerusalem, one of his main purposes was to remind them of their need to remain pure in their beliefs and commitments. After arriving in Jerusalem, Ezra found that the people had intermarried with pagan foreigners, even though doing so was not permitted in God’s law (see Deut 7:3-4; Josh 23:12-13). As a result, their identity as God’s holy nation was in danger of disintegrating once again (Ezra 9:1-2).<\/p>\n<p>To impress on his readers the need for separation from these foreigners, Ezra recounts how those who first returned to Jerusalem refused to cooperate with the pagan people living around them (4:1-5). These people claimed to worship the same God, but they actually worshiped several gods in addition to Israel’s God. If the Jews had joined with these people, they soon would have compromised their beliefs and become ungodly, just as Israel had done before the Exile (see Exod 34:15-16; 1 Kgs 11:1-5; 2 Kgs 16:3). Those early leaders of the Jews in Judea understood the danger of accommodating these foreigners. They learned from their ancestors’ experience and refused to compromise the purity of their faith for the sake of peace. They carefully followed God’s instructions in everything they did (Ezra 3:2, 9; 6:18). If they were going to identify themselves as “the servants of the God of heaven and earth” (5:11), they would need to please and serve him and no other gods.<\/p>\n<p>Believers today are identified as God’s holy people (1 Pet 2:9), a title that speaks of purity. Paul admonished the Corinthians to refrain from marrying unbelievers—for Christ and Satan have no fellowship (2 Cor 6:14-15). Righteousness and unrighteousness do not mix. The people of God must dissociate themselves from all behavior that defiles, instead clothing themselves with attitudes and actions that befit their holy status (Col 3:5-15).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 27:46–28:5; Exod 19:4-6; 34:15-16; Lev 19:2; Deut 7:3-4; Josh 23:12-13; 1 Kgs 11:1-5; Ezra 4:1-5; 5:11; 9:1–10:11; Mal 2:15; 1 Cor 6:15-20; 2 Cor 6:14-18; 2 Tim 2:21-22; 1 Pet 2:9-10<\/p>","summary_ro":"Purity and Identity God is holy, and he made a covenant with Israel to establish a holy nation (Exod 19:4-6; Lev 19:2). Israel’s identity as God’s people required purity in worship and in social relationships. God knew that if his people mingled with their pagan neighbors, they would be drawn into their detestable worship practices (see Num 25:1-9). Their failure to maintain purity and their assimilation to the surrounding cultures ultimately led to their destruction and exile (2 Kgs 17:5-23)...","summary_en":"Purity and Identity God is holy, and he made a covenant with Israel to establish a holy nation (Exod 19:4-6; Lev 19:2). Israel’s identity as God’s people required purity in worship and in social relationships. God knew that if his people mingled with their pagan neighbors, they would be drawn into their detestable worship practices (see Num 25:1-9). Their failure to maintain purity and their assimilation to the surrounding cultures ultimately led to their destruction and exile (2 Kgs 17:5-23)...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":144974,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Purity and Identity","title_en":"Purity and Identity","content_ro":"<h3>Purity and Identity<\/h3>\n<p>God is holy, and he made a covenant with Israel to establish a holy nation (Exod 19:4-6; Lev 19:2). Israel’s identity as God’s people required purity in worship and in social relationships. God knew that if his people mingled with their pagan neighbors, they would be drawn into their detestable worship practices (see Num 25:1-9). Their failure to maintain purity and their assimilation to the surrounding cultures ultimately led to their destruction and exile (2 Kgs 17:5-23).<\/p>\n<p>When Ezra wrote to the Jews who had returned to Jerusalem, one of his main purposes was to remind them of their need to remain pure in their beliefs and commitments. After arriving in Jerusalem, Ezra found that the people had intermarried with pagan foreigners, even though doing so was not permitted in God’s law (see Deut 7:3-4; Josh 23:12-13). As a result, their identity as God’s holy nation was in danger of disintegrating once again (Ezra 9:1-2).<\/p>\n<p>To impress on his readers the need for separation from these foreigners, Ezra recounts how those who first returned to Jerusalem refused to cooperate with the pagan people living around them (4:1-5). These people claimed to worship the same God, but they actually worshiped several gods in addition to Israel’s God. If the Jews had joined with these people, they soon would have compromised their beliefs and become ungodly, just as Israel had done before the Exile (see Exod 34:15-16; 1 Kgs 11:1-5; 2 Kgs 16:3). Those early leaders of the Jews in Judea understood the danger of accommodating these foreigners. They learned from their ancestors’ experience and refused to compromise the purity of their faith for the sake of peace. They carefully followed God’s instructions in everything they did (Ezra 3:2, 9; 6:18). If they were going to identify themselves as “the servants of the God of heaven and earth” (5:11), they would need to please and serve him and no other gods.<\/p>\n<p>Believers today are identified as God’s holy people (1 Pet 2:9), a title that speaks of purity. Paul admonished the Corinthians to refrain from marrying unbelievers—for Christ and Satan have no fellowship (2 Cor 6:14-15). Righteousness and unrighteousness do not mix. The people of God must dissociate themselves from all behavior that defiles, instead clothing themselves with attitudes and actions that befit their holy status (Col 3:5-15).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 27:46–28:5; Exod 19:4-6; 34:15-16; Lev 19:2; Deut 7:3-4; Josh 23:12-13; 1 Kgs 11:1-5; Ezra 4:1-5; 5:11; 9:1–10:11; Mal 2:15; 1 Cor 6:15-20; 2 Cor 6:14-18; 2 Tim 2:21-22; 1 Pet 2:9-10<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Purity and Identity<\/h3>\n<p>God is holy, and he made a covenant with Israel to establish a holy nation (Exod 19:4-6; Lev 19:2). Israel’s identity as God’s people required purity in worship and in social relationships. God knew that if his people mingled with their pagan neighbors, they would be drawn into their detestable worship practices (see Num 25:1-9). Their failure to maintain purity and their assimilation to the surrounding cultures ultimately led to their destruction and exile (2 Kgs 17:5-23).<\/p>\n<p>When Ezra wrote to the Jews who had returned to Jerusalem, one of his main purposes was to remind them of their need to remain pure in their beliefs and commitments. After arriving in Jerusalem, Ezra found that the people had intermarried with pagan foreigners, even though doing so was not permitted in God’s law (see Deut 7:3-4; Josh 23:12-13). As a result, their identity as God’s holy nation was in danger of disintegrating once again (Ezra 9:1-2).<\/p>\n<p>To impress on his readers the need for separation from these foreigners, Ezra recounts how those who first returned to Jerusalem refused to cooperate with the pagan people living around them (4:1-5). These people claimed to worship the same God, but they actually worshiped several gods in addition to Israel’s God. If the Jews had joined with these people, they soon would have compromised their beliefs and become ungodly, just as Israel had done before the Exile (see Exod 34:15-16; 1 Kgs 11:1-5; 2 Kgs 16:3). Those early leaders of the Jews in Judea understood the danger of accommodating these foreigners. They learned from their ancestors’ experience and refused to compromise the purity of their faith for the sake of peace. They carefully followed God’s instructions in everything they did (Ezra 3:2, 9; 6:18). If they were going to identify themselves as “the servants of the God of heaven and earth” (5:11), they would need to please and serve him and no other gods.<\/p>\n<p>Believers today are identified as God’s holy people (1 Pet 2:9), a title that speaks of purity. Paul admonished the Corinthians to refrain from marrying unbelievers—for Christ and Satan have no fellowship (2 Cor 6:14-15). Righteousness and unrighteousness do not mix. The people of God must dissociate themselves from all behavior that defiles, instead clothing themselves with attitudes and actions that befit their holy status (Col 3:5-15).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 27:46–28:5; Exod 19:4-6; 34:15-16; Lev 19:2; Deut 7:3-4; Josh 23:12-13; 1 Kgs 11:1-5; Ezra 4:1-5; 5:11; 9:1–10:11; Mal 2:15; 1 Cor 6:15-20; 2 Cor 6:14-18; 2 Tim 2:21-22; 1 Pet 2:9-10<\/p>","summary_ro":"Purity and Identity God is holy, and he made a covenant with Israel to establish a holy nation (Exod 19:4-6; Lev 19:2). Israel’s identity as God’s people required purity in worship and in social relationships. God knew that if his people mingled with their pagan neighbors, they would be drawn into their detestable worship practices (see Num 25:1-9). Their failure to maintain purity and their assimilation to the surrounding cultures ultimately led to their destruction and exile (2 Kgs 17:5-23)...","summary_en":"Purity and Identity God is holy, and he made a covenant with Israel to establish a holy nation (Exod 19:4-6; Lev 19:2). Israel’s identity as God’s people required purity in worship and in social relationships. God knew that if his people mingled with their pagan neighbors, they would be drawn into their detestable worship practices (see Num 25:1-9). Their failure to maintain purity and their assimilation to the surrounding cultures ultimately led to their destruction and exile (2 Kgs 17:5-23)...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"4":[{"id":7087,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Color","title_en":"Color","content_ro":"<h3>COLOR<\/h3>\n<p>The OT and NT have no exact word for “color,” although the word appears several times in our English Bibles. The words translated “color” have quite different meanings in the original languages.<\/p>\n<p>The word most frequently translated “colour” in the <span>kjv<\/span> literally means “eye” and suggests “appearance” (Lv 13:55; Nm 11:7; Prv 23:31; Ez 1:4, 7, 16, 22, 27; 8:2; 10:9; Dn 10:6). Only Leviticus 13:55 retains the translation “color” in the <span>rsv<\/span>. Other words translated as “color” in the <span>rsv<\/span> refer to facial appearance (Dn 5:6-10; 7:28), fabrics of variegated colors (Prv 7:16; Ez 17:3; 27:24), stones (1 Chr 29:2), and breastplates (Rv 9:17). Joseph’s “coat of many colours” (Gn 37:3, <span>kjv<\/span>) and Tamar’s “garment of divers colours” (2 Sm 13:18-19, <span>kjv<\/span>) were either long-sleeved robes or richly ornamented tunics that served as a mark of preferred status.<\/p>\n<p>In the NT, a word that means “pretense” is used archaically in Acts 27:30 and was interpreted as “colour” by the <span>kjv<\/span> translators. They also added the word “colour” to Revelation 17:4, evidently to clarify the meaning.<\/p>\n<p>Though many colors are mentioned in the Bible, colors are not particularly singled out for emphasis. Natural colors are seldom mentioned in descriptions. Colors that appear frequently and that are most carefully differentiated are manufactured colors, especially dyes.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"ColorsMentionedintheBible\">Colors Mentioned in the Bible<\/p>\n<p>Because the Hebrews perceived color differently than we do in Western culture, it is sometimes difficult to translate precisely the various Hebrew words denoting colors. Thus there is often a wide variation in translations of such words in English Bibles. To provide a base for comparison, this article will follow the <span>rsv<\/span> except as noted.<\/p>\n<p>Colors mentioned most often in the OT and NT are the following:<\/p>\n<p>“Black” is the translation of five words in the OT and one in the NT, expressing varying degrees of darkness. The words describe the color of lambs (Gn 30:32-33, 35, 40), hair (Lv 13:31, 37; Sg 5:11; Mt 5:36), skin (Jb 30:30), horses (Zec 6:2, 6; Rv 6:5), the sky (1 Kgs 18:45; Is 50:3; Jer 4:28), the day (Jb 3:5; Mi 3:6), the darkened sun (Rv 6:12), and an invading army (Jl 2:2). Job’s “blackness” (Jb 30:28) has been understood as disease or sadness.<\/p>\n<p>“Blue” probably refers to a blue-purple dye obtained from Mediterranean mollusks. A popular color, it was considered less desirable in antiquity than “royal” purple. Both dyes were produced in Tyre, which at one time had a monopoly on the manufacture of blue and purple dye (2 Chr 2:7, 14; Ez 27:24). Ships of Tyre had awnings of blue and purple (Ez 27:7). Blue was used in the tabernacle fabrics (Ex 26:1; Nm 4:6-9), the priests’ garments (Ex 28:5-6), in Solomon’s temple (2 Chr 2:7, 14), and in the Persian court (Est 1:6; 8:15). Blue is not mentioned in the NT.<\/p>\n<p>“Crimson” is the English translation of three different Hebrew words. This red color of varying shades was derived from certain insects. The word describes certain fabrics in Solomon’s temple (2 Chr 2:7, 14; 3:14) and was used figuratively to describe sin (Is 1:18). The word translated “crimsoned” to describe garments from Bozrah (63:1) probably means “vivid colors” rather than a specific hue.<\/p>\n<p>“Gray,” a color found only in the OT, is used exclusively to describe old age—as in gray hair or gray-headed (Gn 42:38; 44:29-31; Dt 32:25; 1 Sm 12:2; 1 Kgs 2:6, 9; Jb 15:10; Ps 71:18; Prv 20:29; Is 46:4; Hos 7:9). A different word used to describe dappled gray horses (Zec 6:3) probably means “spotted” or “speckled.”<\/p>\n<p>“Green” translates seven words in the OT and two in the NT. Most of the words refer to vegetation and are descriptive of the fresh or moist condition of plants rather than their color. The following are described as “green”: plants (Gn 1:30), trees (1 Kgs 14:23), branches (Jb 15:32), pastures (Ps 23:2; Jl 2:22), herbs (Ps 37:2), olive trees (Ps 52:8; Jer 11:16), thorns (Ps 58:9), leaves (Jer 17:8), grass (Mk 6:39; Rv 8:7), and wood (Lk 23:31). In addition to various plants, a dove’s wing (Ps 68:13), a couch (Sg 1:16), and a righteous person (Ps 92:14) are also described as “green.” Idolatrous worship practices took place under “every green tree” (Dt 12:2; 2 Kgs 16:4; Is 57:5; Jer 2:20; Ez 6:13), although the word actually describes the luxurious growth of the leaves rather than their color.<\/p>\n<p>Another word, “greenish,” is derived from one of the OT words for “green” and refers to disease (Lv 13:49) and fungus that forms on the walls of houses (14:37).<\/p>\n<p>“Purple” was the most highly valued dye in the ancient world. Encompassing shades varying from actual purple to red, it was obtained from mollusks of the Gastropoda class. The first people to use the dye were perhaps the ancient Phoenicians, whose name may come from a Greek word meaning “bloodred.” At any rate, the Phoenicians monopolized the purple industry for many years. Some fabrics were described as being purple: those used in the tabernacle (Ex 25:4; 26:1), in the garments of the priests (28:5-8, 15, 33), in Solomon’s temple (2 Chr 2:7), in the upholstery of Solomon’s chariot (Sg 3:10), and in decorations of the Persian court (Est 1:6). Purple was customarily worn by wealthy people and royalty (Jgs 8:26; Prv 31:22; Dn 5:7). Mordecai was rewarded with a garment of purple (Est 8:15). Daniel was given a similar garment (Dn 5:29). It was worn by Assyrian soldiers (Ez 23:6). Jeremiah described idols that were robed in blue and purple garments (Jer 10:9). Ships of Tyre had awnings of blue and purple (Ez 27:7), and purple dye was an item of trade between Tyre and the people of Aram (v 16). It is used once to describe the color of hair (Sg 7:5).<\/p>\n<p>References to purple in the NT are fewer than in the OT but affirm the continued economic importance of the dye. Purple clothing denoted wealth (Lk 16:19). Jesus was robed in purple by Roman soldiers (Mk 15:17, 20; Jn 19:2, 5; cf. Mt 27:28, “scarlet”). The purple and scarlet garment of the harlot Babylon symbolized royal rank (Rv 17:4). Lydia of Thyatira was a seller of purple fabrics (Acts 16:14).<\/p>\n<p>“Red” frequently refers to the natural color of certain objects mentioned in the Bible: skin (Gn 25:25), pottage (v 30), the eye (49:12, though the word used here may mean “sparkling” or “dark”), a sacrificial heifer (Nm 19:2), water (2 Kgs 3:22), the face of a weeping person (Jb 16:16), wine (Prv 23:31), the eyes of one drinking wine (v 29), clothing (Is 63:2), a shield (Na 2:3), and horses (Zec 1:8; 6:2). It is used figuratively to describe sin (Is 1:18). A leprous disease (Lv 13:49), a spot on the skin (vv 19, 24, 42-43), and fungus on the wall of a house (14:37) were discolored with a reddish hue. The Red Sea is mentioned frequently in the OT (Ex 10:19; 15:4), but the Hebrew words thus translated actually mean “Sea of Reeds.” However, in the NT the Greek word is actually the word “red” (Acts 7:36; Heb 11:29). In the NT, red is used to describe the color of the sky (Mt 16:2-3), a horse (Rv 6:4), and a dragon (12:3).<\/p>\n<p>“Scarlet,” a brilliant red hue derived from certain insects, was used for fabrics and yarns and was highly valued in the ancient world (Rv 18:12). It is difficult to distinguish between “scarlet” and “crimson” in the Bible. A scarlet thread was bound to the hand of Zerah at birth (Gn 38:28, 30). The word describes certain fabrics in the tabernacle (Ex 25:4; 26:1, 31, 36; 27:16), the priests’ garments (28:5-8, 15, 33), rope (Jos 2:18, 21), clothing (2 Sm 1:24; Prv 31:21; Jer 4:30), lips (Sg 4:3), and soldiers’ uniforms (Na 2:3). Some kind of scarlet material was used during the ratification of the covenant at Sinai (Heb 9:19), for the cleansing of a leper (Lv 14:4-6) and of a house (vv 49-52), for covering the articles on the table of the bread of the Presence (Nm 4:8), and for the ritual of the red heifer (19:6). Matthew described Jesus’ robe at his trial as scarlet (Mt 27:28). The woman of Revelation 17:3-4 was dressed in purple and scarlet and seated upon a scarlet beast. The luxury associated with Rome is suggested by the description of clothing of purple and scarlet (Rv 18:16). Scarlet, like crimson and red, is also used figuratively of sins (Is 1:18).<\/p>\n<p> “White” translates a number of words found in the Bible. It is generally the color of natural objects such as goats (Gn 30:35), hair (Lv 13:10; Mt 5:36; Rv 1:14), diseased skin (Ex 4:6; Lv 13:4, 17), manna (Ex 16:31), snow (2 Kgs 5:27), milk and teeth (Gn 49:12), horses (Zec 1:8; 6:3; Rv 6:2; 19:11), a donkey (Jgs 5:10, <span>kjv<\/span>; <span>rsv<\/span> “tawny”), wool (Ez 27:18), special stones (Rv 2:17), light (Mt 17:2), clouds (Rv 14:14), and fields ready for harvest (Jn 4:35). It is used to describe the color of curtains (Est 1:6), clothing (Est 8:15; Eccl 9:8; Dn 7:9; Mk 16:5; Rv 3:5, 18; 4:4), the garments of angels (Jn 20:12; Acts 1:10), and a throne (Rv 20:11). It is used figuratively to describe cleansing from sin (Ps 51:7; Is 1:18; Dn 12:10) and the appearance of princes (Lam 4:7).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Cloth and Cloth Manufacturing; Dye, Dyeing, Dyer.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>COLOR<\/h3>\n<p>The OT and NT have no exact word for “color,” although the word appears several times in our English Bibles. The words translated “color” have quite different meanings in the original languages.<\/p>\n<p>The word most frequently translated “colour” in the <span>kjv<\/span> literally means “eye” and suggests “appearance” (Lv 13:55; Nm 11:7; Prv 23:31; Ez 1:4, 7, 16, 22, 27; 8:2; 10:9; Dn 10:6). Only Leviticus 13:55 retains the translation “color” in the <span>rsv<\/span>. Other words translated as “color” in the <span>rsv<\/span> refer to facial appearance (Dn 5:6-10; 7:28), fabrics of variegated colors (Prv 7:16; Ez 17:3; 27:24), stones (1 Chr 29:2), and breastplates (Rv 9:17). Joseph’s “coat of many colours” (Gn 37:3, <span>kjv<\/span>) and Tamar’s “garment of divers colours” (2 Sm 13:18-19, <span>kjv<\/span>) were either long-sleeved robes or richly ornamented tunics that served as a mark of preferred status.<\/p>\n<p>In the NT, a word that means “pretense” is used archaically in Acts 27:30 and was interpreted as “colour” by the <span>kjv<\/span> translators. They also added the word “colour” to Revelation 17:4, evidently to clarify the meaning.<\/p>\n<p>Though many colors are mentioned in the Bible, colors are not particularly singled out for emphasis. Natural colors are seldom mentioned in descriptions. Colors that appear frequently and that are most carefully differentiated are manufactured colors, especially dyes.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"ColorsMentionedintheBible\">Colors Mentioned in the Bible<\/p>\n<p>Because the Hebrews perceived color differently than we do in Western culture, it is sometimes difficult to translate precisely the various Hebrew words denoting colors. Thus there is often a wide variation in translations of such words in English Bibles. To provide a base for comparison, this article will follow the <span>rsv<\/span> except as noted.<\/p>\n<p>Colors mentioned most often in the OT and NT are the following:<\/p>\n<p>“Black” is the translation of five words in the OT and one in the NT, expressing varying degrees of darkness. The words describe the color of lambs (Gn 30:32-33, 35, 40), hair (Lv 13:31, 37; Sg 5:11; Mt 5:36), skin (Jb 30:30), horses (Zec 6:2, 6; Rv 6:5), the sky (1 Kgs 18:45; Is 50:3; Jer 4:28), the day (Jb 3:5; Mi 3:6), the darkened sun (Rv 6:12), and an invading army (Jl 2:2). Job’s “blackness” (Jb 30:28) has been understood as disease or sadness.<\/p>\n<p>“Blue” probably refers to a blue-purple dye obtained from Mediterranean mollusks. A popular color, it was considered less desirable in antiquity than “royal” purple. Both dyes were produced in Tyre, which at one time had a monopoly on the manufacture of blue and purple dye (2 Chr 2:7, 14; Ez 27:24). Ships of Tyre had awnings of blue and purple (Ez 27:7). Blue was used in the tabernacle fabrics (Ex 26:1; Nm 4:6-9), the priests’ garments (Ex 28:5-6), in Solomon’s temple (2 Chr 2:7, 14), and in the Persian court (Est 1:6; 8:15). Blue is not mentioned in the NT.<\/p>\n<p>“Crimson” is the English translation of three different Hebrew words. This red color of varying shades was derived from certain insects. The word describes certain fabrics in Solomon’s temple (2 Chr 2:7, 14; 3:14) and was used figuratively to describe sin (Is 1:18). The word translated “crimsoned” to describe garments from Bozrah (63:1) probably means “vivid colors” rather than a specific hue.<\/p>\n<p>“Gray,” a color found only in the OT, is used exclusively to describe old age—as in gray hair or gray-headed (Gn 42:38; 44:29-31; Dt 32:25; 1 Sm 12:2; 1 Kgs 2:6, 9; Jb 15:10; Ps 71:18; Prv 20:29; Is 46:4; Hos 7:9). A different word used to describe dappled gray horses (Zec 6:3) probably means “spotted” or “speckled.”<\/p>\n<p>“Green” translates seven words in the OT and two in the NT. Most of the words refer to vegetation and are descriptive of the fresh or moist condition of plants rather than their color. The following are described as “green”: plants (Gn 1:30), trees (1 Kgs 14:23), branches (Jb 15:32), pastures (Ps 23:2; Jl 2:22), herbs (Ps 37:2), olive trees (Ps 52:8; Jer 11:16), thorns (Ps 58:9), leaves (Jer 17:8), grass (Mk 6:39; Rv 8:7), and wood (Lk 23:31). In addition to various plants, a dove’s wing (Ps 68:13), a couch (Sg 1:16), and a righteous person (Ps 92:14) are also described as “green.” Idolatrous worship practices took place under “every green tree” (Dt 12:2; 2 Kgs 16:4; Is 57:5; Jer 2:20; Ez 6:13), although the word actually describes the luxurious growth of the leaves rather than their color.<\/p>\n<p>Another word, “greenish,” is derived from one of the OT words for “green” and refers to disease (Lv 13:49) and fungus that forms on the walls of houses (14:37).<\/p>\n<p>“Purple” was the most highly valued dye in the ancient world. Encompassing shades varying from actual purple to red, it was obtained from mollusks of the Gastropoda class. The first people to use the dye were perhaps the ancient Phoenicians, whose name may come from a Greek word meaning “bloodred.” At any rate, the Phoenicians monopolized the purple industry for many years. Some fabrics were described as being purple: those used in the tabernacle (Ex 25:4; 26:1), in the garments of the priests (28:5-8, 15, 33), in Solomon’s temple (2 Chr 2:7), in the upholstery of Solomon’s chariot (Sg 3:10), and in decorations of the Persian court (Est 1:6). Purple was customarily worn by wealthy people and royalty (Jgs 8:26; Prv 31:22; Dn 5:7). Mordecai was rewarded with a garment of purple (Est 8:15). Daniel was given a similar garment (Dn 5:29). It was worn by Assyrian soldiers (Ez 23:6). Jeremiah described idols that were robed in blue and purple garments (Jer 10:9). Ships of Tyre had awnings of blue and purple (Ez 27:7), and purple dye was an item of trade between Tyre and the people of Aram (v 16). It is used once to describe the color of hair (Sg 7:5).<\/p>\n<p>References to purple in the NT are fewer than in the OT but affirm the continued economic importance of the dye. Purple clothing denoted wealth (Lk 16:19). Jesus was robed in purple by Roman soldiers (Mk 15:17, 20; Jn 19:2, 5; cf. Mt 27:28, “scarlet”). The purple and scarlet garment of the harlot Babylon symbolized royal rank (Rv 17:4). Lydia of Thyatira was a seller of purple fabrics (Acts 16:14).<\/p>\n<p>“Red” frequently refers to the natural color of certain objects mentioned in the Bible: skin (Gn 25:25), pottage (v 30), the eye (49:12, though the word used here may mean “sparkling” or “dark”), a sacrificial heifer (Nm 19:2), water (2 Kgs 3:22), the face of a weeping person (Jb 16:16), wine (Prv 23:31), the eyes of one drinking wine (v 29), clothing (Is 63:2), a shield (Na 2:3), and horses (Zec 1:8; 6:2). It is used figuratively to describe sin (Is 1:18). A leprous disease (Lv 13:49), a spot on the skin (vv 19, 24, 42-43), and fungus on the wall of a house (14:37) were discolored with a reddish hue. The Red Sea is mentioned frequently in the OT (Ex 10:19; 15:4), but the Hebrew words thus translated actually mean “Sea of Reeds.” However, in the NT the Greek word is actually the word “red” (Acts 7:36; Heb 11:29). In the NT, red is used to describe the color of the sky (Mt 16:2-3), a horse (Rv 6:4), and a dragon (12:3).<\/p>\n<p>“Scarlet,” a brilliant red hue derived from certain insects, was used for fabrics and yarns and was highly valued in the ancient world (Rv 18:12). It is difficult to distinguish between “scarlet” and “crimson” in the Bible. A scarlet thread was bound to the hand of Zerah at birth (Gn 38:28, 30). The word describes certain fabrics in the tabernacle (Ex 25:4; 26:1, 31, 36; 27:16), the priests’ garments (28:5-8, 15, 33), rope (Jos 2:18, 21), clothing (2 Sm 1:24; Prv 31:21; Jer 4:30), lips (Sg 4:3), and soldiers’ uniforms (Na 2:3). Some kind of scarlet material was used during the ratification of the covenant at Sinai (Heb 9:19), for the cleansing of a leper (Lv 14:4-6) and of a house (vv 49-52), for covering the articles on the table of the bread of the Presence (Nm 4:8), and for the ritual of the red heifer (19:6). Matthew described Jesus’ robe at his trial as scarlet (Mt 27:28). The woman of Revelation 17:3-4 was dressed in purple and scarlet and seated upon a scarlet beast. The luxury associated with Rome is suggested by the description of clothing of purple and scarlet (Rv 18:16). Scarlet, like crimson and red, is also used figuratively of sins (Is 1:18).<\/p>\n<p> “White” translates a number of words found in the Bible. It is generally the color of natural objects such as goats (Gn 30:35), hair (Lv 13:10; Mt 5:36; Rv 1:14), diseased skin (Ex 4:6; Lv 13:4, 17), manna (Ex 16:31), snow (2 Kgs 5:27), milk and teeth (Gn 49:12), horses (Zec 1:8; 6:3; Rv 6:2; 19:11), a donkey (Jgs 5:10, <span>kjv<\/span>; <span>rsv<\/span> “tawny”), wool (Ez 27:18), special stones (Rv 2:17), light (Mt 17:2), clouds (Rv 14:14), and fields ready for harvest (Jn 4:35). It is used to describe the color of curtains (Est 1:6), clothing (Est 8:15; Eccl 9:8; Dn 7:9; Mk 16:5; Rv 3:5, 18; 4:4), the garments of angels (Jn 20:12; Acts 1:10), and a throne (Rv 20:11). It is used figuratively to describe cleansing from sin (Ps 51:7; Is 1:18; Dn 12:10) and the appearance of princes (Lam 4:7).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Cloth and Cloth Manufacturing; Dye, Dyeing, Dyer.<\/p>","summary_ro":"COLOR The OT and NT have no exact word for “color,” although the word appears several times in our English Bibles. The words translated “color” have quite different meanings in the original languages. The word most frequently translated “colour” in the kjv literally means “eye” and suggests “appearance” (Lv 13:55; Nm 11:7; Prv 23:31; Ez 1:4, 7, 16, 22, 27; 8:2; 10:9; Dn 10:6). Only Leviticus 13:55 retains the translation “color” in the rsv. Other words translated as “color” in the rsv refer t...","summary_en":"COLOR The OT and NT have no exact word for “color,” although the word appears several times in our English Bibles. The words translated “color” have quite different meanings in the original languages. The word most frequently translated “colour” in the kjv literally means “eye” and suggests “appearance” (Lv 13:55; Nm 11:7; Prv 23:31; Ez 1:4, 7, 16, 22, 27; 8:2; 10:9; Dn 10:6). Only Leviticus 13:55 retains the translation “color” in the rsv. Other words translated as “color” in the rsv refer t...","source":"Articles\/C.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"5":[{"id":41601,"type":"profile","type_label":"Profil","type_icon":"👤","type_color":"#f59e0b","title_ro":"Arameans","title_en":"Arameans","content_ro":"<h3>Arameans<\/h3>\n<p>The Arameans were a Semitic group, descendants of Shem (Gen 10:22-23; cp. Gen 22:20-21). Bethuel and Laban were known as Arameans (Gen 25:20; 28:1-7). Jacob lived for some twenty years with them in Aramean territory (Gen 28–31; Hos 12:12), and the people of Israel remembered that their forefathers were (at least culturally) Arameans (Deut 26:5).<\/p>\n<p>When the Arameans emerged into history around the time of Abraham, they were settled around the central Euphrates, from which they spread out to the east, west, and north. By around 1100 <span>BC<\/span>, Aramean tribes had spread throughout Syria and had expanded into northern Transjordan. They set up a number of powerful Aramean city-states, including Zobah and Damascus, that came into conflict with the Israelites beginning in the time of David (see 2 Sam 8:3-8; 10:6-25).<\/p>\n<p>After Solomon’s death and the division of Israel into northern and southern kingdoms, Aramean Damascus became a powerful and opportunistic player in the political struggles between the two states. When war broke out between Israel and Judah in the years 890–880 <span>BC<\/span>, King Asa of Israel sought aid from Ben-hadad I of Damascus (1 Kgs 15:18-19). Roughly thirty years later, in the early 850s <span>BC<\/span>, Ben-hadad invaded Israel, but Ahab defeated him both at Samaria (20:1-21) and at Aphek the following year (20:22-34). After three years of peace between Israel and Damascus, hostilities broke out again in 853 <span>BC<\/span>, resulting in the battle in which Ahab was killed (22:29-37). Aramean Damascus continued to inflict losses on the kingdom of Israel for the next several decades (see 2 Kgs 8:28-29; 12:17-18; 13:1-7).<\/p>\n<p>During this period, the Aramean city-states began feeling pressure from Assyria. Damascus was first defeated by Assyria around 838 <span>BC<\/span> and was forced to become a tribute-paying vassal of Assyria in 803 <span>BC<\/span>. The resulting weakness of Damascus helped enable Jehoash (798–782 <span>BC<\/span>) to defeat the Arameans and expel them from Israel’s territory around 795 <span>BC<\/span> (2 Kgs 13:14-25). Later, Jeroboam II (793–753 <span>BC<\/span>) was able to force Damascus to pay tribute to him (see 2 Kgs 14:28).<\/p>\n<p>Around 738 <span>BC<\/span> the Arameans of Damascus joined forces with Israel to subjugate Judah. They captured much land, but their siege of Jerusalem was unsuccessful (2 Kgs 16:5; see also 2 Chr 28:5). At this time of seeming success for Damascus, the prophets Isaiah and Amos predicted the city’s doom (Isa 8:4; 17:1; Amos 1:3-5). But rather than trust in God, King Ahaz of Judah turned to the Assyrians for protection, who responded to his gifts by sacking Damascus and exiling its population in 733\/732 <span>BC<\/span> (2 Kgs 16:7-11). Damascus was no longer an independent city-state.<\/p>\n<p>The language of the Arameans, Aramaic, eventually became the language for diplomacy and administration all over the Near East (see, e.g., 2 Kgs 18:26). During the Exile, the Jews adopted the Aramaic language; portions of Ezra and Daniel are written in Aramaic. Aramaic was the <em>lingua franca<\/em> from Egypt to India during the Persian period and was widely spoken in Palestine in Jesus’ day (see Mark 5:41; 1 Cor 16:22).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 10:22-23; 22:20-21; 25:20; 28:1-7; Deut 26:5; 2 Sam 8:3-4; 10:17-19; 1 Kgs 15:18; 1 Kgs 20:1-34; 22:29-37; 2 Kgs 13:25; 16:9-13; 17:24-34; Hos 12:12; Amos 1:5<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Arameans<\/h3>\n<p>The Arameans were a Semitic group, descendants of Shem (Gen 10:22-23; cp. Gen 22:20-21). Bethuel and Laban were known as Arameans (Gen 25:20; 28:1-7). Jacob lived for some twenty years with them in Aramean territory (Gen 28–31; Hos 12:12), and the people of Israel remembered that their forefathers were (at least culturally) Arameans (Deut 26:5).<\/p>\n<p>When the Arameans emerged into history around the time of Abraham, they were settled around the central Euphrates, from which they spread out to the east, west, and north. By around 1100 <span>BC<\/span>, Aramean tribes had spread throughout Syria and had expanded into northern Transjordan. They set up a number of powerful Aramean city-states, including Zobah and Damascus, that came into conflict with the Israelites beginning in the time of David (see 2 Sam 8:3-8; 10:6-25).<\/p>\n<p>After Solomon’s death and the division of Israel into northern and southern kingdoms, Aramean Damascus became a powerful and opportunistic player in the political struggles between the two states. When war broke out between Israel and Judah in the years 890–880 <span>BC<\/span>, King Asa of Israel sought aid from Ben-hadad I of Damascus (1 Kgs 15:18-19). Roughly thirty years later, in the early 850s <span>BC<\/span>, Ben-hadad invaded Israel, but Ahab defeated him both at Samaria (20:1-21) and at Aphek the following year (20:22-34). After three years of peace between Israel and Damascus, hostilities broke out again in 853 <span>BC<\/span>, resulting in the battle in which Ahab was killed (22:29-37). Aramean Damascus continued to inflict losses on the kingdom of Israel for the next several decades (see 2 Kgs 8:28-29; 12:17-18; 13:1-7).<\/p>\n<p>During this period, the Aramean city-states began feeling pressure from Assyria. Damascus was first defeated by Assyria around 838 <span>BC<\/span> and was forced to become a tribute-paying vassal of Assyria in 803 <span>BC<\/span>. The resulting weakness of Damascus helped enable Jehoash (798–782 <span>BC<\/span>) to defeat the Arameans and expel them from Israel’s territory around 795 <span>BC<\/span> (2 Kgs 13:14-25). Later, Jeroboam II (793–753 <span>BC<\/span>) was able to force Damascus to pay tribute to him (see 2 Kgs 14:28).<\/p>\n<p>Around 738 <span>BC<\/span> the Arameans of Damascus joined forces with Israel to subjugate Judah. They captured much land, but their siege of Jerusalem was unsuccessful (2 Kgs 16:5; see also 2 Chr 28:5). At this time of seeming success for Damascus, the prophets Isaiah and Amos predicted the city’s doom (Isa 8:4; 17:1; Amos 1:3-5). But rather than trust in God, King Ahaz of Judah turned to the Assyrians for protection, who responded to his gifts by sacking Damascus and exiling its population in 733\/732 <span>BC<\/span> (2 Kgs 16:7-11). Damascus was no longer an independent city-state.<\/p>\n<p>The language of the Arameans, Aramaic, eventually became the language for diplomacy and administration all over the Near East (see, e.g., 2 Kgs 18:26). During the Exile, the Jews adopted the Aramaic language; portions of Ezra and Daniel are written in Aramaic. Aramaic was the <em>lingua franca<\/em> from Egypt to India during the Persian period and was widely spoken in Palestine in Jesus’ day (see Mark 5:41; 1 Cor 16:22).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 10:22-23; 22:20-21; 25:20; 28:1-7; Deut 26:5; 2 Sam 8:3-4; 10:17-19; 1 Kgs 15:18; 1 Kgs 20:1-34; 22:29-37; 2 Kgs 13:25; 16:9-13; 17:24-34; Hos 12:12; Amos 1:5<\/p>","summary_ro":"Arameans The Arameans were a Semitic group, descendants of Shem (Gen 10:22-23; cp. Gen 22:20-21). Bethuel and Laban were known as Arameans (Gen 25:20; 28:1-7). Jacob lived for some twenty years with them in Aramean territory (Gen 28–31; Hos 12:12), and the people of Israel remembered that their forefathers were (at least culturally) Arameans (Deut 26:5). When the Arameans emerged into history around the time of Abraham, they were settled around the central Euphrates, from which they spread ou...","summary_en":"Arameans The Arameans were a Semitic group, descendants of Shem (Gen 10:22-23; cp. Gen 22:20-21). Bethuel and Laban were known as Arameans (Gen 25:20; 28:1-7). Jacob lived for some twenty years with them in Aramean territory (Gen 28–31; Hos 12:12), and the people of Israel remembered that their forefathers were (at least culturally) Arameans (Deut 26:5). When the Arameans emerged into history around the time of Abraham, they were settled around the central Euphrates, from which they spread ou...","source":"Profiles.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":41685,"type":"profile","type_label":"Profil","type_icon":"👤","type_color":"#f59e0b","title_ro":"Assyria","title_en":"Assyria","content_ro":"<h3>Assyria<\/h3>\n<p>Assyria was a symbol of terror and tyranny in the Near East for more than three centuries. In the biblical account, we learn about its power and ruthlessness in its treatment of the people of Israel and Judah. But its fortune rose and fell with the strength of its leaders. Eventually, it was overpowered by those who were stronger.<\/p>\n<p>Ashurnasirpal II (885–860 <span>BC<\/span>)<\/p>\n<p>Ashurnasirpal II possessed all the qualities and defects of his successors to the extreme: He had the ambition, energy, courage, vanity, and magnificence of a ruthless and unrelenting empire builder.<\/p>\n<p>Shalmaneser III (858–824 <span>BC<\/span>)<\/p>\n<p>Shalmaneser III is well known for the Battle of Qarqar (853 <span>BC<\/span>), considered the most fully documented event from the ancient world. His invasion of Syria was repelled by a coalition that included King Ahab of Israel and several other states. It was years before Shalmaneser was able to conquer Israel and Syria. King Jehu of Israel is depicted on the Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser III kissing the ground at his feet and offering tribute.<\/p>\n<p>Repentance during the Time of Jonah<\/p>\n<p>Sometime during the reign of King Jeroboam II in Israel (793–753 <span>BC<\/span>), the prophet Jonah grudgingly traveled to Nineveh to proclaim judgment (Jon 3–4). Assyria was then in decline, and as Jonah had feared, the king and people of Nineveh listened and repented of their sins. As a result, God granted them a reprieve, which lasted some 150 years.<\/p>\n<p>Tiglath-pileser III (744–727 <span>BC<\/span>)<\/p>\n<p>Tiglath-pileser III usurped the Assyrian throne and began to recover and consolidate control of all Assyria’s territories. He gained the throne of Babylon as well, establishing Assyria firmly as the dominant military and economic power in the Near East. He demonstrated political prudence not usually found in the ruthless Assyrian monarchs. King Menahem of Israel (752–742 <span>BC<\/span>) paid him tribute (2 Kgs 15:19-20), as did Tyre, Byblos, and Damascus. Responding to an appeal from King Ahaz of Judah (735–715 <span>BC<\/span>) to help resist Syria and Israel (2 Kgs 16:5-20), Tiglath-pileser conquered Damascus in 732 <span>BC<\/span>. (His successor, Shalmaneser V, would destroy Samaria in 722 <span>BC<\/span>, punctuating the end of the northern kingdom of Israel.)<\/p>\n<p>Sennacherib (705–681 <span>BC<\/span>)<\/p>\n<p>Sennacherib was occupied throughout his reign in a series of bitter wars. He is especially known in the biblical account for his campaign against Judah and siege of Jerusalem in 701 <span>BC<\/span> during the reign of King Hezekiah and the ministry of the prophet Isaiah (2 Kgs 18:13–19:37; Isa 36–37).<\/p>\n<p>Ashurbanipal (668–627 <span>BC<\/span>)<\/p>\n<p>Ashurbanipal captured No-amon (Thebes) in Egypt, thereby realizing the greatest victory in Assyrian history (see Nah 3:3-10). He also established a great library in Nineveh, which was excavated in 1860. Many tablets were found, containing a vast selection of Akkadian material. This library is now one of the principal treasures of the British Museum in London. Very little is known about Ashurbanipal’s reign after 639 <span>BC<\/span>, since his annals do not extend beyond that year. However, allusions in state correspondence, commercial documents, and prayers addressed to the gods suggest that Assyria was becoming increasingly unstable. When Ashurbanipal died in 627 <span>BC<\/span>, his empire declined quickly.<\/p>\n<p>Final Decline and Destruction<\/p>\n<p>In 626 <span>BC<\/span>, Nabopolassar became king of Babylon (626–605 <span>BC<\/span>) and formed an alliance with the Medes, making it almost inevitable that Babylon would succeed against Assyria. In 612 <span>BC<\/span> their combined forces launched a final assault against Nineveh, and after three months of siege the mighty city fell (see Nah 1:8). The last of the Assyrian forces were completely destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar (then a general in his father’s army) at the battle of Carchemish in 605 <span>BC<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>2 Kgs 15:19–19:37<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Assyria<\/h3>\n<p>Assyria was a symbol of terror and tyranny in the Near East for more than three centuries. In the biblical account, we learn about its power and ruthlessness in its treatment of the people of Israel and Judah. But its fortune rose and fell with the strength of its leaders. Eventually, it was overpowered by those who were stronger.<\/p>\n<p>Ashurnasirpal II (885–860 <span>BC<\/span>)<\/p>\n<p>Ashurnasirpal II possessed all the qualities and defects of his successors to the extreme: He had the ambition, energy, courage, vanity, and magnificence of a ruthless and unrelenting empire builder.<\/p>\n<p>Shalmaneser III (858–824 <span>BC<\/span>)<\/p>\n<p>Shalmaneser III is well known for the Battle of Qarqar (853 <span>BC<\/span>), considered the most fully documented event from the ancient world. His invasion of Syria was repelled by a coalition that included King Ahab of Israel and several other states. It was years before Shalmaneser was able to conquer Israel and Syria. King Jehu of Israel is depicted on the Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser III kissing the ground at his feet and offering tribute.<\/p>\n<p>Repentance during the Time of Jonah<\/p>\n<p>Sometime during the reign of King Jeroboam II in Israel (793–753 <span>BC<\/span>), the prophet Jonah grudgingly traveled to Nineveh to proclaim judgment (Jon 3–4). Assyria was then in decline, and as Jonah had feared, the king and people of Nineveh listened and repented of their sins. As a result, God granted them a reprieve, which lasted some 150 years.<\/p>\n<p>Tiglath-pileser III (744–727 <span>BC<\/span>)<\/p>\n<p>Tiglath-pileser III usurped the Assyrian throne and began to recover and consolidate control of all Assyria’s territories. He gained the throne of Babylon as well, establishing Assyria firmly as the dominant military and economic power in the Near East. He demonstrated political prudence not usually found in the ruthless Assyrian monarchs. King Menahem of Israel (752–742 <span>BC<\/span>) paid him tribute (2 Kgs 15:19-20), as did Tyre, Byblos, and Damascus. Responding to an appeal from King Ahaz of Judah (735–715 <span>BC<\/span>) to help resist Syria and Israel (2 Kgs 16:5-20), Tiglath-pileser conquered Damascus in 732 <span>BC<\/span>. (His successor, Shalmaneser V, would destroy Samaria in 722 <span>BC<\/span>, punctuating the end of the northern kingdom of Israel.)<\/p>\n<p>Sennacherib (705–681 <span>BC<\/span>)<\/p>\n<p>Sennacherib was occupied throughout his reign in a series of bitter wars. He is especially known in the biblical account for his campaign against Judah and siege of Jerusalem in 701 <span>BC<\/span> during the reign of King Hezekiah and the ministry of the prophet Isaiah (2 Kgs 18:13–19:37; Isa 36–37).<\/p>\n<p>Ashurbanipal (668–627 <span>BC<\/span>)<\/p>\n<p>Ashurbanipal captured No-amon (Thebes) in Egypt, thereby realizing the greatest victory in Assyrian history (see Nah 3:3-10). He also established a great library in Nineveh, which was excavated in 1860. Many tablets were found, containing a vast selection of Akkadian material. This library is now one of the principal treasures of the British Museum in London. Very little is known about Ashurbanipal’s reign after 639 <span>BC<\/span>, since his annals do not extend beyond that year. However, allusions in state correspondence, commercial documents, and prayers addressed to the gods suggest that Assyria was becoming increasingly unstable. When Ashurbanipal died in 627 <span>BC<\/span>, his empire declined quickly.<\/p>\n<p>Final Decline and Destruction<\/p>\n<p>In 626 <span>BC<\/span>, Nabopolassar became king of Babylon (626–605 <span>BC<\/span>) and formed an alliance with the Medes, making it almost inevitable that Babylon would succeed against Assyria. In 612 <span>BC<\/span> their combined forces launched a final assault against Nineveh, and after three months of siege the mighty city fell (see Nah 1:8). The last of the Assyrian forces were completely destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar (then a general in his father’s army) at the battle of Carchemish in 605 <span>BC<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>2 Kgs 15:19–19:37<\/p>","summary_ro":"Assyria Assyria was a symbol of terror and tyranny in the Near East for more than three centuries. In the biblical account, we learn about its power and ruthlessness in its treatment of the people of Israel and Judah. But its fortune rose and fell with the strength of its leaders. Eventually, it was overpowered by those who were stronger. Ashurnasirpal II (885–860 BC) Ashurnasirpal II possessed all the qualities and defects of his successors to the extreme: He had the ambition, energy, courag...","summary_en":"Assyria Assyria was a symbol of terror and tyranny in the Near East for more than three centuries. In the biblical account, we learn about its power and ruthlessness in its treatment of the people of Israel and Judah. But its fortune rose and fell with the strength of its leaders. Eventually, it was overpowered by those who were stronger. Ashurnasirpal II (885–860 BC) Ashurnasirpal II possessed all the qualities and defects of his successors to the extreme: He had the ambition, energy, courag...","source":"Profiles.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":69227,"type":"profile","type_label":"Profil","type_icon":"👤","type_color":"#f59e0b","title_ro":"Arameans","title_en":"Arameans","content_ro":"<h3>Arameans<\/h3>\n<p>The Arameans were a Semitic group, descendants of Shem (Gen 10:22-23; cp. Gen 22:20-21). Bethuel and Laban were known as Arameans (Gen 25:20; 28:1-7). Jacob lived for some twenty years with them in Aramean territory (Gen 28–31; Hos 12:12), and the people of Israel remembered that their forefathers were (at least culturally) Arameans (Deut 26:5).<\/p>\n<p>When the Arameans emerged into history around the time of Abraham, they were settled around the central Euphrates, from which they spread out to the east, west, and north. By around 1100 <span>BC<\/span>, Aramean tribes had spread throughout Syria and had expanded into northern Transjordan. They set up a number of powerful Aramean city-states, including Zobah and Damascus, that came into conflict with the Israelites beginning in the time of David (see 2 Sam 8:3-8; 10:6-25).<\/p>\n<p>After Solomon’s death and the division of Israel into northern and southern kingdoms, Aramean Damascus became a powerful and opportunistic player in the political struggles between the two states. When war broke out between Israel and Judah in the years 890–880 <span>BC<\/span>, King Asa of Israel sought aid from Ben-hadad I of Damascus (1 Kgs 15:18-19). Roughly thirty years later, in the early 850s <span>BC<\/span>, Ben-hadad invaded Israel, but Ahab defeated him both at Samaria (20:1-21) and at Aphek the following year (20:22-34). After three years of peace between Israel and Damascus, hostilities broke out again in 853 <span>BC<\/span>, resulting in the battle in which Ahab was killed (22:29-37). Aramean Damascus continued to inflict losses on the kingdom of Israel for the next several decades (see 2 Kgs 8:28-29; 12:17-18; 13:1-7).<\/p>\n<p>During this period, the Aramean city-states began feeling pressure from Assyria. Damascus was first defeated by Assyria around 838 <span>BC<\/span> and was forced to become a tribute-paying vassal of Assyria in 803 <span>BC<\/span>. The resulting weakness of Damascus helped enable Jehoash (798–782 <span>BC<\/span>) to defeat the Arameans and expel them from Israel’s territory around 795 <span>BC<\/span> (2 Kgs 13:14-25). Later, Jeroboam II (793–753 <span>BC<\/span>) was able to force Damascus to pay tribute to him (see 2 Kgs 14:28).<\/p>\n<p>Around 738 <span>BC<\/span> the Arameans of Damascus joined forces with Israel to subjugate Judah. They captured much land, but their siege of Jerusalem was unsuccessful (2 Kgs 16:5; see also 2 Chr 28:5). At this time of seeming success for Damascus, the prophets Isaiah and Amos predicted the city’s doom (Isa 8:4; 17:1; Amos 1:3-5). But rather than trust in God, King Ahaz of Judah turned to the Assyrians for protection, who responded to his gifts by sacking Damascus and exiling its population in 733\/732 <span>BC<\/span> (2 Kgs 16:7-11). Damascus was no longer an independent city-state.<\/p>\n<p>The language of the Arameans, Aramaic, eventually became the language for diplomacy and administration all over the Near East (see, e.g., 2 Kgs 18:26). During the Exile, the Jews adopted the Aramaic language; portions of Ezra and Daniel are written in Aramaic. Aramaic was the <em>lingua franca<\/em> from Egypt to India during the Persian period and was widely spoken in Palestine in Jesus’ day (see Mark 5:41; 1 Cor 16:22).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 10:22-23; 22:20-21; 25:20; 28:1-7; Deut 26:5; 2 Sam 8:3-4; 10:17-19; 1 Kgs 15:18; 1 Kgs 20:1-34; 22:29-37; 2 Kgs 13:25; 16:9-13; 17:24-34; Hos 12:12; Amos 1:5<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Arameans<\/h3>\n<p>The Arameans were a Semitic group, descendants of Shem (Gen 10:22-23; cp. Gen 22:20-21). Bethuel and Laban were known as Arameans (Gen 25:20; 28:1-7). Jacob lived for some twenty years with them in Aramean territory (Gen 28–31; Hos 12:12), and the people of Israel remembered that their forefathers were (at least culturally) Arameans (Deut 26:5).<\/p>\n<p>When the Arameans emerged into history around the time of Abraham, they were settled around the central Euphrates, from which they spread out to the east, west, and north. By around 1100 <span>BC<\/span>, Aramean tribes had spread throughout Syria and had expanded into northern Transjordan. They set up a number of powerful Aramean city-states, including Zobah and Damascus, that came into conflict with the Israelites beginning in the time of David (see 2 Sam 8:3-8; 10:6-25).<\/p>\n<p>After Solomon’s death and the division of Israel into northern and southern kingdoms, Aramean Damascus became a powerful and opportunistic player in the political struggles between the two states. When war broke out between Israel and Judah in the years 890–880 <span>BC<\/span>, King Asa of Israel sought aid from Ben-hadad I of Damascus (1 Kgs 15:18-19). Roughly thirty years later, in the early 850s <span>BC<\/span>, Ben-hadad invaded Israel, but Ahab defeated him both at Samaria (20:1-21) and at Aphek the following year (20:22-34). After three years of peace between Israel and Damascus, hostilities broke out again in 853 <span>BC<\/span>, resulting in the battle in which Ahab was killed (22:29-37). Aramean Damascus continued to inflict losses on the kingdom of Israel for the next several decades (see 2 Kgs 8:28-29; 12:17-18; 13:1-7).<\/p>\n<p>During this period, the Aramean city-states began feeling pressure from Assyria. Damascus was first defeated by Assyria around 838 <span>BC<\/span> and was forced to become a tribute-paying vassal of Assyria in 803 <span>BC<\/span>. The resulting weakness of Damascus helped enable Jehoash (798–782 <span>BC<\/span>) to defeat the Arameans and expel them from Israel’s territory around 795 <span>BC<\/span> (2 Kgs 13:14-25). Later, Jeroboam II (793–753 <span>BC<\/span>) was able to force Damascus to pay tribute to him (see 2 Kgs 14:28).<\/p>\n<p>Around 738 <span>BC<\/span> the Arameans of Damascus joined forces with Israel to subjugate Judah. They captured much land, but their siege of Jerusalem was unsuccessful (2 Kgs 16:5; see also 2 Chr 28:5). At this time of seeming success for Damascus, the prophets Isaiah and Amos predicted the city’s doom (Isa 8:4; 17:1; Amos 1:3-5). But rather than trust in God, King Ahaz of Judah turned to the Assyrians for protection, who responded to his gifts by sacking Damascus and exiling its population in 733\/732 <span>BC<\/span> (2 Kgs 16:7-11). Damascus was no longer an independent city-state.<\/p>\n<p>The language of the Arameans, Aramaic, eventually became the language for diplomacy and administration all over the Near East (see, e.g., 2 Kgs 18:26). During the Exile, the Jews adopted the Aramaic language; portions of Ezra and Daniel are written in Aramaic. Aramaic was the <em>lingua franca<\/em> from Egypt to India during the Persian period and was widely spoken in Palestine in Jesus’ day (see Mark 5:41; 1 Cor 16:22).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 10:22-23; 22:20-21; 25:20; 28:1-7; Deut 26:5; 2 Sam 8:3-4; 10:17-19; 1 Kgs 15:18; 1 Kgs 20:1-34; 22:29-37; 2 Kgs 13:25; 16:9-13; 17:24-34; Hos 12:12; Amos 1:5<\/p>","summary_ro":"Arameans The Arameans were a Semitic group, descendants of Shem (Gen 10:22-23; cp. Gen 22:20-21). Bethuel and Laban were known as Arameans (Gen 25:20; 28:1-7). Jacob lived for some twenty years with them in Aramean territory (Gen 28–31; Hos 12:12), and the people of Israel remembered that their forefathers were (at least culturally) Arameans (Deut 26:5). When the Arameans emerged into history around the time of Abraham, they were settled around the central Euphrates, from which they spread ou...","summary_en":"Arameans The Arameans were a Semitic group, descendants of Shem (Gen 10:22-23; cp. Gen 22:20-21). Bethuel and Laban were known as Arameans (Gen 25:20; 28:1-7). Jacob lived for some twenty years with them in Aramean territory (Gen 28–31; Hos 12:12), and the people of Israel remembered that their forefathers were (at least culturally) Arameans (Deut 26:5). When the Arameans emerged into history around the time of Abraham, they were settled around the central Euphrates, from which they spread ou...","source":"Profiles.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":69311,"type":"profile","type_label":"Profil","type_icon":"👤","type_color":"#f59e0b","title_ro":"Assyria","title_en":"Assyria","content_ro":"<h3>Assyria<\/h3>\n<p>Assyria was a symbol of terror and tyranny in the Near East for more than three centuries. In the biblical account, we learn about its power and ruthlessness in its treatment of the people of Israel and Judah. But its fortune rose and fell with the strength of its leaders. Eventually, it was overpowered by those who were stronger.<\/p>\n<p>Ashurnasirpal II (885–860 <span>BC<\/span>)<\/p>\n<p>Ashurnasirpal II possessed all the qualities and defects of his successors to the extreme: He had the ambition, energy, courage, vanity, and magnificence of a ruthless and unrelenting empire builder.<\/p>\n<p>Shalmaneser III (858–824 <span>BC<\/span>)<\/p>\n<p>Shalmaneser III is well known for the Battle of Qarqar (853 <span>BC<\/span>), considered the most fully documented event from the ancient world. His invasion of Syria was repelled by a coalition that included King Ahab of Israel and several other states. It was years before Shalmaneser was able to conquer Israel and Syria. King Jehu of Israel is depicted on the Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser III kissing the ground at his feet and offering tribute.<\/p>\n<p>Repentance during the Time of Jonah<\/p>\n<p>Sometime during the reign of King Jeroboam II in Israel (793–753 <span>BC<\/span>), the prophet Jonah grudgingly traveled to Nineveh to proclaim judgment (Jon 3–4). Assyria was then in decline, and as Jonah had feared, the king and people of Nineveh listened and repented of their sins. As a result, God granted them a reprieve, which lasted some 150 years.<\/p>\n<p>Tiglath-pileser III (744–727 <span>BC<\/span>)<\/p>\n<p>Tiglath-pileser III usurped the Assyrian throne and began to recover and consolidate control of all Assyria’s territories. He gained the throne of Babylon as well, establishing Assyria firmly as the dominant military and economic power in the Near East. He demonstrated political prudence not usually found in the ruthless Assyrian monarchs. King Menahem of Israel (752–742 <span>BC<\/span>) paid him tribute (2 Kgs 15:19-20), as did Tyre, Byblos, and Damascus. Responding to an appeal from King Ahaz of Judah (735–715 <span>BC<\/span>) to help resist Syria and Israel (2 Kgs 16:5-20), Tiglath-pileser conquered Damascus in 732 <span>BC<\/span>. (His successor, Shalmaneser V, would destroy Samaria in 722 <span>BC<\/span>, punctuating the end of the northern kingdom of Israel.)<\/p>\n<p>Sennacherib (705–681 <span>BC<\/span>)<\/p>\n<p>Sennacherib was occupied throughout his reign in a series of bitter wars. He is especially known in the biblical account for his campaign against Judah and siege of Jerusalem in 701 <span>BC<\/span> during the reign of King Hezekiah and the ministry of the prophet Isaiah (2 Kgs 18:13–19:37; Isa 36–37).<\/p>\n<p>Ashurbanipal (668–627 <span>BC<\/span>)<\/p>\n<p>Ashurbanipal captured No-amon (Thebes) in Egypt, thereby realizing the greatest victory in Assyrian history (see Nah 3:3-10). He also established a great library in Nineveh, which was excavated in 1860. Many tablets were found, containing a vast selection of Akkadian material. This library is now one of the principal treasures of the British Museum in London. Very little is known about Ashurbanipal’s reign after 639 <span>BC<\/span>, since his annals do not extend beyond that year. However, allusions in state correspondence, commercial documents, and prayers addressed to the gods suggest that Assyria was becoming increasingly unstable. When Ashurbanipal died in 627 <span>BC<\/span>, his empire declined quickly.<\/p>\n<p>Final Decline and Destruction<\/p>\n<p>In 626 <span>BC<\/span>, Nabopolassar became king of Babylon (626–605 <span>BC<\/span>) and formed an alliance with the Medes, making it almost inevitable that Babylon would succeed against Assyria. In 612 <span>BC<\/span> their combined forces launched a final assault against Nineveh, and after three months of siege the mighty city fell (see Nah 1:8). The last of the Assyrian forces were completely destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar (then a general in his father’s army) at the battle of Carchemish in 605 <span>BC<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>2 Kgs 15:19–19:37<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Assyria<\/h3>\n<p>Assyria was a symbol of terror and tyranny in the Near East for more than three centuries. In the biblical account, we learn about its power and ruthlessness in its treatment of the people of Israel and Judah. But its fortune rose and fell with the strength of its leaders. Eventually, it was overpowered by those who were stronger.<\/p>\n<p>Ashurnasirpal II (885–860 <span>BC<\/span>)<\/p>\n<p>Ashurnasirpal II possessed all the qualities and defects of his successors to the extreme: He had the ambition, energy, courage, vanity, and magnificence of a ruthless and unrelenting empire builder.<\/p>\n<p>Shalmaneser III (858–824 <span>BC<\/span>)<\/p>\n<p>Shalmaneser III is well known for the Battle of Qarqar (853 <span>BC<\/span>), considered the most fully documented event from the ancient world. His invasion of Syria was repelled by a coalition that included King Ahab of Israel and several other states. It was years before Shalmaneser was able to conquer Israel and Syria. King Jehu of Israel is depicted on the Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser III kissing the ground at his feet and offering tribute.<\/p>\n<p>Repentance during the Time of Jonah<\/p>\n<p>Sometime during the reign of King Jeroboam II in Israel (793–753 <span>BC<\/span>), the prophet Jonah grudgingly traveled to Nineveh to proclaim judgment (Jon 3–4). Assyria was then in decline, and as Jonah had feared, the king and people of Nineveh listened and repented of their sins. As a result, God granted them a reprieve, which lasted some 150 years.<\/p>\n<p>Tiglath-pileser III (744–727 <span>BC<\/span>)<\/p>\n<p>Tiglath-pileser III usurped the Assyrian throne and began to recover and consolidate control of all Assyria’s territories. He gained the throne of Babylon as well, establishing Assyria firmly as the dominant military and economic power in the Near East. He demonstrated political prudence not usually found in the ruthless Assyrian monarchs. King Menahem of Israel (752–742 <span>BC<\/span>) paid him tribute (2 Kgs 15:19-20), as did Tyre, Byblos, and Damascus. Responding to an appeal from King Ahaz of Judah (735–715 <span>BC<\/span>) to help resist Syria and Israel (2 Kgs 16:5-20), Tiglath-pileser conquered Damascus in 732 <span>BC<\/span>. (His successor, Shalmaneser V, would destroy Samaria in 722 <span>BC<\/span>, punctuating the end of the northern kingdom of Israel.)<\/p>\n<p>Sennacherib (705–681 <span>BC<\/span>)<\/p>\n<p>Sennacherib was occupied throughout his reign in a series of bitter wars. He is especially known in the biblical account for his campaign against Judah and siege of Jerusalem in 701 <span>BC<\/span> during the reign of King Hezekiah and the ministry of the prophet Isaiah (2 Kgs 18:13–19:37; Isa 36–37).<\/p>\n<p>Ashurbanipal (668–627 <span>BC<\/span>)<\/p>\n<p>Ashurbanipal captured No-amon (Thebes) in Egypt, thereby realizing the greatest victory in Assyrian history (see Nah 3:3-10). He also established a great library in Nineveh, which was excavated in 1860. Many tablets were found, containing a vast selection of Akkadian material. This library is now one of the principal treasures of the British Museum in London. Very little is known about Ashurbanipal’s reign after 639 <span>BC<\/span>, since his annals do not extend beyond that year. However, allusions in state correspondence, commercial documents, and prayers addressed to the gods suggest that Assyria was becoming increasingly unstable. When Ashurbanipal died in 627 <span>BC<\/span>, his empire declined quickly.<\/p>\n<p>Final Decline and Destruction<\/p>\n<p>In 626 <span>BC<\/span>, Nabopolassar became king of Babylon (626–605 <span>BC<\/span>) and formed an alliance with the Medes, making it almost inevitable that Babylon would succeed against Assyria. In 612 <span>BC<\/span> their combined forces launched a final assault against Nineveh, and after three months of siege the mighty city fell (see Nah 1:8). The last of the Assyrian forces were completely destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar (then a general in his father’s army) at the battle of Carchemish in 605 <span>BC<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>2 Kgs 15:19–19:37<\/p>","summary_ro":"Assyria Assyria was a symbol of terror and tyranny in the Near East for more than three centuries. In the biblical account, we learn about its power and ruthlessness in its treatment of the people of Israel and Judah. But its fortune rose and fell with the strength of its leaders. Eventually, it was overpowered by those who were stronger. Ashurnasirpal II (885–860 BC) Ashurnasirpal II possessed all the qualities and defects of his successors to the extreme: He had the ambition, energy, courag...","summary_en":"Assyria Assyria was a symbol of terror and tyranny in the Near East for more than three centuries. In the biblical account, we learn about its power and ruthlessness in its treatment of the people of Israel and Judah. But its fortune rose and fell with the strength of its leaders. Eventually, it was overpowered by those who were stronger. Ashurnasirpal II (885–860 BC) Ashurnasirpal II possessed all the qualities and defects of his successors to the extreme: He had the ambition, energy, courag...","source":"Profiles.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":96853,"type":"profile","type_label":"Profil","type_icon":"👤","type_color":"#f59e0b","title_ro":"Arameans","title_en":"Arameans","content_ro":"<h3>Arameans<\/h3>\n<p>The Arameans were a Semitic group, descendants of Shem (Gen 10:22-23; cp. Gen 22:20-21). Bethuel and Laban were known as Arameans (Gen 25:20; 28:1-7). Jacob lived for some twenty years with them in Aramean territory (Gen 28–31; Hos 12:12), and the people of Israel remembered that their forefathers were (at least culturally) Arameans (Deut 26:5).<\/p>\n<p>When the Arameans emerged into history around the time of Abraham, they were settled around the central Euphrates, from which they spread out to the east, west, and north. By around 1100 <span>BC<\/span>, Aramean tribes had spread throughout Syria and had expanded into northern Transjordan. They set up a number of powerful Aramean city-states, including Zobah and Damascus, that came into conflict with the Israelites beginning in the time of David (see 2 Sam 8:3-8; 10:6-25).<\/p>\n<p>After Solomon’s death and the division of Israel into northern and southern kingdoms, Aramean Damascus became a powerful and opportunistic player in the political struggles between the two states. When war broke out between Israel and Judah in the years 890–880 <span>BC<\/span>, King Asa of Israel sought aid from Ben-hadad I of Damascus (1 Kgs 15:18-19). Roughly thirty years later, in the early 850s <span>BC<\/span>, Ben-hadad invaded Israel, but Ahab defeated him both at Samaria (20:1-21) and at Aphek the following year (20:22-34). After three years of peace between Israel and Damascus, hostilities broke out again in 853 <span>BC<\/span>, resulting in the battle in which Ahab was killed (22:29-37). Aramean Damascus continued to inflict losses on the kingdom of Israel for the next several decades (see 2 Kgs 8:28-29; 12:17-18; 13:1-7).<\/p>\n<p>During this period, the Aramean city-states began feeling pressure from Assyria. Damascus was first defeated by Assyria around 838 <span>BC<\/span> and was forced to become a tribute-paying vassal of Assyria in 803 <span>BC<\/span>. The resulting weakness of Damascus helped enable Jehoash (798–782 <span>BC<\/span>) to defeat the Arameans and expel them from Israel’s territory around 795 <span>BC<\/span> (2 Kgs 13:14-25). Later, Jeroboam II (793–753 <span>BC<\/span>) was able to force Damascus to pay tribute to him (see 2 Kgs 14:28).<\/p>\n<p>Around 738 <span>BC<\/span> the Arameans of Damascus joined forces with Israel to subjugate Judah. They captured much land, but their siege of Jerusalem was unsuccessful (2 Kgs 16:5; see also 2 Chr 28:5). At this time of seeming success for Damascus, the prophets Isaiah and Amos predicted the city’s doom (Isa 8:4; 17:1; Amos 1:3-5). But rather than trust in God, King Ahaz of Judah turned to the Assyrians for protection, who responded to his gifts by sacking Damascus and exiling its population in 733\/732 <span>BC<\/span> (2 Kgs 16:7-11). Damascus was no longer an independent city-state.<\/p>\n<p>The language of the Arameans, Aramaic, eventually became the language for diplomacy and administration all over the Near East (see, e.g., 2 Kgs 18:26). During the Exile, the Jews adopted the Aramaic language; portions of Ezra and Daniel are written in Aramaic. Aramaic was the <em>lingua franca<\/em> from Egypt to India during the Persian period and was widely spoken in Palestine in Jesus’ day (see Mark 5:41; 1 Cor 16:22).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 10:22-23; 22:20-21; 25:20; 28:1-7; Deut 26:5; 2 Sam 8:3-4; 10:17-19; 1 Kgs 15:18; 1 Kgs 20:1-34; 22:29-37; 2 Kgs 13:25; 16:9-13; 17:24-34; Hos 12:12; Amos 1:5<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Arameans<\/h3>\n<p>The Arameans were a Semitic group, descendants of Shem (Gen 10:22-23; cp. Gen 22:20-21). Bethuel and Laban were known as Arameans (Gen 25:20; 28:1-7). Jacob lived for some twenty years with them in Aramean territory (Gen 28–31; Hos 12:12), and the people of Israel remembered that their forefathers were (at least culturally) Arameans (Deut 26:5).<\/p>\n<p>When the Arameans emerged into history around the time of Abraham, they were settled around the central Euphrates, from which they spread out to the east, west, and north. By around 1100 <span>BC<\/span>, Aramean tribes had spread throughout Syria and had expanded into northern Transjordan. They set up a number of powerful Aramean city-states, including Zobah and Damascus, that came into conflict with the Israelites beginning in the time of David (see 2 Sam 8:3-8; 10:6-25).<\/p>\n<p>After Solomon’s death and the division of Israel into northern and southern kingdoms, Aramean Damascus became a powerful and opportunistic player in the political struggles between the two states. When war broke out between Israel and Judah in the years 890–880 <span>BC<\/span>, King Asa of Israel sought aid from Ben-hadad I of Damascus (1 Kgs 15:18-19). Roughly thirty years later, in the early 850s <span>BC<\/span>, Ben-hadad invaded Israel, but Ahab defeated him both at Samaria (20:1-21) and at Aphek the following year (20:22-34). After three years of peace between Israel and Damascus, hostilities broke out again in 853 <span>BC<\/span>, resulting in the battle in which Ahab was killed (22:29-37). Aramean Damascus continued to inflict losses on the kingdom of Israel for the next several decades (see 2 Kgs 8:28-29; 12:17-18; 13:1-7).<\/p>\n<p>During this period, the Aramean city-states began feeling pressure from Assyria. Damascus was first defeated by Assyria around 838 <span>BC<\/span> and was forced to become a tribute-paying vassal of Assyria in 803 <span>BC<\/span>. The resulting weakness of Damascus helped enable Jehoash (798–782 <span>BC<\/span>) to defeat the Arameans and expel them from Israel’s territory around 795 <span>BC<\/span> (2 Kgs 13:14-25). Later, Jeroboam II (793–753 <span>BC<\/span>) was able to force Damascus to pay tribute to him (see 2 Kgs 14:28).<\/p>\n<p>Around 738 <span>BC<\/span> the Arameans of Damascus joined forces with Israel to subjugate Judah. They captured much land, but their siege of Jerusalem was unsuccessful (2 Kgs 16:5; see also 2 Chr 28:5). At this time of seeming success for Damascus, the prophets Isaiah and Amos predicted the city’s doom (Isa 8:4; 17:1; Amos 1:3-5). But rather than trust in God, King Ahaz of Judah turned to the Assyrians for protection, who responded to his gifts by sacking Damascus and exiling its population in 733\/732 <span>BC<\/span> (2 Kgs 16:7-11). Damascus was no longer an independent city-state.<\/p>\n<p>The language of the Arameans, Aramaic, eventually became the language for diplomacy and administration all over the Near East (see, e.g., 2 Kgs 18:26). During the Exile, the Jews adopted the Aramaic language; portions of Ezra and Daniel are written in Aramaic. Aramaic was the <em>lingua franca<\/em> from Egypt to India during the Persian period and was widely spoken in Palestine in Jesus’ day (see Mark 5:41; 1 Cor 16:22).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 10:22-23; 22:20-21; 25:20; 28:1-7; Deut 26:5; 2 Sam 8:3-4; 10:17-19; 1 Kgs 15:18; 1 Kgs 20:1-34; 22:29-37; 2 Kgs 13:25; 16:9-13; 17:24-34; Hos 12:12; Amos 1:5<\/p>","summary_ro":"Arameans The Arameans were a Semitic group, descendants of Shem (Gen 10:22-23; cp. Gen 22:20-21). Bethuel and Laban were known as Arameans (Gen 25:20; 28:1-7). Jacob lived for some twenty years with them in Aramean territory (Gen 28–31; Hos 12:12), and the people of Israel remembered that their forefathers were (at least culturally) Arameans (Deut 26:5). When the Arameans emerged into history around the time of Abraham, they were settled around the central Euphrates, from which they spread ou...","summary_en":"Arameans The Arameans were a Semitic group, descendants of Shem (Gen 10:22-23; cp. Gen 22:20-21). Bethuel and Laban were known as Arameans (Gen 25:20; 28:1-7). Jacob lived for some twenty years with them in Aramean territory (Gen 28–31; Hos 12:12), and the people of Israel remembered that their forefathers were (at least culturally) Arameans (Deut 26:5). When the Arameans emerged into history around the time of Abraham, they were settled around the central Euphrates, from which they spread ou...","source":"Profiles.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":96937,"type":"profile","type_label":"Profil","type_icon":"👤","type_color":"#f59e0b","title_ro":"Assyria","title_en":"Assyria","content_ro":"<h3>Assyria<\/h3>\n<p>Assyria was a symbol of terror and tyranny in the Near East for more than three centuries. In the biblical account, we learn about its power and ruthlessness in its treatment of the people of Israel and Judah. But its fortune rose and fell with the strength of its leaders. Eventually, it was overpowered by those who were stronger.<\/p>\n<p>Ashurnasirpal II (885–860 <span>BC<\/span>)<\/p>\n<p>Ashurnasirpal II possessed all the qualities and defects of his successors to the extreme: He had the ambition, energy, courage, vanity, and magnificence of a ruthless and unrelenting empire builder.<\/p>\n<p>Shalmaneser III (858–824 <span>BC<\/span>)<\/p>\n<p>Shalmaneser III is well known for the Battle of Qarqar (853 <span>BC<\/span>), considered the most fully documented event from the ancient world. His invasion of Syria was repelled by a coalition that included King Ahab of Israel and several other states. It was years before Shalmaneser was able to conquer Israel and Syria. King Jehu of Israel is depicted on the Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser III kissing the ground at his feet and offering tribute.<\/p>\n<p>Repentance during the Time of Jonah<\/p>\n<p>Sometime during the reign of King Jeroboam II in Israel (793–753 <span>BC<\/span>), the prophet Jonah grudgingly traveled to Nineveh to proclaim judgment (Jon 3–4). Assyria was then in decline, and as Jonah had feared, the king and people of Nineveh listened and repented of their sins. As a result, God granted them a reprieve, which lasted some 150 years.<\/p>\n<p>Tiglath-pileser III (744–727 <span>BC<\/span>)<\/p>\n<p>Tiglath-pileser III usurped the Assyrian throne and began to recover and consolidate control of all Assyria’s territories. He gained the throne of Babylon as well, establishing Assyria firmly as the dominant military and economic power in the Near East. He demonstrated political prudence not usually found in the ruthless Assyrian monarchs. King Menahem of Israel (752–742 <span>BC<\/span>) paid him tribute (2 Kgs 15:19-20), as did Tyre, Byblos, and Damascus. Responding to an appeal from King Ahaz of Judah (735–715 <span>BC<\/span>) to help resist Syria and Israel (2 Kgs 16:5-20), Tiglath-pileser conquered Damascus in 732 <span>BC<\/span>. (His successor, Shalmaneser V, would destroy Samaria in 722 <span>BC<\/span>, punctuating the end of the northern kingdom of Israel.)<\/p>\n<p>Sennacherib (705–681 <span>BC<\/span>)<\/p>\n<p>Sennacherib was occupied throughout his reign in a series of bitter wars. He is especially known in the biblical account for his campaign against Judah and siege of Jerusalem in 701 <span>BC<\/span> during the reign of King Hezekiah and the ministry of the prophet Isaiah (2 Kgs 18:13–19:37; Isa 36–37).<\/p>\n<p>Ashurbanipal (668–627 <span>BC<\/span>)<\/p>\n<p>Ashurbanipal captured No-amon (Thebes) in Egypt, thereby realizing the greatest victory in Assyrian history (see Nah 3:3-10). He also established a great library in Nineveh, which was excavated in 1860. Many tablets were found, containing a vast selection of Akkadian material. This library is now one of the principal treasures of the British Museum in London. Very little is known about Ashurbanipal’s reign after 639 <span>BC<\/span>, since his annals do not extend beyond that year. However, allusions in state correspondence, commercial documents, and prayers addressed to the gods suggest that Assyria was becoming increasingly unstable. When Ashurbanipal died in 627 <span>BC<\/span>, his empire declined quickly.<\/p>\n<p>Final Decline and Destruction<\/p>\n<p>In 626 <span>BC<\/span>, Nabopolassar became king of Babylon (626–605 <span>BC<\/span>) and formed an alliance with the Medes, making it almost inevitable that Babylon would succeed against Assyria. In 612 <span>BC<\/span> their combined forces launched a final assault against Nineveh, and after three months of siege the mighty city fell (see Nah 1:8). The last of the Assyrian forces were completely destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar (then a general in his father’s army) at the battle of Carchemish in 605 <span>BC<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>2 Kgs 15:19–19:37<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Assyria<\/h3>\n<p>Assyria was a symbol of terror and tyranny in the Near East for more than three centuries. In the biblical account, we learn about its power and ruthlessness in its treatment of the people of Israel and Judah. But its fortune rose and fell with the strength of its leaders. Eventually, it was overpowered by those who were stronger.<\/p>\n<p>Ashurnasirpal II (885–860 <span>BC<\/span>)<\/p>\n<p>Ashurnasirpal II possessed all the qualities and defects of his successors to the extreme: He had the ambition, energy, courage, vanity, and magnificence of a ruthless and unrelenting empire builder.<\/p>\n<p>Shalmaneser III (858–824 <span>BC<\/span>)<\/p>\n<p>Shalmaneser III is well known for the Battle of Qarqar (853 <span>BC<\/span>), considered the most fully documented event from the ancient world. His invasion of Syria was repelled by a coalition that included King Ahab of Israel and several other states. It was years before Shalmaneser was able to conquer Israel and Syria. King Jehu of Israel is depicted on the Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser III kissing the ground at his feet and offering tribute.<\/p>\n<p>Repentance during the Time of Jonah<\/p>\n<p>Sometime during the reign of King Jeroboam II in Israel (793–753 <span>BC<\/span>), the prophet Jonah grudgingly traveled to Nineveh to proclaim judgment (Jon 3–4). Assyria was then in decline, and as Jonah had feared, the king and people of Nineveh listened and repented of their sins. As a result, God granted them a reprieve, which lasted some 150 years.<\/p>\n<p>Tiglath-pileser III (744–727 <span>BC<\/span>)<\/p>\n<p>Tiglath-pileser III usurped the Assyrian throne and began to recover and consolidate control of all Assyria’s territories. He gained the throne of Babylon as well, establishing Assyria firmly as the dominant military and economic power in the Near East. He demonstrated political prudence not usually found in the ruthless Assyrian monarchs. King Menahem of Israel (752–742 <span>BC<\/span>) paid him tribute (2 Kgs 15:19-20), as did Tyre, Byblos, and Damascus. Responding to an appeal from King Ahaz of Judah (735–715 <span>BC<\/span>) to help resist Syria and Israel (2 Kgs 16:5-20), Tiglath-pileser conquered Damascus in 732 <span>BC<\/span>. (His successor, Shalmaneser V, would destroy Samaria in 722 <span>BC<\/span>, punctuating the end of the northern kingdom of Israel.)<\/p>\n<p>Sennacherib (705–681 <span>BC<\/span>)<\/p>\n<p>Sennacherib was occupied throughout his reign in a series of bitter wars. He is especially known in the biblical account for his campaign against Judah and siege of Jerusalem in 701 <span>BC<\/span> during the reign of King Hezekiah and the ministry of the prophet Isaiah (2 Kgs 18:13–19:37; Isa 36–37).<\/p>\n<p>Ashurbanipal (668–627 <span>BC<\/span>)<\/p>\n<p>Ashurbanipal captured No-amon (Thebes) in Egypt, thereby realizing the greatest victory in Assyrian history (see Nah 3:3-10). He also established a great library in Nineveh, which was excavated in 1860. Many tablets were found, containing a vast selection of Akkadian material. This library is now one of the principal treasures of the British Museum in London. Very little is known about Ashurbanipal’s reign after 639 <span>BC<\/span>, since his annals do not extend beyond that year. However, allusions in state correspondence, commercial documents, and prayers addressed to the gods suggest that Assyria was becoming increasingly unstable. When Ashurbanipal died in 627 <span>BC<\/span>, his empire declined quickly.<\/p>\n<p>Final Decline and Destruction<\/p>\n<p>In 626 <span>BC<\/span>, Nabopolassar became king of Babylon (626–605 <span>BC<\/span>) and formed an alliance with the Medes, making it almost inevitable that Babylon would succeed against Assyria. In 612 <span>BC<\/span> their combined forces launched a final assault against Nineveh, and after three months of siege the mighty city fell (see Nah 1:8). The last of the Assyrian forces were completely destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar (then a general in his father’s army) at the battle of Carchemish in 605 <span>BC<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>2 Kgs 15:19–19:37<\/p>","summary_ro":"Assyria Assyria was a symbol of terror and tyranny in the Near East for more than three centuries. In the biblical account, we learn about its power and ruthlessness in its treatment of the people of Israel and Judah. But its fortune rose and fell with the strength of its leaders. Eventually, it was overpowered by those who were stronger. Ashurnasirpal II (885–860 BC) Ashurnasirpal II possessed all the qualities and defects of his successors to the extreme: He had the ambition, energy, courag...","summary_en":"Assyria Assyria was a symbol of terror and tyranny in the Near East for more than three centuries. In the biblical account, we learn about its power and ruthlessness in its treatment of the people of Israel and Judah. But its fortune rose and fell with the strength of its leaders. Eventually, it was overpowered by those who were stronger. Ashurnasirpal II (885–860 BC) Ashurnasirpal II possessed all the qualities and defects of his successors to the extreme: He had the ambition, energy, courag...","source":"Profiles.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":124479,"type":"profile","type_label":"Profil","type_icon":"👤","type_color":"#f59e0b","title_ro":"Arameans","title_en":"Arameans","content_ro":"<h3>Arameans<\/h3>\n<p>The Arameans were a Semitic group, descendants of Shem (Gen 10:22-23; cp. Gen 22:20-21). Bethuel and Laban were known as Arameans (Gen 25:20; 28:1-7). Jacob lived for some twenty years with them in Aramean territory (Gen 28–31; Hos 12:12), and the people of Israel remembered that their forefathers were (at least culturally) Arameans (Deut 26:5).<\/p>\n<p>When the Arameans emerged into history around the time of Abraham, they were settled around the central Euphrates, from which they spread out to the east, west, and north. By around 1100 <span>BC<\/span>, Aramean tribes had spread throughout Syria and had expanded into northern Transjordan. They set up a number of powerful Aramean city-states, including Zobah and Damascus, that came into conflict with the Israelites beginning in the time of David (see 2 Sam 8:3-8; 10:6-25).<\/p>\n<p>After Solomon’s death and the division of Israel into northern and southern kingdoms, Aramean Damascus became a powerful and opportunistic player in the political struggles between the two states. When war broke out between Israel and Judah in the years 890–880 <span>BC<\/span>, King Asa of Israel sought aid from Ben-hadad I of Damascus (1 Kgs 15:18-19). Roughly thirty years later, in the early 850s <span>BC<\/span>, Ben-hadad invaded Israel, but Ahab defeated him both at Samaria (20:1-21) and at Aphek the following year (20:22-34). After three years of peace between Israel and Damascus, hostilities broke out again in 853 <span>BC<\/span>, resulting in the battle in which Ahab was killed (22:29-37). Aramean Damascus continued to inflict losses on the kingdom of Israel for the next several decades (see 2 Kgs 8:28-29; 12:17-18; 13:1-7).<\/p>\n<p>During this period, the Aramean city-states began feeling pressure from Assyria. Damascus was first defeated by Assyria around 838 <span>BC<\/span> and was forced to become a tribute-paying vassal of Assyria in 803 <span>BC<\/span>. The resulting weakness of Damascus helped enable Jehoash (798–782 <span>BC<\/span>) to defeat the Arameans and expel them from Israel’s territory around 795 <span>BC<\/span> (2 Kgs 13:14-25). Later, Jeroboam II (793–753 <span>BC<\/span>) was able to force Damascus to pay tribute to him (see 2 Kgs 14:28).<\/p>\n<p>Around 738 <span>BC<\/span> the Arameans of Damascus joined forces with Israel to subjugate Judah. They captured much land, but their siege of Jerusalem was unsuccessful (2 Kgs 16:5; see also 2 Chr 28:5). At this time of seeming success for Damascus, the prophets Isaiah and Amos predicted the city’s doom (Isa 8:4; 17:1; Amos 1:3-5). But rather than trust in God, King Ahaz of Judah turned to the Assyrians for protection, who responded to his gifts by sacking Damascus and exiling its population in 733\/732 <span>BC<\/span> (2 Kgs 16:7-11). Damascus was no longer an independent city-state.<\/p>\n<p>The language of the Arameans, Aramaic, eventually became the language for diplomacy and administration all over the Near East (see, e.g., 2 Kgs 18:26). During the Exile, the Jews adopted the Aramaic language; portions of Ezra and Daniel are written in Aramaic. Aramaic was the <em>lingua franca<\/em> from Egypt to India during the Persian period and was widely spoken in Palestine in Jesus’ day (see Mark 5:41; 1 Cor 16:22).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 10:22-23; 22:20-21; 25:20; 28:1-7; Deut 26:5; 2 Sam 8:3-4; 10:17-19; 1 Kgs 15:18; 1 Kgs 20:1-34; 22:29-37; 2 Kgs 13:25; 16:9-13; 17:24-34; Hos 12:12; Amos 1:5<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Arameans<\/h3>\n<p>The Arameans were a Semitic group, descendants of Shem (Gen 10:22-23; cp. Gen 22:20-21). Bethuel and Laban were known as Arameans (Gen 25:20; 28:1-7). Jacob lived for some twenty years with them in Aramean territory (Gen 28–31; Hos 12:12), and the people of Israel remembered that their forefathers were (at least culturally) Arameans (Deut 26:5).<\/p>\n<p>When the Arameans emerged into history around the time of Abraham, they were settled around the central Euphrates, from which they spread out to the east, west, and north. By around 1100 <span>BC<\/span>, Aramean tribes had spread throughout Syria and had expanded into northern Transjordan. They set up a number of powerful Aramean city-states, including Zobah and Damascus, that came into conflict with the Israelites beginning in the time of David (see 2 Sam 8:3-8; 10:6-25).<\/p>\n<p>After Solomon’s death and the division of Israel into northern and southern kingdoms, Aramean Damascus became a powerful and opportunistic player in the political struggles between the two states. When war broke out between Israel and Judah in the years 890–880 <span>BC<\/span>, King Asa of Israel sought aid from Ben-hadad I of Damascus (1 Kgs 15:18-19). Roughly thirty years later, in the early 850s <span>BC<\/span>, Ben-hadad invaded Israel, but Ahab defeated him both at Samaria (20:1-21) and at Aphek the following year (20:22-34). After three years of peace between Israel and Damascus, hostilities broke out again in 853 <span>BC<\/span>, resulting in the battle in which Ahab was killed (22:29-37). Aramean Damascus continued to inflict losses on the kingdom of Israel for the next several decades (see 2 Kgs 8:28-29; 12:17-18; 13:1-7).<\/p>\n<p>During this period, the Aramean city-states began feeling pressure from Assyria. Damascus was first defeated by Assyria around 838 <span>BC<\/span> and was forced to become a tribute-paying vassal of Assyria in 803 <span>BC<\/span>. The resulting weakness of Damascus helped enable Jehoash (798–782 <span>BC<\/span>) to defeat the Arameans and expel them from Israel’s territory around 795 <span>BC<\/span> (2 Kgs 13:14-25). Later, Jeroboam II (793–753 <span>BC<\/span>) was able to force Damascus to pay tribute to him (see 2 Kgs 14:28).<\/p>\n<p>Around 738 <span>BC<\/span> the Arameans of Damascus joined forces with Israel to subjugate Judah. They captured much land, but their siege of Jerusalem was unsuccessful (2 Kgs 16:5; see also 2 Chr 28:5). At this time of seeming success for Damascus, the prophets Isaiah and Amos predicted the city’s doom (Isa 8:4; 17:1; Amos 1:3-5). But rather than trust in God, King Ahaz of Judah turned to the Assyrians for protection, who responded to his gifts by sacking Damascus and exiling its population in 733\/732 <span>BC<\/span> (2 Kgs 16:7-11). Damascus was no longer an independent city-state.<\/p>\n<p>The language of the Arameans, Aramaic, eventually became the language for diplomacy and administration all over the Near East (see, e.g., 2 Kgs 18:26). During the Exile, the Jews adopted the Aramaic language; portions of Ezra and Daniel are written in Aramaic. Aramaic was the <em>lingua franca<\/em> from Egypt to India during the Persian period and was widely spoken in Palestine in Jesus’ day (see Mark 5:41; 1 Cor 16:22).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 10:22-23; 22:20-21; 25:20; 28:1-7; Deut 26:5; 2 Sam 8:3-4; 10:17-19; 1 Kgs 15:18; 1 Kgs 20:1-34; 22:29-37; 2 Kgs 13:25; 16:9-13; 17:24-34; Hos 12:12; Amos 1:5<\/p>","summary_ro":"Arameans The Arameans were a Semitic group, descendants of Shem (Gen 10:22-23; cp. Gen 22:20-21). Bethuel and Laban were known as Arameans (Gen 25:20; 28:1-7). Jacob lived for some twenty years with them in Aramean territory (Gen 28–31; Hos 12:12), and the people of Israel remembered that their forefathers were (at least culturally) Arameans (Deut 26:5). When the Arameans emerged into history around the time of Abraham, they were settled around the central Euphrates, from which they spread ou...","summary_en":"Arameans The Arameans were a Semitic group, descendants of Shem (Gen 10:22-23; cp. Gen 22:20-21). Bethuel and Laban were known as Arameans (Gen 25:20; 28:1-7). Jacob lived for some twenty years with them in Aramean territory (Gen 28–31; Hos 12:12), and the people of Israel remembered that their forefathers were (at least culturally) Arameans (Deut 26:5). When the Arameans emerged into history around the time of Abraham, they were settled around the central Euphrates, from which they spread ou...","source":"Profiles.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":124563,"type":"profile","type_label":"Profil","type_icon":"👤","type_color":"#f59e0b","title_ro":"Assyria","title_en":"Assyria","content_ro":"<h3>Assyria<\/h3>\n<p>Assyria was a symbol of terror and tyranny in the Near East for more than three centuries. In the biblical account, we learn about its power and ruthlessness in its treatment of the people of Israel and Judah. But its fortune rose and fell with the strength of its leaders. Eventually, it was overpowered by those who were stronger.<\/p>\n<p>Ashurnasirpal II (885–860 <span>BC<\/span>)<\/p>\n<p>Ashurnasirpal II possessed all the qualities and defects of his successors to the extreme: He had the ambition, energy, courage, vanity, and magnificence of a ruthless and unrelenting empire builder.<\/p>\n<p>Shalmaneser III (858–824 <span>BC<\/span>)<\/p>\n<p>Shalmaneser III is well known for the Battle of Qarqar (853 <span>BC<\/span>), considered the most fully documented event from the ancient world. His invasion of Syria was repelled by a coalition that included King Ahab of Israel and several other states. It was years before Shalmaneser was able to conquer Israel and Syria. King Jehu of Israel is depicted on the Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser III kissing the ground at his feet and offering tribute.<\/p>\n<p>Repentance during the Time of Jonah<\/p>\n<p>Sometime during the reign of King Jeroboam II in Israel (793–753 <span>BC<\/span>), the prophet Jonah grudgingly traveled to Nineveh to proclaim judgment (Jon 3–4). Assyria was then in decline, and as Jonah had feared, the king and people of Nineveh listened and repented of their sins. As a result, God granted them a reprieve, which lasted some 150 years.<\/p>\n<p>Tiglath-pileser III (744–727 <span>BC<\/span>)<\/p>\n<p>Tiglath-pileser III usurped the Assyrian throne and began to recover and consolidate control of all Assyria’s territories. He gained the throne of Babylon as well, establishing Assyria firmly as the dominant military and economic power in the Near East. He demonstrated political prudence not usually found in the ruthless Assyrian monarchs. King Menahem of Israel (752–742 <span>BC<\/span>) paid him tribute (2 Kgs 15:19-20), as did Tyre, Byblos, and Damascus. Responding to an appeal from King Ahaz of Judah (735–715 <span>BC<\/span>) to help resist Syria and Israel (2 Kgs 16:5-20), Tiglath-pileser conquered Damascus in 732 <span>BC<\/span>. (His successor, Shalmaneser V, would destroy Samaria in 722 <span>BC<\/span>, punctuating the end of the northern kingdom of Israel.)<\/p>\n<p>Sennacherib (705–681 <span>BC<\/span>)<\/p>\n<p>Sennacherib was occupied throughout his reign in a series of bitter wars. He is especially known in the biblical account for his campaign against Judah and siege of Jerusalem in 701 <span>BC<\/span> during the reign of King Hezekiah and the ministry of the prophet Isaiah (2 Kgs 18:13–19:37; Isa 36–37).<\/p>\n<p>Ashurbanipal (668–627 <span>BC<\/span>)<\/p>\n<p>Ashurbanipal captured No-amon (Thebes) in Egypt, thereby realizing the greatest victory in Assyrian history (see Nah 3:3-10). He also established a great library in Nineveh, which was excavated in 1860. Many tablets were found, containing a vast selection of Akkadian material. This library is now one of the principal treasures of the British Museum in London. Very little is known about Ashurbanipal’s reign after 639 <span>BC<\/span>, since his annals do not extend beyond that year. However, allusions in state correspondence, commercial documents, and prayers addressed to the gods suggest that Assyria was becoming increasingly unstable. When Ashurbanipal died in 627 <span>BC<\/span>, his empire declined quickly.<\/p>\n<p>Final Decline and Destruction<\/p>\n<p>In 626 <span>BC<\/span>, Nabopolassar became king of Babylon (626–605 <span>BC<\/span>) and formed an alliance with the Medes, making it almost inevitable that Babylon would succeed against Assyria. In 612 <span>BC<\/span> their combined forces launched a final assault against Nineveh, and after three months of siege the mighty city fell (see Nah 1:8). The last of the Assyrian forces were completely destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar (then a general in his father’s army) at the battle of Carchemish in 605 <span>BC<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>2 Kgs 15:19–19:37<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Assyria<\/h3>\n<p>Assyria was a symbol of terror and tyranny in the Near East for more than three centuries. In the biblical account, we learn about its power and ruthlessness in its treatment of the people of Israel and Judah. But its fortune rose and fell with the strength of its leaders. Eventually, it was overpowered by those who were stronger.<\/p>\n<p>Ashurnasirpal II (885–860 <span>BC<\/span>)<\/p>\n<p>Ashurnasirpal II possessed all the qualities and defects of his successors to the extreme: He had the ambition, energy, courage, vanity, and magnificence of a ruthless and unrelenting empire builder.<\/p>\n<p>Shalmaneser III (858–824 <span>BC<\/span>)<\/p>\n<p>Shalmaneser III is well known for the Battle of Qarqar (853 <span>BC<\/span>), considered the most fully documented event from the ancient world. His invasion of Syria was repelled by a coalition that included King Ahab of Israel and several other states. It was years before Shalmaneser was able to conquer Israel and Syria. King Jehu of Israel is depicted on the Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser III kissing the ground at his feet and offering tribute.<\/p>\n<p>Repentance during the Time of Jonah<\/p>\n<p>Sometime during the reign of King Jeroboam II in Israel (793–753 <span>BC<\/span>), the prophet Jonah grudgingly traveled to Nineveh to proclaim judgment (Jon 3–4). Assyria was then in decline, and as Jonah had feared, the king and people of Nineveh listened and repented of their sins. As a result, God granted them a reprieve, which lasted some 150 years.<\/p>\n<p>Tiglath-pileser III (744–727 <span>BC<\/span>)<\/p>\n<p>Tiglath-pileser III usurped the Assyrian throne and began to recover and consolidate control of all Assyria’s territories. He gained the throne of Babylon as well, establishing Assyria firmly as the dominant military and economic power in the Near East. He demonstrated political prudence not usually found in the ruthless Assyrian monarchs. King Menahem of Israel (752–742 <span>BC<\/span>) paid him tribute (2 Kgs 15:19-20), as did Tyre, Byblos, and Damascus. Responding to an appeal from King Ahaz of Judah (735–715 <span>BC<\/span>) to help resist Syria and Israel (2 Kgs 16:5-20), Tiglath-pileser conquered Damascus in 732 <span>BC<\/span>. (His successor, Shalmaneser V, would destroy Samaria in 722 <span>BC<\/span>, punctuating the end of the northern kingdom of Israel.)<\/p>\n<p>Sennacherib (705–681 <span>BC<\/span>)<\/p>\n<p>Sennacherib was occupied throughout his reign in a series of bitter wars. He is especially known in the biblical account for his campaign against Judah and siege of Jerusalem in 701 <span>BC<\/span> during the reign of King Hezekiah and the ministry of the prophet Isaiah (2 Kgs 18:13–19:37; Isa 36–37).<\/p>\n<p>Ashurbanipal (668–627 <span>BC<\/span>)<\/p>\n<p>Ashurbanipal captured No-amon (Thebes) in Egypt, thereby realizing the greatest victory in Assyrian history (see Nah 3:3-10). He also established a great library in Nineveh, which was excavated in 1860. Many tablets were found, containing a vast selection of Akkadian material. This library is now one of the principal treasures of the British Museum in London. Very little is known about Ashurbanipal’s reign after 639 <span>BC<\/span>, since his annals do not extend beyond that year. However, allusions in state correspondence, commercial documents, and prayers addressed to the gods suggest that Assyria was becoming increasingly unstable. When Ashurbanipal died in 627 <span>BC<\/span>, his empire declined quickly.<\/p>\n<p>Final Decline and Destruction<\/p>\n<p>In 626 <span>BC<\/span>, Nabopolassar became king of Babylon (626–605 <span>BC<\/span>) and formed an alliance with the Medes, making it almost inevitable that Babylon would succeed against Assyria. In 612 <span>BC<\/span> their combined forces launched a final assault against Nineveh, and after three months of siege the mighty city fell (see Nah 1:8). The last of the Assyrian forces were completely destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar (then a general in his father’s army) at the battle of Carchemish in 605 <span>BC<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>2 Kgs 15:19–19:37<\/p>","summary_ro":"Assyria Assyria was a symbol of terror and tyranny in the Near East for more than three centuries. In the biblical account, we learn about its power and ruthlessness in its treatment of the people of Israel and Judah. But its fortune rose and fell with the strength of its leaders. Eventually, it was overpowered by those who were stronger. Ashurnasirpal II (885–860 BC) Ashurnasirpal II possessed all the qualities and defects of his successors to the extreme: He had the ambition, energy, courag...","summary_en":"Assyria Assyria was a symbol of terror and tyranny in the Near East for more than three centuries. In the biblical account, we learn about its power and ruthlessness in its treatment of the people of Israel and Judah. But its fortune rose and fell with the strength of its leaders. Eventually, it was overpowered by those who were stronger. Ashurnasirpal II (885–860 BC) Ashurnasirpal II possessed all the qualities and defects of his successors to the extreme: He had the ambition, energy, courag...","source":"Profiles.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":8467,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Damascus","title_en":"Damascus","content_ro":"<h3>DAMASCUS<\/h3>\n<p>Syrian oasis city protected on three sides by mountains and situated on trade routes about 160 miles (257 kilometers) northeast of Jerusalem. The name Damascus can also refer to the surrounding area and to the southern Syrian state. Though close to the desert, the district is rich in almonds, apricots, cotton, flax, grains, hemp, olives, pistachios, pomegranates, tobacco, vineyards, and walnuts. These crops grow well because the land is watered by two rivers: the Nahr Barada, “the Cool” (biblical Abana), which runs from the northwest mountains through a deep ravine to the city; and the Nahr el-A waj, “the Crooked” (biblical Pharpar), which flows west to east. Together the two rivers irrigate 400 square miles (643.6 square kilometers) of land. Their beauty and importance in biblical times is conveyed by the haughty words of Naaman, a resident of the area, who almost refused to wash his leprosy away in the Jordan, as Elisha had prescribed, because it was such a poor river in comparison with the Abana and Pharpar (2 Kgs 5).<\/p>\n\n<p>Of the several trade routes that converged in the area, one led to Tyre and down the Mediterranean coastline, another to Megiddo and eventually to Memphis and Egypt, and a third to the Gulf of Aqaba.<\/p>\n<p>The first biblical mention of Damascus (Gn 14:15) refers to the city in connection with Abraham’s successful attack upon the confederation of kings who kidnapped Lot and his family. The Bible does not refer to the city again until the time of David (c. 1000 <span>BC<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>Israel occupied a strategic position along the trade routes between Mesopotamia and Egypt. Although in the time of Joshua and the judges Israel was in conflict with its immediate neighbors, the Amorites, Moabites, Philistines, Ammonites, and Midianites, there was relatively little opposition from Syria.<\/p>\n<p>By the time of Saul, Zobah, an Aramean kingdom to the north of Damascus, was menacing the Israelites. Damascus was possibly in alliance with Zobah at this time, and the Israelites fought a defensive action (1 Sm 14:47). David subsequently defeated Hadadezer of Zobah and gained control over southern Syria and Damascus, where he garrisoned his troops. David’s forces under Joab continued to be successful, and tribute was sent from Damascus to Israel. One of Hadadezer’s officers, Rezon, deserted and formed a guerilla band in the Damascus area. Subsequently, in Solomon’s reign he eroded even the Israelites’ economic control of the region and set himself up as king in Damascus around 940 <span>BC<\/span> (1 Kgs 11:23-25).<\/p>\n<p>In the reign of Ben-hadad I, about 883–843 <span>BC<\/span>, soldiers from Damascus besieged Samaria and sent reasonable terms to Ahab, which were accepted swiftly. Damascus was at the height of its power when Ben-hadad was campaigning successfully against the Assyrians. At this time, when Jehoram, Ahab’s son, was king of Israel, Naaman the leper, a Syrian captain, was healed by the prophet Elisha when he accepted humbly the prescribed cure.<\/p>\n<p>The strategy of overcoming the kingdom by killing the king had been successful for Ben-hadad in his fight with Ahab, and he continued to follow the same policy. Shortly afterward, in a further effort to subdue Samaria, he sent assassination squads to murder either Jehoram or the prophet Elisha. The Lord preserved the lives of the pursued, and the Syrian attacked without success. Several years later, Elisha, who had gained the respect of the Syrians, entered Damascus boldly and announced that Ben-hadad’s illness was not fatal but that his death was imminent. Ben-hadad was thereafter murdered by Hazael, who then succeeded him. Although Damascus was soundly defeated by Assyria about 838 <span>BC<\/span>, Hazael rebounded quickly, and by 830 <span>BC<\/span> other predictions of Elisha were fulfilled. Damascene troops then controlled large areas of Palestinian territory, and the temple treasure was used to bribe the Syrians and save Jerusalem (2 Kgs 12:17-18).<\/p>\n<p>Planning to continue the subjection of Israel, Ben-hadad II found himself having to contend instead with resumed attacks from Assyria. In 803 <span>BC<\/span> Damascus became a tributary of Assyria, but the northern forces were unable to hold the area. After a further campaign in which Assyria again proved dominant, a weakened Damascus was unable to quash an Israelite rebellion in 795 <span>BC<\/span>. By the time of Jeroboam II, the Damascenes were forced to pay tribute to Samaria (2 Kgs 14:28).<\/p>\n<p>About 738 <span>BC<\/span> the Syrians, led by their new leader Rezin, joined forces with Pekah, king of Israel, to subjugate Judah. Much land was captured, although their siege of Jerusalem was unsuccessful (2 Kgs 16:5-6; 2 Chr 28:5). At this time of seeming success for Damascus, the city’s doom was predicted by Isaiah (Is 8:4; 17:1), Amos (Am 1:3-5), and Jeremiah (Jer 49:23-27). Rejecting God, Ahaz of Judah turned for protection to an alliance with the Assyrians, whom he bribed with the temple treasure. The Assyrian king Tiglath-pileser III (“Pul”) agreed and marched against the Syro-Israelite confederation. After defeating Israel, he attacked Damascus, plundered the city, deported the population, and replaced them with foreigners from other captured lands. Damascus was no longer an independent city-state.<\/p>\n<p>Due to its key location, Damascus remained important, and the Assyrians used the city as a provincial capital. Their records mention it in 727, 720, and 694 <span>BC<\/span>, and also in the days of Ashurbanipal (669–663 <span>BC<\/span>). Assyrian world dominance succumbed to that of Neo-Babylon, which was later replaced by that of Medo-Persia. During the period of Persian control, Damascus was a noted administrative center. Under the regime of Alexander the Great, the importance of Damascus was diminished by the rise in commercial significance of Antioch.<\/p>\n<p>During intertestamental times, Damascus passed from one ruler to another. Following the death of Alexander, the city was controlled by the Ptolemies of Egypt and the Seleucids of Babylon. Somewhat before 100 <span>BC<\/span>, Syria was divided, with Damascus becoming the capital of Coele-Syria. Its non-Syrian kings were constantly in trouble at home with the economy and abroad with the Parthians, Hasmoneans, and Nabateans, who under Aretas controlled Damascus from 84 to 72 <span>BC<\/span>. Subsequently, authority passed to the Hasmoneans, descendants of the Maccabees, and then the Idumeans (the Herods). The area was subjected to Roman dominance after the defeat of Syria by the Romans in 65 <span>BC<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p>Shortly after the death of Christ, the Nabateans regained control of the area, ruling Damascus from Petra through an ethnarch. It was under the control of an Arab appointee, probably Aretas IV, when Saul of Tarsus sought Jewish authority to purge Damascus of its Christians (2 Cor 11:32). Luke’s report in Acts 9, corroborated by Paul’s own confession (Acts 22:5-21; 26:11-23), relates Saul’s vision, blinding, and subsequent conversion on the road to Damascus. This may have been close to the place where Syrian soldiers were blinded when planning to assassinate Elisha (2 Kgs 6:18-23). After Saul’s sight was restored in a house on the street called “Straight,” he preached Christianity. Apparently the uproar in the Jewish quarter concerning his preaching was so great that the ethnarch was willing to condone Saul’s murder by orthodox Jews. Acts 9:23-25 describes his escape to Jerusalem. Damascus is not mentioned thereafter in biblical history.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Syria, Syrians.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>DAMASCUS<\/h3>\n<p>Syrian oasis city protected on three sides by mountains and situated on trade routes about 160 miles (257 kilometers) northeast of Jerusalem. The name Damascus can also refer to the surrounding area and to the southern Syrian state. Though close to the desert, the district is rich in almonds, apricots, cotton, flax, grains, hemp, olives, pistachios, pomegranates, tobacco, vineyards, and walnuts. These crops grow well because the land is watered by two rivers: the Nahr Barada, “the Cool” (biblical Abana), which runs from the northwest mountains through a deep ravine to the city; and the Nahr el-A waj, “the Crooked” (biblical Pharpar), which flows west to east. Together the two rivers irrigate 400 square miles (643.6 square kilometers) of land. Their beauty and importance in biblical times is conveyed by the haughty words of Naaman, a resident of the area, who almost refused to wash his leprosy away in the Jordan, as Elisha had prescribed, because it was such a poor river in comparison with the Abana and Pharpar (2 Kgs 5).<\/p>\n\n<p>Of the several trade routes that converged in the area, one led to Tyre and down the Mediterranean coastline, another to Megiddo and eventually to Memphis and Egypt, and a third to the Gulf of Aqaba.<\/p>\n<p>The first biblical mention of Damascus (Gn 14:15) refers to the city in connection with Abraham’s successful attack upon the confederation of kings who kidnapped Lot and his family. The Bible does not refer to the city again until the time of David (c. 1000 <span>BC<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>Israel occupied a strategic position along the trade routes between Mesopotamia and Egypt. Although in the time of Joshua and the judges Israel was in conflict with its immediate neighbors, the Amorites, Moabites, Philistines, Ammonites, and Midianites, there was relatively little opposition from Syria.<\/p>\n<p>By the time of Saul, Zobah, an Aramean kingdom to the north of Damascus, was menacing the Israelites. Damascus was possibly in alliance with Zobah at this time, and the Israelites fought a defensive action (1 Sm 14:47). David subsequently defeated Hadadezer of Zobah and gained control over southern Syria and Damascus, where he garrisoned his troops. David’s forces under Joab continued to be successful, and tribute was sent from Damascus to Israel. One of Hadadezer’s officers, Rezon, deserted and formed a guerilla band in the Damascus area. Subsequently, in Solomon’s reign he eroded even the Israelites’ economic control of the region and set himself up as king in Damascus around 940 <span>BC<\/span> (1 Kgs 11:23-25).<\/p>\n<p>In the reign of Ben-hadad I, about 883–843 <span>BC<\/span>, soldiers from Damascus besieged Samaria and sent reasonable terms to Ahab, which were accepted swiftly. Damascus was at the height of its power when Ben-hadad was campaigning successfully against the Assyrians. At this time, when Jehoram, Ahab’s son, was king of Israel, Naaman the leper, a Syrian captain, was healed by the prophet Elisha when he accepted humbly the prescribed cure.<\/p>\n<p>The strategy of overcoming the kingdom by killing the king had been successful for Ben-hadad in his fight with Ahab, and he continued to follow the same policy. Shortly afterward, in a further effort to subdue Samaria, he sent assassination squads to murder either Jehoram or the prophet Elisha. The Lord preserved the lives of the pursued, and the Syrian attacked without success. Several years later, Elisha, who had gained the respect of the Syrians, entered Damascus boldly and announced that Ben-hadad’s illness was not fatal but that his death was imminent. Ben-hadad was thereafter murdered by Hazael, who then succeeded him. Although Damascus was soundly defeated by Assyria about 838 <span>BC<\/span>, Hazael rebounded quickly, and by 830 <span>BC<\/span> other predictions of Elisha were fulfilled. Damascene troops then controlled large areas of Palestinian territory, and the temple treasure was used to bribe the Syrians and save Jerusalem (2 Kgs 12:17-18).<\/p>\n<p>Planning to continue the subjection of Israel, Ben-hadad II found himself having to contend instead with resumed attacks from Assyria. In 803 <span>BC<\/span> Damascus became a tributary of Assyria, but the northern forces were unable to hold the area. After a further campaign in which Assyria again proved dominant, a weakened Damascus was unable to quash an Israelite rebellion in 795 <span>BC<\/span>. By the time of Jeroboam II, the Damascenes were forced to pay tribute to Samaria (2 Kgs 14:28).<\/p>\n<p>About 738 <span>BC<\/span> the Syrians, led by their new leader Rezin, joined forces with Pekah, king of Israel, to subjugate Judah. Much land was captured, although their siege of Jerusalem was unsuccessful (2 Kgs 16:5-6; 2 Chr 28:5). At this time of seeming success for Damascus, the city’s doom was predicted by Isaiah (Is 8:4; 17:1), Amos (Am 1:3-5), and Jeremiah (Jer 49:23-27). Rejecting God, Ahaz of Judah turned for protection to an alliance with the Assyrians, whom he bribed with the temple treasure. The Assyrian king Tiglath-pileser III (“Pul”) agreed and marched against the Syro-Israelite confederation. After defeating Israel, he attacked Damascus, plundered the city, deported the population, and replaced them with foreigners from other captured lands. Damascus was no longer an independent city-state.<\/p>\n<p>Due to its key location, Damascus remained important, and the Assyrians used the city as a provincial capital. Their records mention it in 727, 720, and 694 <span>BC<\/span>, and also in the days of Ashurbanipal (669–663 <span>BC<\/span>). Assyrian world dominance succumbed to that of Neo-Babylon, which was later replaced by that of Medo-Persia. During the period of Persian control, Damascus was a noted administrative center. Under the regime of Alexander the Great, the importance of Damascus was diminished by the rise in commercial significance of Antioch.<\/p>\n<p>During intertestamental times, Damascus passed from one ruler to another. Following the death of Alexander, the city was controlled by the Ptolemies of Egypt and the Seleucids of Babylon. Somewhat before 100 <span>BC<\/span>, Syria was divided, with Damascus becoming the capital of Coele-Syria. Its non-Syrian kings were constantly in trouble at home with the economy and abroad with the Parthians, Hasmoneans, and Nabateans, who under Aretas controlled Damascus from 84 to 72 <span>BC<\/span>. Subsequently, authority passed to the Hasmoneans, descendants of the Maccabees, and then the Idumeans (the Herods). The area was subjected to Roman dominance after the defeat of Syria by the Romans in 65 <span>BC<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p>Shortly after the death of Christ, the Nabateans regained control of the area, ruling Damascus from Petra through an ethnarch. It was under the control of an Arab appointee, probably Aretas IV, when Saul of Tarsus sought Jewish authority to purge Damascus of its Christians (2 Cor 11:32). Luke’s report in Acts 9, corroborated by Paul’s own confession (Acts 22:5-21; 26:11-23), relates Saul’s vision, blinding, and subsequent conversion on the road to Damascus. This may have been close to the place where Syrian soldiers were blinded when planning to assassinate Elisha (2 Kgs 6:18-23). After Saul’s sight was restored in a house on the street called “Straight,” he preached Christianity. Apparently the uproar in the Jewish quarter concerning his preaching was so great that the ethnarch was willing to condone Saul’s murder by orthodox Jews. Acts 9:23-25 describes his escape to Jerusalem. Damascus is not mentioned thereafter in biblical history.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Syria, Syrians.<\/p>","summary_ro":"DAMASCUS Syrian oasis city protected on three sides by mountains and situated on trade routes about 160 miles (257 kilometers) northeast of Jerusalem. The name Damascus can also refer to the surrounding area and to the southern Syrian state. Though close to the desert, the district is rich in almonds, apricots, cotton, flax, grains, hemp, olives, pistachios, pomegranates, tobacco, vineyards, and walnuts. These crops grow well because the land is watered by two rivers: the Nahr Barada, “the Co...","summary_en":"DAMASCUS Syrian oasis city protected on three sides by mountains and situated on trade routes about 160 miles (257 kilometers) northeast of Jerusalem. The name Damascus can also refer to the surrounding area and to the southern Syrian state. Though close to the desert, the district is rich in almonds, apricots, cotton, flax, grains, hemp, olives, pistachios, pomegranates, tobacco, vineyards, and walnuts. These crops grow well because the land is watered by two rivers: the Nahr Barada, “the Co...","source":"Articles\/D.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":16844,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Hoshea","title_en":"Hoshea","content_ro":"<h3>HOSHEA<\/h3>\n<li>1. Original name of Joshua, the son of Nun and Moses’ successor, before his name was changed by Moses (Nm 13:8, 16). <em>See<\/em> Joshua (Person) #1.<\/li>\n<li>2. Son of Elah and the last of the 20 kings of the northern kingdom of Israel (2 Kgs 17:1-6). He reigned for nine years (732–723 <span>BC<\/span>) before being taken captive by the Assyrians. In the later years of the northern kingdom, Assyria (under the rule of Tiglath-pileser III) had gained control of most of the Middle East and had reduced the scope of the northern kingdom to Ephraim, Issachar, and the half of Manasseh west of the Jordan.<\/li>\n<p>Earlier, the northern kingdom, under Pekah (740–732 <span>BC<\/span>), entered into an alliance with Rezin of Damascus (Syria) and attempted to coerce King Ahaz of Judah (735–715 <span>BC<\/span>) to join them in action against Tiglath-pileser (2 Kgs 16:5; Is 7:1-6). Assyria came to Judah’s aid, and at this point Hoshea was one of a group of conspirators who assassinated Pekah (2 Kgs 15:30). Tiglath-pileser rewarded Hoshea by making him king over the remnant of the northern kingdom. Hoshea ruled only as a vassal of Assyria and paid heavy tribute, remaining loyal to Assyria until the death of Tiglath-pileser in 727 <span>BC<\/span>. When Shalmaneser V succeeded to the throne of Assyria, he did not trust Hoshea’s loyalty and marched against him, thereby continuing the forced annual tribute (2 Kgs 17:3). In a short time Hoshea attempted to assert independence. He withheld tribute and entered into negotiations with So, king of Egypt (v 4), finding a favorable response, because Egypt would be in a precarious position if Assyria were to control Palestine. Therefore, Egypt was quite willing to support Hoshea in his resistance to Assyria in the hope that Samaria would remain a buffer between Egypt and Assyria. Soon, Shalmaneser directed his army against Samaria (724 <span>BC<\/span>), and Hoshea discovered that the alliance with Egypt was of little value. Hoshea was taken prisoner, and Assyria apparently besieged Samaria for three years. The city fell in 722 <span>BC<\/span>, and Sargon II, who had succeeded Shalmaneser about 726 <span>BC<\/span>, deported many Israelites to various places in Assyria, thus ending the northern kingdom.<\/p>\n<li>3. Son of Azaziah and one of King David’s officers set over the Ephraimites (1 Chr 27:20).<\/li>\n<li>4. One who set his seal on Ezra’s covenant (Neh 10:23).<\/li>\n<li>5. Eighth-century prophet of Israel better known as Hosea. <em>See<\/em> Hosea (Person); Hosea, Book of.<\/li>","content_en":"<h3>HOSHEA<\/h3>\n<li>1. Original name of Joshua, the son of Nun and Moses’ successor, before his name was changed by Moses (Nm 13:8, 16). <em>See<\/em> Joshua (Person) #1.<\/li>\n<li>2. Son of Elah and the last of the 20 kings of the northern kingdom of Israel (2 Kgs 17:1-6). He reigned for nine years (732–723 <span>BC<\/span>) before being taken captive by the Assyrians. In the later years of the northern kingdom, Assyria (under the rule of Tiglath-pileser III) had gained control of most of the Middle East and had reduced the scope of the northern kingdom to Ephraim, Issachar, and the half of Manasseh west of the Jordan.<\/li>\n<p>Earlier, the northern kingdom, under Pekah (740–732 <span>BC<\/span>), entered into an alliance with Rezin of Damascus (Syria) and attempted to coerce King Ahaz of Judah (735–715 <span>BC<\/span>) to join them in action against Tiglath-pileser (2 Kgs 16:5; Is 7:1-6). Assyria came to Judah’s aid, and at this point Hoshea was one of a group of conspirators who assassinated Pekah (2 Kgs 15:30). Tiglath-pileser rewarded Hoshea by making him king over the remnant of the northern kingdom. Hoshea ruled only as a vassal of Assyria and paid heavy tribute, remaining loyal to Assyria until the death of Tiglath-pileser in 727 <span>BC<\/span>. When Shalmaneser V succeeded to the throne of Assyria, he did not trust Hoshea’s loyalty and marched against him, thereby continuing the forced annual tribute (2 Kgs 17:3). In a short time Hoshea attempted to assert independence. He withheld tribute and entered into negotiations with So, king of Egypt (v 4), finding a favorable response, because Egypt would be in a precarious position if Assyria were to control Palestine. Therefore, Egypt was quite willing to support Hoshea in his resistance to Assyria in the hope that Samaria would remain a buffer between Egypt and Assyria. Soon, Shalmaneser directed his army against Samaria (724 <span>BC<\/span>), and Hoshea discovered that the alliance with Egypt was of little value. Hoshea was taken prisoner, and Assyria apparently besieged Samaria for three years. The city fell in 722 <span>BC<\/span>, and Sargon II, who had succeeded Shalmaneser about 726 <span>BC<\/span>, deported many Israelites to various places in Assyria, thus ending the northern kingdom.<\/p>\n<li>3. Son of Azaziah and one of King David’s officers set over the Ephraimites (1 Chr 27:20).<\/li>\n<li>4. One who set his seal on Ezra’s covenant (Neh 10:23).<\/li>\n<li>5. Eighth-century prophet of Israel better known as Hosea. <em>See<\/em> Hosea (Person); Hosea, Book of.<\/li>","summary_ro":"HOSHEA 1. Original name of Joshua, the son of Nun and Moses’ successor, before his name was changed by Moses (Nm 13:8, 16). See Joshua (Person) #1. 2. Son of Elah and the last of the 20 kings of the northern kingdom of Israel (2 Kgs 17:1-6). He reigned for nine years (732–723 BC) before being taken captive by the Assyrians. In the later years of the northern kingdom, Assyria (under the rule of Tiglath-pileser III) had gained control of most of the Middle East and had reduced the scope of the ...","summary_en":"HOSHEA 1. Original name of Joshua, the son of Nun and Moses’ successor, before his name was changed by Moses (Nm 13:8, 16). See Joshua (Person) #1. 2. Son of Elah and the last of the 20 kings of the northern kingdom of Israel (2 Kgs 17:1-6). He reigned for nine years (732–723 BC) before being taken captive by the Assyrians. In the later years of the northern kingdom, Assyria (under the rule of Tiglath-pileser III) had gained control of most of the Middle East and had reduced the scope of the ...","source":"Articles\/H.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":47387,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: 2 Împărați 16:5","title_en":"Study Note: 2 Împărați 16:5","content_ro":"<p><strong>16:5-6<\/strong> <em>Rezin . . . Pekah:<\/em> This alliance between the kings of <em>Aram<\/em> and <em>Israel<\/em> was intended to free the area of Assyrian dominance under Tiglath-pileser III (15:29-30; Isa 9:1). The <em>attack<\/em> against <em>Judah<\/em> may have occurred to force Judah into the alliance or to replace the Judean king with one of their own choosing (Isa 7:3-6). The result was captivity and widespread death for the people of Judah (2 Chr 28:5-15). Isaiah reports that Rezin and Pekah intended to install a new king on Judah’s throne (Isa 7:3-6). Judah also suffered further attacks by the Edomites and Philistines (2 Chr 28:17-18). All of this was God’s will due to Ahaz’s detestable spiritual practices, which led to great sin among the people of Judah (2 Chr 28:5, 19).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>16:5-6<\/strong> <em>Rezin . . . Pekah:<\/em> This alliance between the kings of <em>Aram<\/em> and <em>Israel<\/em> was intended to free the area of Assyrian dominance under Tiglath-pileser III (15:29-30; Isa 9:1). The <em>attack<\/em> against <em>Judah<\/em> may have occurred to force Judah into the alliance or to replace the Judean king with one of their own choosing (Isa 7:3-6). The result was captivity and widespread death for the people of Judah (2 Chr 28:5-15). Isaiah reports that Rezin and Pekah intended to install a new king on Judah’s throne (Isa 7:3-6). Judah also suffered further attacks by the Edomites and Philistines (2 Chr 28:17-18). All of this was God’s will due to Ahaz’s detestable spiritual practices, which led to great sin among the people of Judah (2 Chr 28:5, 19).<\/p>","summary_ro":"16:5-6 Rezin . . . Pekah: This alliance between the kings of Aram and Israel was intended to free the area of Assyrian dominance under Tiglath-pileser III (15:29-30; Isa 9:1). The attack against Judah may have occurred to force Judah into the alliance or to replace the Judean king with one of their own choosing (Isa 7:3-6). The result was captivity and widespread death for the people of Judah (2 Chr 28:5-15). Isaiah reports that Rezin and Pekah intended to install a new king on Judah’s throne...","summary_en":"16:5-6 Rezin . . . Pekah: This alliance between the kings of Aram and Israel was intended to free the area of Assyrian dominance under Tiglath-pileser III (15:29-30; Isa 9:1). The attack against Judah may have occurred to force Judah into the alliance or to replace the Judean king with one of their own choosing (Isa 7:3-6). The result was captivity and widespread death for the people of Judah (2 Chr 28:5-15). Isaiah reports that Rezin and Pekah intended to install a new king on Judah’s throne...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":75013,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: 2 Împărați 16:5","title_en":"Study Note: 2 Împărați 16:5","content_ro":"<p><strong>16:5-6<\/strong> <em>Rezin . . . Pekah:<\/em> This alliance between the kings of <em>Aram<\/em> and <em>Israel<\/em> was intended to free the area of Assyrian dominance under Tiglath-pileser III (15:29-30; Isa 9:1). The <em>attack<\/em> against <em>Judah<\/em> may have occurred to force Judah into the alliance or to replace the Judean king with one of their own choosing (Isa 7:3-6). The result was captivity and widespread death for the people of Judah (2 Chr 28:5-15). Isaiah reports that Rezin and Pekah intended to install a new king on Judah’s throne (Isa 7:3-6). Judah also suffered further attacks by the Edomites and Philistines (2 Chr 28:17-18). All of this was God’s will due to Ahaz’s detestable spiritual practices, which led to great sin among the people of Judah (2 Chr 28:5, 19).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>16:5-6<\/strong> <em>Rezin . . . Pekah:<\/em> This alliance between the kings of <em>Aram<\/em> and <em>Israel<\/em> was intended to free the area of Assyrian dominance under Tiglath-pileser III (15:29-30; Isa 9:1). The <em>attack<\/em> against <em>Judah<\/em> may have occurred to force Judah into the alliance or to replace the Judean king with one of their own choosing (Isa 7:3-6). The result was captivity and widespread death for the people of Judah (2 Chr 28:5-15). Isaiah reports that Rezin and Pekah intended to install a new king on Judah’s throne (Isa 7:3-6). Judah also suffered further attacks by the Edomites and Philistines (2 Chr 28:17-18). All of this was God’s will due to Ahaz’s detestable spiritual practices, which led to great sin among the people of Judah (2 Chr 28:5, 19).<\/p>","summary_ro":"16:5-6 Rezin . . . Pekah: This alliance between the kings of Aram and Israel was intended to free the area of Assyrian dominance under Tiglath-pileser III (15:29-30; Isa 9:1). The attack against Judah may have occurred to force Judah into the alliance or to replace the Judean king with one of their own choosing (Isa 7:3-6). The result was captivity and widespread death for the people of Judah (2 Chr 28:5-15). Isaiah reports that Rezin and Pekah intended to install a new king on Judah’s throne...","summary_en":"16:5-6 Rezin . . . Pekah: This alliance between the kings of Aram and Israel was intended to free the area of Assyrian dominance under Tiglath-pileser III (15:29-30; Isa 9:1). The attack against Judah may have occurred to force Judah into the alliance or to replace the Judean king with one of their own choosing (Isa 7:3-6). The result was captivity and widespread death for the people of Judah (2 Chr 28:5-15). Isaiah reports that Rezin and Pekah intended to install a new king on Judah’s throne...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":102639,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: 2 Împărați 16:5","title_en":"Study Note: 2 Împărați 16:5","content_ro":"<p><strong>16:5-6<\/strong> <em>Rezin . . . Pekah:<\/em> This alliance between the kings of <em>Aram<\/em> and <em>Israel<\/em> was intended to free the area of Assyrian dominance under Tiglath-pileser III (15:29-30; Isa 9:1). The <em>attack<\/em> against <em>Judah<\/em> may have occurred to force Judah into the alliance or to replace the Judean king with one of their own choosing (Isa 7:3-6). The result was captivity and widespread death for the people of Judah (2 Chr 28:5-15). Isaiah reports that Rezin and Pekah intended to install a new king on Judah’s throne (Isa 7:3-6). Judah also suffered further attacks by the Edomites and Philistines (2 Chr 28:17-18). All of this was God’s will due to Ahaz’s detestable spiritual practices, which led to great sin among the people of Judah (2 Chr 28:5, 19).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>16:5-6<\/strong> <em>Rezin . . . Pekah:<\/em> This alliance between the kings of <em>Aram<\/em> and <em>Israel<\/em> was intended to free the area of Assyrian dominance under Tiglath-pileser III (15:29-30; Isa 9:1). The <em>attack<\/em> against <em>Judah<\/em> may have occurred to force Judah into the alliance or to replace the Judean king with one of their own choosing (Isa 7:3-6). The result was captivity and widespread death for the people of Judah (2 Chr 28:5-15). Isaiah reports that Rezin and Pekah intended to install a new king on Judah’s throne (Isa 7:3-6). Judah also suffered further attacks by the Edomites and Philistines (2 Chr 28:17-18). All of this was God’s will due to Ahaz’s detestable spiritual practices, which led to great sin among the people of Judah (2 Chr 28:5, 19).<\/p>","summary_ro":"16:5-6 Rezin . . . Pekah: This alliance between the kings of Aram and Israel was intended to free the area of Assyrian dominance under Tiglath-pileser III (15:29-30; Isa 9:1). The attack against Judah may have occurred to force Judah into the alliance or to replace the Judean king with one of their own choosing (Isa 7:3-6). The result was captivity and widespread death for the people of Judah (2 Chr 28:5-15). Isaiah reports that Rezin and Pekah intended to install a new king on Judah’s throne...","summary_en":"16:5-6 Rezin . . . Pekah: This alliance between the kings of Aram and Israel was intended to free the area of Assyrian dominance under Tiglath-pileser III (15:29-30; Isa 9:1). The attack against Judah may have occurred to force Judah into the alliance or to replace the Judean king with one of their own choosing (Isa 7:3-6). The result was captivity and widespread death for the people of Judah (2 Chr 28:5-15). Isaiah reports that Rezin and Pekah intended to install a new king on Judah’s throne...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":130265,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: 2 Împărați 16:5","title_en":"Study Note: 2 Împărați 16:5","content_ro":"<p><strong>16:5-6<\/strong> <em>Rezin . . . Pekah:<\/em> This alliance between the kings of <em>Aram<\/em> and <em>Israel<\/em> was intended to free the area of Assyrian dominance under Tiglath-pileser III (15:29-30; Isa 9:1). The <em>attack<\/em> against <em>Judah<\/em> may have occurred to force Judah into the alliance or to replace the Judean king with one of their own choosing (Isa 7:3-6). The result was captivity and widespread death for the people of Judah (2 Chr 28:5-15). Isaiah reports that Rezin and Pekah intended to install a new king on Judah’s throne (Isa 7:3-6). Judah also suffered further attacks by the Edomites and Philistines (2 Chr 28:17-18). All of this was God’s will due to Ahaz’s detestable spiritual practices, which led to great sin among the people of Judah (2 Chr 28:5, 19).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>16:5-6<\/strong> <em>Rezin . . . Pekah:<\/em> This alliance between the kings of <em>Aram<\/em> and <em>Israel<\/em> was intended to free the area of Assyrian dominance under Tiglath-pileser III (15:29-30; Isa 9:1). The <em>attack<\/em> against <em>Judah<\/em> may have occurred to force Judah into the alliance or to replace the Judean king with one of their own choosing (Isa 7:3-6). The result was captivity and widespread death for the people of Judah (2 Chr 28:5-15). Isaiah reports that Rezin and Pekah intended to install a new king on Judah’s throne (Isa 7:3-6). Judah also suffered further attacks by the Edomites and Philistines (2 Chr 28:17-18). All of this was God’s will due to Ahaz’s detestable spiritual practices, which led to great sin among the people of Judah (2 Chr 28:5, 19).<\/p>","summary_ro":"16:5-6 Rezin . . . Pekah: This alliance between the kings of Aram and Israel was intended to free the area of Assyrian dominance under Tiglath-pileser III (15:29-30; Isa 9:1). The attack against Judah may have occurred to force Judah into the alliance or to replace the Judean king with one of their own choosing (Isa 7:3-6). The result was captivity and widespread death for the people of Judah (2 Chr 28:5-15). Isaiah reports that Rezin and Pekah intended to install a new king on Judah’s throne...","summary_en":"16:5-6 Rezin . . . Pekah: This alliance between the kings of Aram and Israel was intended to free the area of Assyrian dominance under Tiglath-pileser III (15:29-30; Isa 9:1). The attack against Judah may have occurred to force Judah into the alliance or to replace the Judean king with one of their own choosing (Isa 7:3-6). The result was captivity and widespread death for the people of Judah (2 Chr 28:5-15). Isaiah reports that Rezin and Pekah intended to install a new king on Judah’s throne...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":63779,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Fearing People","title_en":"Fearing People","content_ro":"<h3>Fearing People<\/h3>\n<p>God had promised to be with his people in the face of opposition (see, e.g., Deut 20:1-4; Josh 1:9); as long as they remained committed to him, they had no reason to fear others. Israel’s history demonstrated this reality (see Exod 14:10-31; Josh 10:9-14). But for those who look elsewhere for peace and security, God can be a stumbling stone rather than a source of safety (Isa 8:14).<\/p>\n<p>During the reign of King Ahaz of Judah, when the king heard that Syria and Israel had allied against him, he trembled in fear (Isa 7:2). The Lord encouraged him to be a man of faith, because without faith he could not expect the Lord’s protection (7:9). However, Ahaz refused to trust the Lord. Rather, he turned to the Assyrians for help. As a result, the Lord became a trap for him, as well as for all Israel and Judah (8:11-15).<\/p>\n<p>One of the purposes of Isaiah’s message was to highlight the contrast between faith and fear. We see Ahaz as an example of fear. We then see Hezekiah as an imperfect example of faith (see ch 37). Isaiah himself provides a better example of faith (ch 8). Finally, God’s servant stands as the ideal example of faith (42:1-7; 50:4-7).<\/p>\n<p>Jesus instructed his followers not to fear those who threaten them—even those who wish to kill them (Matt 10:26-31). The same God who is aware of the happenings of each individual sparrow and who knows the number of hairs on a person’s head will be with those who trust in him. Such trust has been demonstrated by believers throughout history who have rejected the fear of what others can do to them—even to the point of martyrdom (see Acts 6:8–7:60).<\/p>\n<p>Those who do not commit themselves wholly to God will live in fear of others. But those who rely on the Lord will be able to overcome such fear, recognizing the temporality of human foes and the enduring sovereignty of God.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Num 14:1-12; 21:34-35; Josh 1:9; 2 Kgs 16:5-18; 2 Chr 28:16-23; Ps 23:4; Prov 29:25; Isa 7:1-25; 41:10; 51:7-8, 12-13; 54:4; 57:11; Jer 10:5; 30:10; 46:27-28<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Fearing People<\/h3>\n<p>God had promised to be with his people in the face of opposition (see, e.g., Deut 20:1-4; Josh 1:9); as long as they remained committed to him, they had no reason to fear others. Israel’s history demonstrated this reality (see Exod 14:10-31; Josh 10:9-14). But for those who look elsewhere for peace and security, God can be a stumbling stone rather than a source of safety (Isa 8:14).<\/p>\n<p>During the reign of King Ahaz of Judah, when the king heard that Syria and Israel had allied against him, he trembled in fear (Isa 7:2). The Lord encouraged him to be a man of faith, because without faith he could not expect the Lord’s protection (7:9). However, Ahaz refused to trust the Lord. Rather, he turned to the Assyrians for help. As a result, the Lord became a trap for him, as well as for all Israel and Judah (8:11-15).<\/p>\n<p>One of the purposes of Isaiah’s message was to highlight the contrast between faith and fear. We see Ahaz as an example of fear. We then see Hezekiah as an imperfect example of faith (see ch 37). Isaiah himself provides a better example of faith (ch 8). Finally, God’s servant stands as the ideal example of faith (42:1-7; 50:4-7).<\/p>\n<p>Jesus instructed his followers not to fear those who threaten them—even those who wish to kill them (Matt 10:26-31). The same God who is aware of the happenings of each individual sparrow and who knows the number of hairs on a person’s head will be with those who trust in him. Such trust has been demonstrated by believers throughout history who have rejected the fear of what others can do to them—even to the point of martyrdom (see Acts 6:8–7:60).<\/p>\n<p>Those who do not commit themselves wholly to God will live in fear of others. But those who rely on the Lord will be able to overcome such fear, recognizing the temporality of human foes and the enduring sovereignty of God.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Num 14:1-12; 21:34-35; Josh 1:9; 2 Kgs 16:5-18; 2 Chr 28:16-23; Ps 23:4; Prov 29:25; Isa 7:1-25; 41:10; 51:7-8, 12-13; 54:4; 57:11; Jer 10:5; 30:10; 46:27-28<\/p>","summary_ro":"Fearing People God had promised to be with his people in the face of opposition (see, e.g., Deut 20:1-4; Josh 1:9); as long as they remained committed to him, they had no reason to fear others. Israel’s history demonstrated this reality (see Exod 14:10-31; Josh 10:9-14). But for those who look elsewhere for peace and security, God can be a stumbling stone rather than a source of safety (Isa 8:14). During the reign of King Ahaz of Judah, when the king heard that Syria and Israel had allied aga...","summary_en":"Fearing People God had promised to be with his people in the face of opposition (see, e.g., Deut 20:1-4; Josh 1:9); as long as they remained committed to him, they had no reason to fear others. Israel’s history demonstrated this reality (see Exod 14:10-31; Josh 10:9-14). But for those who look elsewhere for peace and security, God can be a stumbling stone rather than a source of safety (Isa 8:14). During the reign of King Ahaz of Judah, when the king heard that Syria and Israel had allied aga...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":91405,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Fearing People","title_en":"Fearing People","content_ro":"<h3>Fearing People<\/h3>\n<p>God had promised to be with his people in the face of opposition (see, e.g., Deut 20:1-4; Josh 1:9); as long as they remained committed to him, they had no reason to fear others. Israel’s history demonstrated this reality (see Exod 14:10-31; Josh 10:9-14). But for those who look elsewhere for peace and security, God can be a stumbling stone rather than a source of safety (Isa 8:14).<\/p>\n<p>During the reign of King Ahaz of Judah, when the king heard that Syria and Israel had allied against him, he trembled in fear (Isa 7:2). The Lord encouraged him to be a man of faith, because without faith he could not expect the Lord’s protection (7:9). However, Ahaz refused to trust the Lord. Rather, he turned to the Assyrians for help. As a result, the Lord became a trap for him, as well as for all Israel and Judah (8:11-15).<\/p>\n<p>One of the purposes of Isaiah’s message was to highlight the contrast between faith and fear. We see Ahaz as an example of fear. We then see Hezekiah as an imperfect example of faith (see ch 37). Isaiah himself provides a better example of faith (ch 8). Finally, God’s servant stands as the ideal example of faith (42:1-7; 50:4-7).<\/p>\n<p>Jesus instructed his followers not to fear those who threaten them—even those who wish to kill them (Matt 10:26-31). The same God who is aware of the happenings of each individual sparrow and who knows the number of hairs on a person’s head will be with those who trust in him. Such trust has been demonstrated by believers throughout history who have rejected the fear of what others can do to them—even to the point of martyrdom (see Acts 6:8–7:60).<\/p>\n<p>Those who do not commit themselves wholly to God will live in fear of others. But those who rely on the Lord will be able to overcome such fear, recognizing the temporality of human foes and the enduring sovereignty of God.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Num 14:1-12; 21:34-35; Josh 1:9; 2 Kgs 16:5-18; 2 Chr 28:16-23; Ps 23:4; Prov 29:25; Isa 7:1-25; 41:10; 51:7-8, 12-13; 54:4; 57:11; Jer 10:5; 30:10; 46:27-28<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Fearing People<\/h3>\n<p>God had promised to be with his people in the face of opposition (see, e.g., Deut 20:1-4; Josh 1:9); as long as they remained committed to him, they had no reason to fear others. Israel’s history demonstrated this reality (see Exod 14:10-31; Josh 10:9-14). But for those who look elsewhere for peace and security, God can be a stumbling stone rather than a source of safety (Isa 8:14).<\/p>\n<p>During the reign of King Ahaz of Judah, when the king heard that Syria and Israel had allied against him, he trembled in fear (Isa 7:2). The Lord encouraged him to be a man of faith, because without faith he could not expect the Lord’s protection (7:9). However, Ahaz refused to trust the Lord. Rather, he turned to the Assyrians for help. As a result, the Lord became a trap for him, as well as for all Israel and Judah (8:11-15).<\/p>\n<p>One of the purposes of Isaiah’s message was to highlight the contrast between faith and fear. We see Ahaz as an example of fear. We then see Hezekiah as an imperfect example of faith (see ch 37). Isaiah himself provides a better example of faith (ch 8). Finally, God’s servant stands as the ideal example of faith (42:1-7; 50:4-7).<\/p>\n<p>Jesus instructed his followers not to fear those who threaten them—even those who wish to kill them (Matt 10:26-31). The same God who is aware of the happenings of each individual sparrow and who knows the number of hairs on a person’s head will be with those who trust in him. Such trust has been demonstrated by believers throughout history who have rejected the fear of what others can do to them—even to the point of martyrdom (see Acts 6:8–7:60).<\/p>\n<p>Those who do not commit themselves wholly to God will live in fear of others. But those who rely on the Lord will be able to overcome such fear, recognizing the temporality of human foes and the enduring sovereignty of God.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Num 14:1-12; 21:34-35; Josh 1:9; 2 Kgs 16:5-18; 2 Chr 28:16-23; Ps 23:4; Prov 29:25; Isa 7:1-25; 41:10; 51:7-8, 12-13; 54:4; 57:11; Jer 10:5; 30:10; 46:27-28<\/p>","summary_ro":"Fearing People God had promised to be with his people in the face of opposition (see, e.g., Deut 20:1-4; Josh 1:9); as long as they remained committed to him, they had no reason to fear others. Israel’s history demonstrated this reality (see Exod 14:10-31; Josh 10:9-14). But for those who look elsewhere for peace and security, God can be a stumbling stone rather than a source of safety (Isa 8:14). During the reign of King Ahaz of Judah, when the king heard that Syria and Israel had allied aga...","summary_en":"Fearing People God had promised to be with his people in the face of opposition (see, e.g., Deut 20:1-4; Josh 1:9); as long as they remained committed to him, they had no reason to fear others. Israel’s history demonstrated this reality (see Exod 14:10-31; Josh 10:9-14). But for those who look elsewhere for peace and security, God can be a stumbling stone rather than a source of safety (Isa 8:14). During the reign of King Ahaz of Judah, when the king heard that Syria and Israel had allied aga...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":119031,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Fearing People","title_en":"Fearing People","content_ro":"<h3>Fearing People<\/h3>\n<p>God had promised to be with his people in the face of opposition (see, e.g., Deut 20:1-4; Josh 1:9); as long as they remained committed to him, they had no reason to fear others. Israel’s history demonstrated this reality (see Exod 14:10-31; Josh 10:9-14). But for those who look elsewhere for peace and security, God can be a stumbling stone rather than a source of safety (Isa 8:14).<\/p>\n<p>During the reign of King Ahaz of Judah, when the king heard that Syria and Israel had allied against him, he trembled in fear (Isa 7:2). The Lord encouraged him to be a man of faith, because without faith he could not expect the Lord’s protection (7:9). However, Ahaz refused to trust the Lord. Rather, he turned to the Assyrians for help. As a result, the Lord became a trap for him, as well as for all Israel and Judah (8:11-15).<\/p>\n<p>One of the purposes of Isaiah’s message was to highlight the contrast between faith and fear. We see Ahaz as an example of fear. We then see Hezekiah as an imperfect example of faith (see ch 37). Isaiah himself provides a better example of faith (ch 8). Finally, God’s servant stands as the ideal example of faith (42:1-7; 50:4-7).<\/p>\n<p>Jesus instructed his followers not to fear those who threaten them—even those who wish to kill them (Matt 10:26-31). The same God who is aware of the happenings of each individual sparrow and who knows the number of hairs on a person’s head will be with those who trust in him. Such trust has been demonstrated by believers throughout history who have rejected the fear of what others can do to them—even to the point of martyrdom (see Acts 6:8–7:60).<\/p>\n<p>Those who do not commit themselves wholly to God will live in fear of others. But those who rely on the Lord will be able to overcome such fear, recognizing the temporality of human foes and the enduring sovereignty of God.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Num 14:1-12; 21:34-35; Josh 1:9; 2 Kgs 16:5-18; 2 Chr 28:16-23; Ps 23:4; Prov 29:25; Isa 7:1-25; 41:10; 51:7-8, 12-13; 54:4; 57:11; Jer 10:5; 30:10; 46:27-28<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Fearing People<\/h3>\n<p>God had promised to be with his people in the face of opposition (see, e.g., Deut 20:1-4; Josh 1:9); as long as they remained committed to him, they had no reason to fear others. Israel’s history demonstrated this reality (see Exod 14:10-31; Josh 10:9-14). But for those who look elsewhere for peace and security, God can be a stumbling stone rather than a source of safety (Isa 8:14).<\/p>\n<p>During the reign of King Ahaz of Judah, when the king heard that Syria and Israel had allied against him, he trembled in fear (Isa 7:2). The Lord encouraged him to be a man of faith, because without faith he could not expect the Lord’s protection (7:9). However, Ahaz refused to trust the Lord. Rather, he turned to the Assyrians for help. As a result, the Lord became a trap for him, as well as for all Israel and Judah (8:11-15).<\/p>\n<p>One of the purposes of Isaiah’s message was to highlight the contrast between faith and fear. We see Ahaz as an example of fear. We then see Hezekiah as an imperfect example of faith (see ch 37). Isaiah himself provides a better example of faith (ch 8). Finally, God’s servant stands as the ideal example of faith (42:1-7; 50:4-7).<\/p>\n<p>Jesus instructed his followers not to fear those who threaten them—even those who wish to kill them (Matt 10:26-31). The same God who is aware of the happenings of each individual sparrow and who knows the number of hairs on a person’s head will be with those who trust in him. Such trust has been demonstrated by believers throughout history who have rejected the fear of what others can do to them—even to the point of martyrdom (see Acts 6:8–7:60).<\/p>\n<p>Those who do not commit themselves wholly to God will live in fear of others. But those who rely on the Lord will be able to overcome such fear, recognizing the temporality of human foes and the enduring sovereignty of God.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Num 14:1-12; 21:34-35; Josh 1:9; 2 Kgs 16:5-18; 2 Chr 28:16-23; Ps 23:4; Prov 29:25; Isa 7:1-25; 41:10; 51:7-8, 12-13; 54:4; 57:11; Jer 10:5; 30:10; 46:27-28<\/p>","summary_ro":"Fearing People God had promised to be with his people in the face of opposition (see, e.g., Deut 20:1-4; Josh 1:9); as long as they remained committed to him, they had no reason to fear others. Israel’s history demonstrated this reality (see Exod 14:10-31; Josh 10:9-14). But for those who look elsewhere for peace and security, God can be a stumbling stone rather than a source of safety (Isa 8:14). During the reign of King Ahaz of Judah, when the king heard that Syria and Israel had allied aga...","summary_en":"Fearing People God had promised to be with his people in the face of opposition (see, e.g., Deut 20:1-4; Josh 1:9); as long as they remained committed to him, they had no reason to fear others. Israel’s history demonstrated this reality (see Exod 14:10-31; Josh 10:9-14). But for those who look elsewhere for peace and security, God can be a stumbling stone rather than a source of safety (Isa 8:14). During the reign of King Ahaz of Judah, when the king heard that Syria and Israel had allied aga...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":146657,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Fearing People","title_en":"Fearing People","content_ro":"<h3>Fearing People<\/h3>\n<p>God had promised to be with his people in the face of opposition (see, e.g., Deut 20:1-4; Josh 1:9); as long as they remained committed to him, they had no reason to fear others. Israel’s history demonstrated this reality (see Exod 14:10-31; Josh 10:9-14). But for those who look elsewhere for peace and security, God can be a stumbling stone rather than a source of safety (Isa 8:14).<\/p>\n<p>During the reign of King Ahaz of Judah, when the king heard that Syria and Israel had allied against him, he trembled in fear (Isa 7:2). The Lord encouraged him to be a man of faith, because without faith he could not expect the Lord’s protection (7:9). However, Ahaz refused to trust the Lord. Rather, he turned to the Assyrians for help. As a result, the Lord became a trap for him, as well as for all Israel and Judah (8:11-15).<\/p>\n<p>One of the purposes of Isaiah’s message was to highlight the contrast between faith and fear. We see Ahaz as an example of fear. We then see Hezekiah as an imperfect example of faith (see ch 37). Isaiah himself provides a better example of faith (ch 8). Finally, God’s servant stands as the ideal example of faith (42:1-7; 50:4-7).<\/p>\n<p>Jesus instructed his followers not to fear those who threaten them—even those who wish to kill them (Matt 10:26-31). The same God who is aware of the happenings of each individual sparrow and who knows the number of hairs on a person’s head will be with those who trust in him. Such trust has been demonstrated by believers throughout history who have rejected the fear of what others can do to them—even to the point of martyrdom (see Acts 6:8–7:60).<\/p>\n<p>Those who do not commit themselves wholly to God will live in fear of others. But those who rely on the Lord will be able to overcome such fear, recognizing the temporality of human foes and the enduring sovereignty of God.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Num 14:1-12; 21:34-35; Josh 1:9; 2 Kgs 16:5-18; 2 Chr 28:16-23; Ps 23:4; Prov 29:25; Isa 7:1-25; 41:10; 51:7-8, 12-13; 54:4; 57:11; Jer 10:5; 30:10; 46:27-28<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Fearing People<\/h3>\n<p>God had promised to be with his people in the face of opposition (see, e.g., Deut 20:1-4; Josh 1:9); as long as they remained committed to him, they had no reason to fear others. Israel’s history demonstrated this reality (see Exod 14:10-31; Josh 10:9-14). But for those who look elsewhere for peace and security, God can be a stumbling stone rather than a source of safety (Isa 8:14).<\/p>\n<p>During the reign of King Ahaz of Judah, when the king heard that Syria and Israel had allied against him, he trembled in fear (Isa 7:2). The Lord encouraged him to be a man of faith, because without faith he could not expect the Lord’s protection (7:9). However, Ahaz refused to trust the Lord. Rather, he turned to the Assyrians for help. As a result, the Lord became a trap for him, as well as for all Israel and Judah (8:11-15).<\/p>\n<p>One of the purposes of Isaiah’s message was to highlight the contrast between faith and fear. We see Ahaz as an example of fear. We then see Hezekiah as an imperfect example of faith (see ch 37). Isaiah himself provides a better example of faith (ch 8). Finally, God’s servant stands as the ideal example of faith (42:1-7; 50:4-7).<\/p>\n<p>Jesus instructed his followers not to fear those who threaten them—even those who wish to kill them (Matt 10:26-31). The same God who is aware of the happenings of each individual sparrow and who knows the number of hairs on a person’s head will be with those who trust in him. Such trust has been demonstrated by believers throughout history who have rejected the fear of what others can do to them—even to the point of martyrdom (see Acts 6:8–7:60).<\/p>\n<p>Those who do not commit themselves wholly to God will live in fear of others. But those who rely on the Lord will be able to overcome such fear, recognizing the temporality of human foes and the enduring sovereignty of God.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Num 14:1-12; 21:34-35; Josh 1:9; 2 Kgs 16:5-18; 2 Chr 28:16-23; Ps 23:4; Prov 29:25; Isa 7:1-25; 41:10; 51:7-8, 12-13; 54:4; 57:11; Jer 10:5; 30:10; 46:27-28<\/p>","summary_ro":"Fearing People God had promised to be with his people in the face of opposition (see, e.g., Deut 20:1-4; Josh 1:9); as long as they remained committed to him, they had no reason to fear others. Israel’s history demonstrated this reality (see Exod 14:10-31; Josh 10:9-14). But for those who look elsewhere for peace and security, God can be a stumbling stone rather than a source of safety (Isa 8:14). During the reign of King Ahaz of Judah, when the king heard that Syria and Israel had allied aga...","summary_en":"Fearing People God had promised to be with his people in the face of opposition (see, e.g., Deut 20:1-4; Josh 1:9); as long as they remained committed to him, they had no reason to fear others. Israel’s history demonstrated this reality (see Exod 14:10-31; Josh 10:9-14). But for those who look elsewhere for peace and security, God can be a stumbling stone rather than a source of safety (Isa 8:14). During the reign of King Ahaz of Judah, when the king heard that Syria and Israel had allied aga...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"6":[{"id":840,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Ahaz","title_en":"Ahaz","content_ro":"<h3>AHAZ<\/h3>\n<li>1. King of Judah (735–715 <span>BC<\/span>) who was especially remembered for his apostasy. The name Ahaz (Mt 1:9) is a shortened form of Ahaziah or Jehoahaz. The three main accounts of Ahaz (2 Kgs 16; 2 Chr 28; Is 7) treat him as one of the most evil rulers of the southern kingdom of Judah. Consequently, his burial was relatively dishonorable (2 Chr 28:27). He was succeeded by his son Hezekiah (2 Kgs 18:1).<\/li>\n<p>There is little agreement on the chronology of this section of the OT. The chronological system that seems to have the fewest problems would place Ahaz’s accession in 735 <span>BC<\/span>. If he first came to the throne as co-regent with his father, Jotham, from 735 to 732 <span>BC<\/span>, his entire reign covered a span of approximately 20 years, ending in 715 <span>BC<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p>Ahaz reigned over Judah during a critical time in the history of the ancient Near East. The Assyrians were pushing westward, threatening the Syro-Palestinian area. Pekah, king of Israel, and Rezin, king of Syria, adopted a policy of resistance against the Assyrians and invaded Judah in order to effect a solid coalition by deposing Ahaz.<\/p>\n<p>Blatantly revealing a lack of trust in God, Ahaz appealed to Tiglath-pileser III, the Assyrian king, for help. That appeal brought the wrath of the prophet Isaiah upon Ahaz. The ensuing encounter (Is 7) led to Isaiah’s prediction of the birth of Immanuel as a sign of the dissolution of the countries of Israel and Syria. Those two kingdoms were ultimately destroyed by Tiglath-pileser in a campaign that lasted about two years (734–732 <span>BC<\/span>).<\/p>\n\n<p>Before the two kingdoms to the north were conquered by Assyria, their invasion of Judah caused great turmoil (2 Chr 28:8). The invaders not only carried off much spoil but also attempted to depopulate portions of Judah by taking 200,000 people captive to Samaria. That attempt was protested by a prophet in Samaria named Obed, who condemned the act of slavery and ordered the captives returned (v 9). He was joined by several leaders of Israel (v 12), who succeeded in having the captives returned to Jericho with provisions from the spoil that had been taken.<\/p>\n<p>During that time, the kingdom of Judah may have been threatened from the south as well. The Edomites, who had long been under the domination of Judah, may have taken advantage of Judah’s growing internal weakness to assert their independence. The Masoretic Text of the OT refers to an invasion of the seaport town of Elath on the Red Sea by Aram, the Hebrew name for Syria (2 Kgs 16:6). The name Aram is quite similar to the name Edom in Hebrew, however, so many scholars think that invasion was actually by Edomites.<\/p>\n<p>By virtue of the alliance he had made, Ahaz placed his country in a dangerous position of dependence on Assyria. The kingdom of Judah became essentially a vassal state under the tacit control of Tiglath-pileser. Ahaz went to Damascus, the capital of fallen Syria, to appear before Tiglath-pileser, possibly to assure his allegiance to the king to whom his nation had become tributary (2 Kgs 16:10).<\/p>\n<p>While in Damascus, Ahaz saw an Assyrian altar, a model of which he sent back to Judah. Under the direction of Uriah the priest, a similar altar was built in Jerusalem, replacing the original bronze altar. Several other alterations were made in the temple by Ahaz, all indicating his turning away from Jewish religion.<\/p>\n<p>The “dial of Ahaz” (2 Kgs 20:11; Is 38:8) later figured in a sign given to his son Hezekiah; the Hebrew word actually refers to a flight of stairs, no doubt built by Ahaz and used to tell time by the movement of a shadow across it.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> King; Kings, Books of First and Second; Israel, History of; Sundial; Chronology of the Bible (Old Testament).<\/p>\n<li>2. Micah’s son and Jehoaddah’s father, a descendant of Saul, otherwise unknown (1 Chr 8:35-36).<\/li>","content_en":"<h3>AHAZ<\/h3>\n<li>1. King of Judah (735–715 <span>BC<\/span>) who was especially remembered for his apostasy. The name Ahaz (Mt 1:9) is a shortened form of Ahaziah or Jehoahaz. The three main accounts of Ahaz (2 Kgs 16; 2 Chr 28; Is 7) treat him as one of the most evil rulers of the southern kingdom of Judah. Consequently, his burial was relatively dishonorable (2 Chr 28:27). He was succeeded by his son Hezekiah (2 Kgs 18:1).<\/li>\n<p>There is little agreement on the chronology of this section of the OT. The chronological system that seems to have the fewest problems would place Ahaz’s accession in 735 <span>BC<\/span>. If he first came to the throne as co-regent with his father, Jotham, from 735 to 732 <span>BC<\/span>, his entire reign covered a span of approximately 20 years, ending in 715 <span>BC<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p>Ahaz reigned over Judah during a critical time in the history of the ancient Near East. The Assyrians were pushing westward, threatening the Syro-Palestinian area. Pekah, king of Israel, and Rezin, king of Syria, adopted a policy of resistance against the Assyrians and invaded Judah in order to effect a solid coalition by deposing Ahaz.<\/p>\n<p>Blatantly revealing a lack of trust in God, Ahaz appealed to Tiglath-pileser III, the Assyrian king, for help. That appeal brought the wrath of the prophet Isaiah upon Ahaz. The ensuing encounter (Is 7) led to Isaiah’s prediction of the birth of Immanuel as a sign of the dissolution of the countries of Israel and Syria. Those two kingdoms were ultimately destroyed by Tiglath-pileser in a campaign that lasted about two years (734–732 <span>BC<\/span>).<\/p>\n\n<p>Before the two kingdoms to the north were conquered by Assyria, their invasion of Judah caused great turmoil (2 Chr 28:8). The invaders not only carried off much spoil but also attempted to depopulate portions of Judah by taking 200,000 people captive to Samaria. That attempt was protested by a prophet in Samaria named Obed, who condemned the act of slavery and ordered the captives returned (v 9). He was joined by several leaders of Israel (v 12), who succeeded in having the captives returned to Jericho with provisions from the spoil that had been taken.<\/p>\n<p>During that time, the kingdom of Judah may have been threatened from the south as well. The Edomites, who had long been under the domination of Judah, may have taken advantage of Judah’s growing internal weakness to assert their independence. The Masoretic Text of the OT refers to an invasion of the seaport town of Elath on the Red Sea by Aram, the Hebrew name for Syria (2 Kgs 16:6). The name Aram is quite similar to the name Edom in Hebrew, however, so many scholars think that invasion was actually by Edomites.<\/p>\n<p>By virtue of the alliance he had made, Ahaz placed his country in a dangerous position of dependence on Assyria. The kingdom of Judah became essentially a vassal state under the tacit control of Tiglath-pileser. Ahaz went to Damascus, the capital of fallen Syria, to appear before Tiglath-pileser, possibly to assure his allegiance to the king to whom his nation had become tributary (2 Kgs 16:10).<\/p>\n<p>While in Damascus, Ahaz saw an Assyrian altar, a model of which he sent back to Judah. Under the direction of Uriah the priest, a similar altar was built in Jerusalem, replacing the original bronze altar. Several other alterations were made in the temple by Ahaz, all indicating his turning away from Jewish religion.<\/p>\n<p>The “dial of Ahaz” (2 Kgs 20:11; Is 38:8) later figured in a sign given to his son Hezekiah; the Hebrew word actually refers to a flight of stairs, no doubt built by Ahaz and used to tell time by the movement of a shadow across it.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> King; Kings, Books of First and Second; Israel, History of; Sundial; Chronology of the Bible (Old Testament).<\/p>\n<li>2. Micah’s son and Jehoaddah’s father, a descendant of Saul, otherwise unknown (1 Chr 8:35-36).<\/li>","summary_ro":"AHAZ 1. King of Judah (735–715 BC) who was especially remembered for his apostasy. The name Ahaz (Mt 1:9) is a shortened form of Ahaziah or Jehoahaz. The three main accounts of Ahaz (2 Kgs 16; 2 Chr 28; Is 7) treat him as one of the most evil rulers of the southern kingdom of Judah. Consequently, his burial was relatively dishonorable (2 Chr 28:27). He was succeeded by his son Hezekiah (2 Kgs 18:1). There is little agreement on the chronology of this section of the OT. The chronological syste...","summary_en":"AHAZ 1. King of Judah (735–715 BC) who was especially remembered for his apostasy. The name Ahaz (Mt 1:9) is a shortened form of Ahaziah or Jehoahaz. The three main accounts of Ahaz (2 Kgs 16; 2 Chr 28; Is 7) treat him as one of the most evil rulers of the southern kingdom of Judah. Consequently, his burial was relatively dishonorable (2 Chr 28:27). He was succeeded by his son Hezekiah (2 Kgs 18:1). There is little agreement on the chronology of this section of the OT. The chronological syste...","source":"Articles\/A.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":10115,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Edomites Edom","title_en":"Edomites Edom","content_ro":"<h3>EDOM, EDOMITES<\/h3>\n<p>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).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Geography\">Geography<\/p>\n<p>The 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>\n<p>The 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>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"History\">History<\/p>\n<p>Biblically, 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>\n<p>The earliest nonbiblical references come from Egypt and seem to confirm this. Amarna Letter 288 (early 14th century <span>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 <span>BC<\/span>) and Ramses III (1198–1166 <span>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 <span>BC<\/span>, but there is no clear evidence that there was a centralized government before the 13th century <span>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>\n<p>At 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 <span>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>\n<p>The biblical records provide no information about Edom from the end of Solomon’s reign until the days of Jehoshaphat of Judah (872–848 <span>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 <span>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 <span>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 <span>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 <span>BC<\/span>, in the days of Ahaz (735–715 <span>BC<\/span>), Edom defeated Judah and recovered Elath (2 Kgs 16:6). Thereafter, Judah lost control over Edom.<\/p>\n<p>During the eighth century <span>BC<\/span>, the Assyrians began to move into Transjordan. About 800 <span>BC<\/span> Adad-nirari III (810–782 <span>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 <span>BC<\/span>) received tribute from Qaus-malaku of Edom. Sargon II (722–705 <span>BC<\/span>) spoke of an unnamed ruler of Edom who was involved in the rebellion of Ashdod in 713 <span>BC<\/span>. Sennacherib (705–681 <span>BC<\/span>) spoke of a certain Aiarammu, who brought gifts from Edom. Esarhaddon (681–669 <span>BC<\/span>) referred to Qaus-gabri, king of Edom, who came to Nineveh with 22 vassals to swear allegiance. Under Ashurbanipal (669–627 <span>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>\n<p>A 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 <span>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>\n<p>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).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Geography\">Geography<\/p>\n<p>The 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>\n<p>The 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>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"History\">History<\/p>\n<p>Biblically, 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>\n<p>The earliest nonbiblical references come from Egypt and seem to confirm this. Amarna Letter 288 (early 14th century <span>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 <span>BC<\/span>) and Ramses III (1198–1166 <span>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 <span>BC<\/span>, but there is no clear evidence that there was a centralized government before the 13th century <span>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>\n<p>At 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 <span>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>\n<p>The biblical records provide no information about Edom from the end of Solomon’s reign until the days of Jehoshaphat of Judah (872–848 <span>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 <span>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 <span>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 <span>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 <span>BC<\/span>, in the days of Ahaz (735–715 <span>BC<\/span>), Edom defeated Judah and recovered Elath (2 Kgs 16:6). Thereafter, Judah lost control over Edom.<\/p>\n<p>During the eighth century <span>BC<\/span>, the Assyrians began to move into Transjordan. About 800 <span>BC<\/span> Adad-nirari III (810–782 <span>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 <span>BC<\/span>) received tribute from Qaus-malaku of Edom. Sargon II (722–705 <span>BC<\/span>) spoke of an unnamed ruler of Edom who was involved in the rebellion of Ashdod in 713 <span>BC<\/span>. Sennacherib (705–681 <span>BC<\/span>) spoke of a certain Aiarammu, who brought gifts from Edom. Esarhaddon (681–669 <span>BC<\/span>) referred to Qaus-gabri, king of Edom, who came to Nineveh with 22 vassals to swear allegiance. Under Ashurbanipal (669–627 <span>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>\n<p>A 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 <span>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":10272,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Elath","title_en":"Elath","content_ro":"<h3>ELATH<\/h3>\n<p>Edomite city (also spelled Eloth) at the head of the Gulf of Aqaba (Dt 2:8; 1 Kgs 9:26), on the eastern border of the wilderness of Paran (Gn 14:6, where it is alternately called El-paran). It probably owed its named (which means “grove of trees”) to the many palm trees in the area and may have been located in a grove of sacred trees. Elath was strategically located along a primary trade route running from southern Arabia and Egypt to Phoenicia, making it a valuable city to possess.<\/p>\n<p>Elath was taken by Kedorlaomer from the Horites (Gn 14:5-6). Later it was regarded as the southern limit of the territory of Edom (Dt 2:8). David probably captured it when he conquered Edom (2 Sm 8:14). During the reign of Joram, Jehoshaphat’s son, revolt restored it to the Edomites (2 Kgs 8:20-22). A few years later it was recaptured and rebuilt by Judah’s King Uzziah (2 Kgs 14:22). It remained under Judah’s rule until the time of Ahaz, when it was taken by Rezin of Syria and occupied by Syrians (2 Kgs 16:6). From about 753 <span>BC<\/span> onward, it remained an Edomite city until it was abandoned sometime between the sixth and fourth centuries <span>BC<\/span>. Then the Nabateans, who controlled the area, built a city a little farther east of the original site and renamed it Aila.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> El-paran.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>ELATH<\/h3>\n<p>Edomite city (also spelled Eloth) at the head of the Gulf of Aqaba (Dt 2:8; 1 Kgs 9:26), on the eastern border of the wilderness of Paran (Gn 14:6, where it is alternately called El-paran). It probably owed its named (which means “grove of trees”) to the many palm trees in the area and may have been located in a grove of sacred trees. Elath was strategically located along a primary trade route running from southern Arabia and Egypt to Phoenicia, making it a valuable city to possess.<\/p>\n<p>Elath was taken by Kedorlaomer from the Horites (Gn 14:5-6). Later it was regarded as the southern limit of the territory of Edom (Dt 2:8). David probably captured it when he conquered Edom (2 Sm 8:14). During the reign of Joram, Jehoshaphat’s son, revolt restored it to the Edomites (2 Kgs 8:20-22). A few years later it was recaptured and rebuilt by Judah’s King Uzziah (2 Kgs 14:22). It remained under Judah’s rule until the time of Ahaz, when it was taken by Rezin of Syria and occupied by Syrians (2 Kgs 16:6). From about 753 <span>BC<\/span> onward, it remained an Edomite city until it was abandoned sometime between the sixth and fourth centuries <span>BC<\/span>. Then the Nabateans, who controlled the area, built a city a little farther east of the original site and renamed it Aila.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> El-paran.<\/p>","summary_ro":"ELATH Edomite city (also spelled Eloth) at the head of the Gulf of Aqaba (Dt 2:8; 1 Kgs 9:26), on the eastern border of the wilderness of Paran (Gn 14:6, where it is alternately called El-paran). It probably owed its named (which means “grove of trees”) to the many palm trees in the area and may have been located in a grove of sacred trees. Elath was strategically located along a primary trade route running from southern Arabia and Egypt to Phoenicia, making it a valuable city to possess. Ela...","summary_en":"ELATH Edomite city (also spelled Eloth) at the head of the Gulf of Aqaba (Dt 2:8; 1 Kgs 9:26), on the eastern border of the wilderness of Paran (Gn 14:6, where it is alternately called El-paran). It probably owed its named (which means “grove of trees”) to the many palm trees in the area and may have been located in a grove of sacred trees. Elath was strategically located along a primary trade route running from southern Arabia and Egypt to Phoenicia, making it a valuable city to possess. Ela...","source":"Articles\/E.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":11775,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Ezion-Geber","title_en":"Ezion-Geber","content_ro":"<h3>EZION-GEBER<\/h3>\n<p>Important port near some significant ruins at the head of the Gulf of Aqaba. Ezion-geber was one of the stations where the Israelites encamped while on their way to the plains of Moab (Nm 33:35-36; Dt 2:8). The city is not mentioned again until Solomon’s time. From this port Solomon and Hiram, king of Tyre, carried on a profitable commercial venture. Solomon’s products included copper (mined in the Arabah at Timna, 15 miles, or 24.1 kilometers, north of Ezion-geber), olive oil, and possibly products bought from Egypt, such as linen, and chariots (1 Kgs 10:28-29). The “ships of Tarshish,” with the ships of Hiram, made a round trip of three years from Ezion-geber to many ports along the coasts of Africa and Arabia and possibly even as far as India (1 Kgs 10:22). In exchange the fleet brought back gold from Ophir, along with precious stones, almug wood (vv 11-12), silver, ivory, apes, and peacocks (v 22). Solomon’s alliance with the Phoenicians of Tyre gave him a port on the Mediterranean (which he himself did not have). The alliance also gave Hiram and the Phoenicians an outlet at Ezion-geber for trading in the Indian Ocean.<\/p>\n<p>With the division of the kingdom after Solomon, the port was under Judah’s control. It was burned and destroyed by Shishak of Egypt in his invasion of Judah in Rehoboam’s fifth year (925 <span>BC<\/span>). A second city was built on the ruins, but there is no mention of a navy. Jehoshaphat was able to restore the fleet to sail once again, but some storm or other disaster wrecked the ships (1 Kgs 22:48). In subsequent Judean history, Judah was able to use the port when it was strong, but in its times of weakness, other nations did (e.g., Edom, 2 Kgs 8:20-22; 16:6). <em>See<\/em> Exodus, The; Wilderness Wanderings.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>EZION-GEBER<\/h3>\n<p>Important port near some significant ruins at the head of the Gulf of Aqaba. Ezion-geber was one of the stations where the Israelites encamped while on their way to the plains of Moab (Nm 33:35-36; Dt 2:8). The city is not mentioned again until Solomon’s time. From this port Solomon and Hiram, king of Tyre, carried on a profitable commercial venture. Solomon’s products included copper (mined in the Arabah at Timna, 15 miles, or 24.1 kilometers, north of Ezion-geber), olive oil, and possibly products bought from Egypt, such as linen, and chariots (1 Kgs 10:28-29). The “ships of Tarshish,” with the ships of Hiram, made a round trip of three years from Ezion-geber to many ports along the coasts of Africa and Arabia and possibly even as far as India (1 Kgs 10:22). In exchange the fleet brought back gold from Ophir, along with precious stones, almug wood (vv 11-12), silver, ivory, apes, and peacocks (v 22). Solomon’s alliance with the Phoenicians of Tyre gave him a port on the Mediterranean (which he himself did not have). The alliance also gave Hiram and the Phoenicians an outlet at Ezion-geber for trading in the Indian Ocean.<\/p>\n<p>With the division of the kingdom after Solomon, the port was under Judah’s control. It was burned and destroyed by Shishak of Egypt in his invasion of Judah in Rehoboam’s fifth year (925 <span>BC<\/span>). A second city was built on the ruins, but there is no mention of a navy. Jehoshaphat was able to restore the fleet to sail once again, but some storm or other disaster wrecked the ships (1 Kgs 22:48). In subsequent Judean history, Judah was able to use the port when it was strong, but in its times of weakness, other nations did (e.g., Edom, 2 Kgs 8:20-22; 16:6). <em>See<\/em> Exodus, The; Wilderness Wanderings.<\/p>","summary_ro":"EZION-GEBER Important port near some significant ruins at the head of the Gulf of Aqaba. Ezion-geber was one of the stations where the Israelites encamped while on their way to the plains of Moab (Nm 33:35-36; Dt 2:8). The city is not mentioned again until Solomon’s time. From this port Solomon and Hiram, king of Tyre, carried on a profitable commercial venture. Solomon’s products included copper (mined in the Arabah at Timna, 15 miles, or 24.1 kilometers, north of Ezion-geber), olive oil, an...","summary_en":"EZION-GEBER Important port near some significant ruins at the head of the Gulf of Aqaba. Ezion-geber was one of the stations where the Israelites encamped while on their way to the plains of Moab (Nm 33:35-36; Dt 2:8). The city is not mentioned again until Solomon’s time. From this port Solomon and Hiram, king of Tyre, carried on a profitable commercial venture. Solomon’s products included copper (mined in the Arabah at Timna, 15 miles, or 24.1 kilometers, north of Ezion-geber), olive oil, an...","source":"Articles\/E.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":19763,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Jew","title_en":"Jew","content_ro":"<h3>JEW<\/h3>\n<p>Judean, belonging to Judah. The short form of the English word was developed from the French. The underlying Hebrew word is used first in 2 Kings 16:6 as a national term, meaning citizens of Judah. It came into general use in the period of Jeremiah just before the exile (late sixth century <span>BC<\/span>; see Jer 32:12). It reflects a growing sense of national identity among foreign nations in an international world. In Jeremiah 34:9, a statement concerning the national principle that an individual citizen had the right to freedom from slavery uses the term “Jew.” In Jeremiah 52:28 it is poignantly used in giving the number of deported citizens.<\/p>\n<p>Once the people were in exile, the term’s national meaning was expanded with a religious one. The Jews were different from surrounding peoples in that they preserved a living religious tradition of one true God. A Jewish-Gentile polarization developed. Thus in Daniel 3:8-12 certain Jews are accused of deviating from otherwise acceptable Babylonian religious practices. The book of Esther is concerned with the problem of Jewish identity and survival in a hostile alien environment. Esther 8:17 speaks of Gentiles declaring themselves Jews in the religious sense of becoming proselytes.<\/p>\n<p>After the exile, the strongly religious meaning of “Jew” is expressed in the prophecy of Zechariah 8:23 that the Jew would be courted by Gentiles because God was with him. In Ezra 4:12 the term “Jews” is the national designation of the returned exiles, as it is in the book of Nehemiah (e.g., Neh 1:2; 4:2). In Nehemiah 13:24 there is a consciousness of the social exclusiveness of the Jews: on religious grounds, marriage to foreigners is deplored.<\/p>\n<p>In the NT “Jew” continues to have the same national and\/or religious meaning. Culturally, Jews have religious and other customs that NT documents addressed to Gentiles find it necessary to explain (Mk 7:3; Jn 5:1; 19:40). Jews are contrasted with Gentiles (Acts 11:19), Samaritans (Jn 4:9, 22), and proselytes (Acts 2:10). Jewish Christians can be called “Jews” (Gal 2:13), but there is an increasing stress on the religious distinctions between Jew and Christian. In Romans 2:17-29 Paul gives an interesting theological analysis of the term “Jew.” He is at pains to emphasize that the true meaning of the word lies not in outward religious profession but in an inward attitude to God. Paul was doubtless thinking of the inadequacy of his own life as a Jew before he was converted to the Christian faith (cf. Phil 3:3-6). His mention of “praise” in Romans 2:29 is the climax of the passage. It is a forceful play on words: in Hebrew, Judah means praise (Gn 29:35; cf. 49:8).<\/p>\n<p>The apostle Paul is here moving in the direction of regarding Christianity as the true heir of the faith of the OT. Revelation 2:9 and 3:9 express similar sentiments: to be truly a Jew is much more than a matter of birth and synagogue observance. Underlying these passages in both Revelation and Romans is obviously the issue of the messianic claims of Jesus (cf. Rom 9:3-5; 10:1-4). The NT bears sad testimony to the opposition of Jews to the Christian message. The gospel proved a cause of offense to the Jews (1 Cor 1:23). Paul himself, despite his claim of impeccable Jewish credentials (Acts 26:4-7), found himself the object of bitter Jewish attacks (21:11; 23:12, 27). Revelation 2:9 and 3:9 describe the Jews’ opposition as satanic: they were carrying out the work of God’s adversary, Satan.<\/p>\n<p>These negative overtones are especially attached to the use of the word “Jew” in John’s Gospel. It is found some 70 times, versus about five or six instances in each of the synoptic Gospels. Some passages, such as those already cited, have no associations of hostility. But in most cases the fourth Gospel uses “Jews” in the sense of the religious authorities, especially those in Jerusalem, who were hostile to Jesus (see, e.g., Jn 5:18; 9:18; 11:8; 18:36). It is noteworthy that in 9:22 the parents of the blind man, clearly Jews themselves, are said, literally, to fear the investigating Jews. In 18:14 “Jews” stands for the chief priests and Pharisees of 18:3. It must be emphasized that the author, who was obviously a Jew himself, was not expressing an anti-Semitic viewpoint as such. He condemned not race or people but those who opposed Jesus. He gladly acknowledged that some Jews put their faith in Jesus (8:31; 11:45: 12:11). Nathanael is featured as a type of the Christian Jew, a true Israelite “in whom is no guile” (1:47; cf. v 31; see Gn 27:35; 32:28).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Diaspora of the Jews; Israel, History of; Judaism; Judaizers; Pharisees; Postexilic Period.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>JEW<\/h3>\n<p>Judean, belonging to Judah. The short form of the English word was developed from the French. The underlying Hebrew word is used first in 2 Kings 16:6 as a national term, meaning citizens of Judah. It came into general use in the period of Jeremiah just before the exile (late sixth century <span>BC<\/span>; see Jer 32:12). It reflects a growing sense of national identity among foreign nations in an international world. In Jeremiah 34:9, a statement concerning the national principle that an individual citizen had the right to freedom from slavery uses the term “Jew.” In Jeremiah 52:28 it is poignantly used in giving the number of deported citizens.<\/p>\n<p>Once the people were in exile, the term’s national meaning was expanded with a religious one. The Jews were different from surrounding peoples in that they preserved a living religious tradition of one true God. A Jewish-Gentile polarization developed. Thus in Daniel 3:8-12 certain Jews are accused of deviating from otherwise acceptable Babylonian religious practices. The book of Esther is concerned with the problem of Jewish identity and survival in a hostile alien environment. Esther 8:17 speaks of Gentiles declaring themselves Jews in the religious sense of becoming proselytes.<\/p>\n<p>After the exile, the strongly religious meaning of “Jew” is expressed in the prophecy of Zechariah 8:23 that the Jew would be courted by Gentiles because God was with him. In Ezra 4:12 the term “Jews” is the national designation of the returned exiles, as it is in the book of Nehemiah (e.g., Neh 1:2; 4:2). In Nehemiah 13:24 there is a consciousness of the social exclusiveness of the Jews: on religious grounds, marriage to foreigners is deplored.<\/p>\n<p>In the NT “Jew” continues to have the same national and\/or religious meaning. Culturally, Jews have religious and other customs that NT documents addressed to Gentiles find it necessary to explain (Mk 7:3; Jn 5:1; 19:40). Jews are contrasted with Gentiles (Acts 11:19), Samaritans (Jn 4:9, 22), and proselytes (Acts 2:10). Jewish Christians can be called “Jews” (Gal 2:13), but there is an increasing stress on the religious distinctions between Jew and Christian. In Romans 2:17-29 Paul gives an interesting theological analysis of the term “Jew.” He is at pains to emphasize that the true meaning of the word lies not in outward religious profession but in an inward attitude to God. Paul was doubtless thinking of the inadequacy of his own life as a Jew before he was converted to the Christian faith (cf. Phil 3:3-6). His mention of “praise” in Romans 2:29 is the climax of the passage. It is a forceful play on words: in Hebrew, Judah means praise (Gn 29:35; cf. 49:8).<\/p>\n<p>The apostle Paul is here moving in the direction of regarding Christianity as the true heir of the faith of the OT. Revelation 2:9 and 3:9 express similar sentiments: to be truly a Jew is much more than a matter of birth and synagogue observance. Underlying these passages in both Revelation and Romans is obviously the issue of the messianic claims of Jesus (cf. Rom 9:3-5; 10:1-4). The NT bears sad testimony to the opposition of Jews to the Christian message. The gospel proved a cause of offense to the Jews (1 Cor 1:23). Paul himself, despite his claim of impeccable Jewish credentials (Acts 26:4-7), found himself the object of bitter Jewish attacks (21:11; 23:12, 27). Revelation 2:9 and 3:9 describe the Jews’ opposition as satanic: they were carrying out the work of God’s adversary, Satan.<\/p>\n<p>These negative overtones are especially attached to the use of the word “Jew” in John’s Gospel. It is found some 70 times, versus about five or six instances in each of the synoptic Gospels. Some passages, such as those already cited, have no associations of hostility. But in most cases the fourth Gospel uses “Jews” in the sense of the religious authorities, especially those in Jerusalem, who were hostile to Jesus (see, e.g., Jn 5:18; 9:18; 11:8; 18:36). It is noteworthy that in 9:22 the parents of the blind man, clearly Jews themselves, are said, literally, to fear the investigating Jews. In 18:14 “Jews” stands for the chief priests and Pharisees of 18:3. It must be emphasized that the author, who was obviously a Jew himself, was not expressing an anti-Semitic viewpoint as such. He condemned not race or people but those who opposed Jesus. He gladly acknowledged that some Jews put their faith in Jesus (8:31; 11:45: 12:11). Nathanael is featured as a type of the Christian Jew, a true Israelite “in whom is no guile” (1:47; cf. v 31; see Gn 27:35; 32:28).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Diaspora of the Jews; Israel, History of; Judaism; Judaizers; Pharisees; Postexilic Period.<\/p>","summary_ro":"JEW Judean, belonging to Judah. The short form of the English word was developed from the French. The underlying Hebrew word is used first in 2 Kings 16:6 as a national term, meaning citizens of Judah. It came into general use in the period of Jeremiah just before the exile (late sixth century BC; see Jer 32:12). It reflects a growing sense of national identity among foreign nations in an international world. In Jeremiah 34:9, a statement concerning the national principle that an individual c...","summary_en":"JEW Judean, belonging to Judah. The short form of the English word was developed from the French. The underlying Hebrew word is used first in 2 Kings 16:6 as a national term, meaning citizens of Judah. It came into general use in the period of Jeremiah just before the exile (late sixth century BC; see Jer 32:12). It reflects a growing sense of national identity among foreign nations in an international world. In Jeremiah 34:9, a statement concerning the national principle that an individual c...","source":"Articles\/J.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":47388,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: 2 Împărați 16:6","title_en":"Study Note: 2 Împărați 16:6","content_ro":"<p><strong>16:6<\/strong> The NLT translators have chosen to follow the text of several ancient translations, since the town of <em>Elath<\/em> is far to the south, nearer to Edom than to Aram.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>16:6<\/strong> The NLT translators have chosen to follow the text of several ancient translations, since the town of <em>Elath<\/em> is far to the south, nearer to Edom than to Aram.<\/p>","summary_ro":"16:6 The NLT translators have chosen to follow the text of several ancient translations, since the town of Elath is far to the south, nearer to Edom than to Aram.","summary_en":"16:6 The NLT translators have chosen to follow the text of several ancient translations, since the town of Elath is far to the south, nearer to Edom than to Aram.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":75014,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: 2 Împărați 16:6","title_en":"Study Note: 2 Împărați 16:6","content_ro":"<p><strong>16:6<\/strong> The NLT translators have chosen to follow the text of several ancient translations, since the town of <em>Elath<\/em> is far to the south, nearer to Edom than to Aram.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>16:6<\/strong> The NLT translators have chosen to follow the text of several ancient translations, since the town of <em>Elath<\/em> is far to the south, nearer to Edom than to Aram.<\/p>","summary_ro":"16:6 The NLT translators have chosen to follow the text of several ancient translations, since the town of Elath is far to the south, nearer to Edom than to Aram.","summary_en":"16:6 The NLT translators have chosen to follow the text of several ancient translations, since the town of Elath is far to the south, nearer to Edom than to Aram.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":102640,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: 2 Împărați 16:6","title_en":"Study Note: 2 Împărați 16:6","content_ro":"<p><strong>16:6<\/strong> The NLT translators have chosen to follow the text of several ancient translations, since the town of <em>Elath<\/em> is far to the south, nearer to Edom than to Aram.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>16:6<\/strong> The NLT translators have chosen to follow the text of several ancient translations, since the town of <em>Elath<\/em> is far to the south, nearer to Edom than to Aram.<\/p>","summary_ro":"16:6 The NLT translators have chosen to follow the text of several ancient translations, since the town of Elath is far to the south, nearer to Edom than to Aram.","summary_en":"16:6 The NLT translators have chosen to follow the text of several ancient translations, since the town of Elath is far to the south, nearer to Edom than to Aram.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":130266,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: 2 Împărați 16:6","title_en":"Study Note: 2 Împărați 16:6","content_ro":"<p><strong>16:6<\/strong> The NLT translators have chosen to follow the text of several ancient translations, since the town of <em>Elath<\/em> is far to the south, nearer to Edom than to Aram.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>16:6<\/strong> The NLT translators have chosen to follow the text of several ancient translations, since the town of <em>Elath<\/em> is far to the south, nearer to Edom than to Aram.<\/p>","summary_ro":"16:6 The NLT translators have chosen to follow the text of several ancient translations, since the town of Elath is far to the south, nearer to Edom than to Aram.","summary_en":"16:6 The NLT translators have chosen to follow the text of several ancient translations, since the town of Elath is far to the south, nearer to Edom than to Aram.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"7":[{"id":41606,"type":"profile","type_label":"Profil","type_icon":"👤","type_color":"#f59e0b","title_ro":"Arameans","title_en":"Arameans","content_ro":"<h3>Arameans<\/h3>\n<p>The Arameans were a Semitic group, descendants of Shem (Gen 10:22-23; cp. Gen 22:20-21). Bethuel and Laban were known as Arameans (Gen 25:20; 28:1-7). Jacob lived for some twenty years with them in Aramean territory (Gen 28–31; Hos 12:12), and the people of Israel remembered that their forefathers were (at least culturally) Arameans (Deut 26:5).<\/p>\n<p>When the Arameans emerged into history around the time of Abraham, they were settled around the central Euphrates, from which they spread out to the east, west, and north. By around 1100 <span>BC<\/span>, Aramean tribes had spread throughout Syria and had expanded into northern Transjordan. They set up a number of powerful Aramean city-states, including Zobah and Damascus, that came into conflict with the Israelites beginning in the time of David (see 2 Sam 8:3-8; 10:6-25).<\/p>\n<p>After Solomon’s death and the division of Israel into northern and southern kingdoms, Aramean Damascus became a powerful and opportunistic player in the political struggles between the two states. When war broke out between Israel and Judah in the years 890–880 <span>BC<\/span>, King Asa of Israel sought aid from Ben-hadad I of Damascus (1 Kgs 15:18-19). Roughly thirty years later, in the early 850s <span>BC<\/span>, Ben-hadad invaded Israel, but Ahab defeated him both at Samaria (20:1-21) and at Aphek the following year (20:22-34). After three years of peace between Israel and Damascus, hostilities broke out again in 853 <span>BC<\/span>, resulting in the battle in which Ahab was killed (22:29-37). Aramean Damascus continued to inflict losses on the kingdom of Israel for the next several decades (see 2 Kgs 8:28-29; 12:17-18; 13:1-7).<\/p>\n<p>During this period, the Aramean city-states began feeling pressure from Assyria. Damascus was first defeated by Assyria around 838 <span>BC<\/span> and was forced to become a tribute-paying vassal of Assyria in 803 <span>BC<\/span>. The resulting weakness of Damascus helped enable Jehoash (798–782 <span>BC<\/span>) to defeat the Arameans and expel them from Israel’s territory around 795 <span>BC<\/span> (2 Kgs 13:14-25). Later, Jeroboam II (793–753 <span>BC<\/span>) was able to force Damascus to pay tribute to him (see 2 Kgs 14:28).<\/p>\n<p>Around 738 <span>BC<\/span> the Arameans of Damascus joined forces with Israel to subjugate Judah. They captured much land, but their siege of Jerusalem was unsuccessful (2 Kgs 16:5; see also 2 Chr 28:5). At this time of seeming success for Damascus, the prophets Isaiah and Amos predicted the city’s doom (Isa 8:4; 17:1; Amos 1:3-5). But rather than trust in God, King Ahaz of Judah turned to the Assyrians for protection, who responded to his gifts by sacking Damascus and exiling its population in 733\/732 <span>BC<\/span> (2 Kgs 16:7-11). Damascus was no longer an independent city-state.<\/p>\n<p>The language of the Arameans, Aramaic, eventually became the language for diplomacy and administration all over the Near East (see, e.g., 2 Kgs 18:26). During the Exile, the Jews adopted the Aramaic language; portions of Ezra and Daniel are written in Aramaic. Aramaic was the <em>lingua franca<\/em> from Egypt to India during the Persian period and was widely spoken in Palestine in Jesus’ day (see Mark 5:41; 1 Cor 16:22).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 10:22-23; 22:20-21; 25:20; 28:1-7; Deut 26:5; 2 Sam 8:3-4; 10:17-19; 1 Kgs 15:18; 1 Kgs 20:1-34; 22:29-37; 2 Kgs 13:25; 16:9-13; 17:24-34; Hos 12:12; Amos 1:5<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Arameans<\/h3>\n<p>The Arameans were a Semitic group, descendants of Shem (Gen 10:22-23; cp. Gen 22:20-21). Bethuel and Laban were known as Arameans (Gen 25:20; 28:1-7). Jacob lived for some twenty years with them in Aramean territory (Gen 28–31; Hos 12:12), and the people of Israel remembered that their forefathers were (at least culturally) Arameans (Deut 26:5).<\/p>\n<p>When the Arameans emerged into history around the time of Abraham, they were settled around the central Euphrates, from which they spread out to the east, west, and north. By around 1100 <span>BC<\/span>, Aramean tribes had spread throughout Syria and had expanded into northern Transjordan. They set up a number of powerful Aramean city-states, including Zobah and Damascus, that came into conflict with the Israelites beginning in the time of David (see 2 Sam 8:3-8; 10:6-25).<\/p>\n<p>After Solomon’s death and the division of Israel into northern and southern kingdoms, Aramean Damascus became a powerful and opportunistic player in the political struggles between the two states. When war broke out between Israel and Judah in the years 890–880 <span>BC<\/span>, King Asa of Israel sought aid from Ben-hadad I of Damascus (1 Kgs 15:18-19). Roughly thirty years later, in the early 850s <span>BC<\/span>, Ben-hadad invaded Israel, but Ahab defeated him both at Samaria (20:1-21) and at Aphek the following year (20:22-34). After three years of peace between Israel and Damascus, hostilities broke out again in 853 <span>BC<\/span>, resulting in the battle in which Ahab was killed (22:29-37). Aramean Damascus continued to inflict losses on the kingdom of Israel for the next several decades (see 2 Kgs 8:28-29; 12:17-18; 13:1-7).<\/p>\n<p>During this period, the Aramean city-states began feeling pressure from Assyria. Damascus was first defeated by Assyria around 838 <span>BC<\/span> and was forced to become a tribute-paying vassal of Assyria in 803 <span>BC<\/span>. The resulting weakness of Damascus helped enable Jehoash (798–782 <span>BC<\/span>) to defeat the Arameans and expel them from Israel’s territory around 795 <span>BC<\/span> (2 Kgs 13:14-25). Later, Jeroboam II (793–753 <span>BC<\/span>) was able to force Damascus to pay tribute to him (see 2 Kgs 14:28).<\/p>\n<p>Around 738 <span>BC<\/span> the Arameans of Damascus joined forces with Israel to subjugate Judah. They captured much land, but their siege of Jerusalem was unsuccessful (2 Kgs 16:5; see also 2 Chr 28:5). At this time of seeming success for Damascus, the prophets Isaiah and Amos predicted the city’s doom (Isa 8:4; 17:1; Amos 1:3-5). But rather than trust in God, King Ahaz of Judah turned to the Assyrians for protection, who responded to his gifts by sacking Damascus and exiling its population in 733\/732 <span>BC<\/span> (2 Kgs 16:7-11). Damascus was no longer an independent city-state.<\/p>\n<p>The language of the Arameans, Aramaic, eventually became the language for diplomacy and administration all over the Near East (see, e.g., 2 Kgs 18:26). During the Exile, the Jews adopted the Aramaic language; portions of Ezra and Daniel are written in Aramaic. Aramaic was the <em>lingua franca<\/em> from Egypt to India during the Persian period and was widely spoken in Palestine in Jesus’ day (see Mark 5:41; 1 Cor 16:22).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 10:22-23; 22:20-21; 25:20; 28:1-7; Deut 26:5; 2 Sam 8:3-4; 10:17-19; 1 Kgs 15:18; 1 Kgs 20:1-34; 22:29-37; 2 Kgs 13:25; 16:9-13; 17:24-34; Hos 12:12; Amos 1:5<\/p>","summary_ro":"Arameans The Arameans were a Semitic group, descendants of Shem (Gen 10:22-23; cp. Gen 22:20-21). Bethuel and Laban were known as Arameans (Gen 25:20; 28:1-7). Jacob lived for some twenty years with them in Aramean territory (Gen 28–31; Hos 12:12), and the people of Israel remembered that their forefathers were (at least culturally) Arameans (Deut 26:5). When the Arameans emerged into history around the time of Abraham, they were settled around the central Euphrates, from which they spread ou...","summary_en":"Arameans The Arameans were a Semitic group, descendants of Shem (Gen 10:22-23; cp. Gen 22:20-21). Bethuel and Laban were known as Arameans (Gen 25:20; 28:1-7). Jacob lived for some twenty years with them in Aramean territory (Gen 28–31; Hos 12:12), and the people of Israel remembered that their forefathers were (at least culturally) Arameans (Deut 26:5). When the Arameans emerged into history around the time of Abraham, they were settled around the central Euphrates, from which they spread ou...","source":"Profiles.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":41646,"type":"profile","type_label":"Profil","type_icon":"👤","type_color":"#f59e0b","title_ro":"Ahaz","title_en":"Ahaz","content_ro":"<h3>Ahaz<\/h3>\n<p>Ahaz reigned in Judah during a turbulent period (743–715 <span>BC<\/span>). His father Jotham (2 Kgs 15:32-38; 2 Chr 27:1-9) and son Hezekiah (2 Kgs 18:1-8) were praised for their obedience to the Lord, but Ahaz was evil, even sacrificing one of his sons to false gods.<\/p>\n<p>Ahaz’s reign was marked with conflict. King Pekah of Israel and King Rezin of Aram (Syria) wanted him to join a coalition against Assyria, but he refused. So Pekah and Rezin turned against Judah and won substantial victories, which severely frightened Ahaz. Isaiah the prophet encouraged Ahaz to rely on the Lord, but Ahaz refused (Isa 7).<\/p>\n<p>Revealing his lack of trust in the true God, Ahaz appealed to Tiglath-pileser III for help (2 Kgs 16:7-9). Ahaz made Judah dangerously dependent on Assyria, and Judah effectively became a vassal state. The Assyrian king subsequently defeated the Arameans in a two-year campaign (734–732 <span>BC<\/span>) and killed Rezin. He subdued Israel and incorporated great tracts of Pekah’s land into the Assyrian Empire (15:29).<\/p>\n<p>Ahaz became an eager servant of Assyria. He adopted many religious innovations based on Assyrian models. Ahaz visited Tiglath-pileser III in Damascus, where he saw an Assyrian altar and sent a model of it to Jerusalem, where a similar altar was built, replacing the original bronze altar (16:10-18). Several other Temple alterations also indicate Ahaz’s defection from faith in the Lord.<\/p>\n<p>Ahaz illustrates why the people of Judah were finally exiled. He did not comport himself appropriately as a king (Deut 17:14-20), and he did not worship the Lord. Upon his death, he was succeeded by his son Hezekiah (2 Kgs 16:20).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>2 Kgs 15:38–16:20; 2 Chr 27:9–28:27; Isa 7:1-25<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Ahaz<\/h3>\n<p>Ahaz reigned in Judah during a turbulent period (743–715 <span>BC<\/span>). His father Jotham (2 Kgs 15:32-38; 2 Chr 27:1-9) and son Hezekiah (2 Kgs 18:1-8) were praised for their obedience to the Lord, but Ahaz was evil, even sacrificing one of his sons to false gods.<\/p>\n<p>Ahaz’s reign was marked with conflict. King Pekah of Israel and King Rezin of Aram (Syria) wanted him to join a coalition against Assyria, but he refused. So Pekah and Rezin turned against Judah and won substantial victories, which severely frightened Ahaz. Isaiah the prophet encouraged Ahaz to rely on the Lord, but Ahaz refused (Isa 7).<\/p>\n<p>Revealing his lack of trust in the true God, Ahaz appealed to Tiglath-pileser III for help (2 Kgs 16:7-9). Ahaz made Judah dangerously dependent on Assyria, and Judah effectively became a vassal state. The Assyrian king subsequently defeated the Arameans in a two-year campaign (734–732 <span>BC<\/span>) and killed Rezin. He subdued Israel and incorporated great tracts of Pekah’s land into the Assyrian Empire (15:29).<\/p>\n<p>Ahaz became an eager servant of Assyria. He adopted many religious innovations based on Assyrian models. Ahaz visited Tiglath-pileser III in Damascus, where he saw an Assyrian altar and sent a model of it to Jerusalem, where a similar altar was built, replacing the original bronze altar (16:10-18). Several other Temple alterations also indicate Ahaz’s defection from faith in the Lord.<\/p>\n<p>Ahaz illustrates why the people of Judah were finally exiled. He did not comport himself appropriately as a king (Deut 17:14-20), and he did not worship the Lord. Upon his death, he was succeeded by his son Hezekiah (2 Kgs 16:20).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>2 Kgs 15:38–16:20; 2 Chr 27:9–28:27; Isa 7:1-25<\/p>","summary_ro":"Ahaz Ahaz reigned in Judah during a turbulent period (743–715 BC). His father Jotham (2 Kgs 15:32-38; 2 Chr 27:1-9) and son Hezekiah (2 Kgs 18:1-8) were praised for their obedience to the Lord, but Ahaz was evil, even sacrificing one of his sons to false gods. Ahaz’s reign was marked with conflict. King Pekah of Israel and King Rezin of Aram (Syria) wanted him to join a coalition against Assyria, but he refused. So Pekah and Rezin turned against Judah and won substantial victories, which seve...","summary_en":"Ahaz Ahaz reigned in Judah during a turbulent period (743–715 BC). His father Jotham (2 Kgs 15:32-38; 2 Chr 27:1-9) and son Hezekiah (2 Kgs 18:1-8) were praised for their obedience to the Lord, but Ahaz was evil, even sacrificing one of his sons to false gods. Ahaz’s reign was marked with conflict. King Pekah of Israel and King Rezin of Aram (Syria) wanted him to join a coalition against Assyria, but he refused. So Pekah and Rezin turned against Judah and won substantial victories, which seve...","source":"Profiles.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":41655,"type":"profile","type_label":"Profil","type_icon":"👤","type_color":"#f59e0b","title_ro":"Hezekiah","title_en":"Hezekiah","content_ro":"<h3>Hezekiah<\/h3>\n<p>Hezekiah, who reigned from 728 to 686 <span>BC<\/span> was one of Judah’s best kings. Hezekiah’s father, Ahaz, betrayed the Lord, but Hezekiah promoted true worship of God. Reversing the damage done by Ahaz, he repaired the Temple doors, had the Levites sanctify themselves, and reinstated religious ceremonies. He brought sacrifices, restored the priestly Temple service, and invited people throughout Judah and Israel to celebrate Passover in Jerusalem (2 Chr 29–30). After the celebration, he faithfully destroyed pagan worship sites.<\/p>\n<p>Soon after Hezekiah started ruling, the Assyrians under Shalmaneser V and his successor Sargon II defeated the northern kingdom, deported its inhabitants, and brought in foreign residents (722 <span>BC<\/span>). When Sargon II died in 705 <span>BC<\/span>, his son Sennacherib came to power, triggering widespread rebellion. Hezekiah stopped paying the tribute that his father Ahaz had paid (2 Kgs 18:7; see 16:7). As a result, in 701 <span>BC<\/span> Sennacherib invaded Judah. Hezekiah tried to appease the Assyrian ruler by sending a vast tribute payment, but the attempted return to servitude failed and the Assyrian forces threatened Jerusalem and mocked Hezekiah’s reliance on the Lord (18:17-35). Hezekiah responded with grieving and supplication. The Lord, speaking through Isaiah the prophet, assured Hezekiah that his prayers had been heard and that Sennacherib would not conquer Jerusalem (19:1-34).<\/p>\n<p>Around that same time, Hezekiah became seriously ill (20:1-11). Isaiah told him to prepare for death, but Hezekiah turned to the Lord and prayed for healing. The Lord promised him fifteen more years as well as deliverance from the Assyrians. When he had recovered, Hezekiah unwisely hosted the rebel Babylonian king Merodach-baladan in his palace, showing him the Temple treasures and seeking support from Babylon rather than the Lord. Isaiah predicted that those treasures would be carried off to Babylon (20:12-19).<\/p>\n<p>After the Assyrian threat in 701 <span>BC<\/span>, Hezekiah’s remaining years were peaceful and prosperous; he died in 686 <span>BC<\/span> and was succeeded by his son Manasseh.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>2 Kgs 18:1–20:21; 2 Chr 28:27–32:33; Isa 36:1–39:8<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Hezekiah<\/h3>\n<p>Hezekiah, who reigned from 728 to 686 <span>BC<\/span> was one of Judah’s best kings. Hezekiah’s father, Ahaz, betrayed the Lord, but Hezekiah promoted true worship of God. Reversing the damage done by Ahaz, he repaired the Temple doors, had the Levites sanctify themselves, and reinstated religious ceremonies. He brought sacrifices, restored the priestly Temple service, and invited people throughout Judah and Israel to celebrate Passover in Jerusalem (2 Chr 29–30). After the celebration, he faithfully destroyed pagan worship sites.<\/p>\n<p>Soon after Hezekiah started ruling, the Assyrians under Shalmaneser V and his successor Sargon II defeated the northern kingdom, deported its inhabitants, and brought in foreign residents (722 <span>BC<\/span>). When Sargon II died in 705 <span>BC<\/span>, his son Sennacherib came to power, triggering widespread rebellion. Hezekiah stopped paying the tribute that his father Ahaz had paid (2 Kgs 18:7; see 16:7). As a result, in 701 <span>BC<\/span> Sennacherib invaded Judah. Hezekiah tried to appease the Assyrian ruler by sending a vast tribute payment, but the attempted return to servitude failed and the Assyrian forces threatened Jerusalem and mocked Hezekiah’s reliance on the Lord (18:17-35). Hezekiah responded with grieving and supplication. The Lord, speaking through Isaiah the prophet, assured Hezekiah that his prayers had been heard and that Sennacherib would not conquer Jerusalem (19:1-34).<\/p>\n<p>Around that same time, Hezekiah became seriously ill (20:1-11). Isaiah told him to prepare for death, but Hezekiah turned to the Lord and prayed for healing. The Lord promised him fifteen more years as well as deliverance from the Assyrians. When he had recovered, Hezekiah unwisely hosted the rebel Babylonian king Merodach-baladan in his palace, showing him the Temple treasures and seeking support from Babylon rather than the Lord. Isaiah predicted that those treasures would be carried off to Babylon (20:12-19).<\/p>\n<p>After the Assyrian threat in 701 <span>BC<\/span>, Hezekiah’s remaining years were peaceful and prosperous; he died in 686 <span>BC<\/span> and was succeeded by his son Manasseh.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>2 Kgs 18:1–20:21; 2 Chr 28:27–32:33; Isa 36:1–39:8<\/p>","summary_ro":"Hezekiah Hezekiah, who reigned from 728 to 686 BC was one of Judah’s best kings. Hezekiah’s father, Ahaz, betrayed the Lord, but Hezekiah promoted true worship of God. Reversing the damage done by Ahaz, he repaired the Temple doors, had the Levites sanctify themselves, and reinstated religious ceremonies. He brought sacrifices, restored the priestly Temple service, and invited people throughout Judah and Israel to celebrate Passover in Jerusalem (2 Chr 29–30). After the celebration, he faithf...","summary_en":"Hezekiah Hezekiah, who reigned from 728 to 686 BC was one of Judah’s best kings. Hezekiah’s father, Ahaz, betrayed the Lord, but Hezekiah promoted true worship of God. Reversing the damage done by Ahaz, he repaired the Temple doors, had the Levites sanctify themselves, and reinstated religious ceremonies. He brought sacrifices, restored the priestly Temple service, and invited people throughout Judah and Israel to celebrate Passover in Jerusalem (2 Chr 29–30). After the celebration, he faithf...","source":"Profiles.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":69232,"type":"profile","type_label":"Profil","type_icon":"👤","type_color":"#f59e0b","title_ro":"Arameans","title_en":"Arameans","content_ro":"<h3>Arameans<\/h3>\n<p>The Arameans were a Semitic group, descendants of Shem (Gen 10:22-23; cp. Gen 22:20-21). Bethuel and Laban were known as Arameans (Gen 25:20; 28:1-7). Jacob lived for some twenty years with them in Aramean territory (Gen 28–31; Hos 12:12), and the people of Israel remembered that their forefathers were (at least culturally) Arameans (Deut 26:5).<\/p>\n<p>When the Arameans emerged into history around the time of Abraham, they were settled around the central Euphrates, from which they spread out to the east, west, and north. By around 1100 <span>BC<\/span>, Aramean tribes had spread throughout Syria and had expanded into northern Transjordan. They set up a number of powerful Aramean city-states, including Zobah and Damascus, that came into conflict with the Israelites beginning in the time of David (see 2 Sam 8:3-8; 10:6-25).<\/p>\n<p>After Solomon’s death and the division of Israel into northern and southern kingdoms, Aramean Damascus became a powerful and opportunistic player in the political struggles between the two states. When war broke out between Israel and Judah in the years 890–880 <span>BC<\/span>, King Asa of Israel sought aid from Ben-hadad I of Damascus (1 Kgs 15:18-19). Roughly thirty years later, in the early 850s <span>BC<\/span>, Ben-hadad invaded Israel, but Ahab defeated him both at Samaria (20:1-21) and at Aphek the following year (20:22-34). After three years of peace between Israel and Damascus, hostilities broke out again in 853 <span>BC<\/span>, resulting in the battle in which Ahab was killed (22:29-37). Aramean Damascus continued to inflict losses on the kingdom of Israel for the next several decades (see 2 Kgs 8:28-29; 12:17-18; 13:1-7).<\/p>\n<p>During this period, the Aramean city-states began feeling pressure from Assyria. Damascus was first defeated by Assyria around 838 <span>BC<\/span> and was forced to become a tribute-paying vassal of Assyria in 803 <span>BC<\/span>. The resulting weakness of Damascus helped enable Jehoash (798–782 <span>BC<\/span>) to defeat the Arameans and expel them from Israel’s territory around 795 <span>BC<\/span> (2 Kgs 13:14-25). Later, Jeroboam II (793–753 <span>BC<\/span>) was able to force Damascus to pay tribute to him (see 2 Kgs 14:28).<\/p>\n<p>Around 738 <span>BC<\/span> the Arameans of Damascus joined forces with Israel to subjugate Judah. They captured much land, but their siege of Jerusalem was unsuccessful (2 Kgs 16:5; see also 2 Chr 28:5). At this time of seeming success for Damascus, the prophets Isaiah and Amos predicted the city’s doom (Isa 8:4; 17:1; Amos 1:3-5). But rather than trust in God, King Ahaz of Judah turned to the Assyrians for protection, who responded to his gifts by sacking Damascus and exiling its population in 733\/732 <span>BC<\/span> (2 Kgs 16:7-11). Damascus was no longer an independent city-state.<\/p>\n<p>The language of the Arameans, Aramaic, eventually became the language for diplomacy and administration all over the Near East (see, e.g., 2 Kgs 18:26). During the Exile, the Jews adopted the Aramaic language; portions of Ezra and Daniel are written in Aramaic. Aramaic was the <em>lingua franca<\/em> from Egypt to India during the Persian period and was widely spoken in Palestine in Jesus’ day (see Mark 5:41; 1 Cor 16:22).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 10:22-23; 22:20-21; 25:20; 28:1-7; Deut 26:5; 2 Sam 8:3-4; 10:17-19; 1 Kgs 15:18; 1 Kgs 20:1-34; 22:29-37; 2 Kgs 13:25; 16:9-13; 17:24-34; Hos 12:12; Amos 1:5<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Arameans<\/h3>\n<p>The Arameans were a Semitic group, descendants of Shem (Gen 10:22-23; cp. Gen 22:20-21). Bethuel and Laban were known as Arameans (Gen 25:20; 28:1-7). Jacob lived for some twenty years with them in Aramean territory (Gen 28–31; Hos 12:12), and the people of Israel remembered that their forefathers were (at least culturally) Arameans (Deut 26:5).<\/p>\n<p>When the Arameans emerged into history around the time of Abraham, they were settled around the central Euphrates, from which they spread out to the east, west, and north. By around 1100 <span>BC<\/span>, Aramean tribes had spread throughout Syria and had expanded into northern Transjordan. They set up a number of powerful Aramean city-states, including Zobah and Damascus, that came into conflict with the Israelites beginning in the time of David (see 2 Sam 8:3-8; 10:6-25).<\/p>\n<p>After Solomon’s death and the division of Israel into northern and southern kingdoms, Aramean Damascus became a powerful and opportunistic player in the political struggles between the two states. When war broke out between Israel and Judah in the years 890–880 <span>BC<\/span>, King Asa of Israel sought aid from Ben-hadad I of Damascus (1 Kgs 15:18-19). Roughly thirty years later, in the early 850s <span>BC<\/span>, Ben-hadad invaded Israel, but Ahab defeated him both at Samaria (20:1-21) and at Aphek the following year (20:22-34). After three years of peace between Israel and Damascus, hostilities broke out again in 853 <span>BC<\/span>, resulting in the battle in which Ahab was killed (22:29-37). Aramean Damascus continued to inflict losses on the kingdom of Israel for the next several decades (see 2 Kgs 8:28-29; 12:17-18; 13:1-7).<\/p>\n<p>During this period, the Aramean city-states began feeling pressure from Assyria. Damascus was first defeated by Assyria around 838 <span>BC<\/span> and was forced to become a tribute-paying vassal of Assyria in 803 <span>BC<\/span>. The resulting weakness of Damascus helped enable Jehoash (798–782 <span>BC<\/span>) to defeat the Arameans and expel them from Israel’s territory around 795 <span>BC<\/span> (2 Kgs 13:14-25). Later, Jeroboam II (793–753 <span>BC<\/span>) was able to force Damascus to pay tribute to him (see 2 Kgs 14:28).<\/p>\n<p>Around 738 <span>BC<\/span> the Arameans of Damascus joined forces with Israel to subjugate Judah. They captured much land, but their siege of Jerusalem was unsuccessful (2 Kgs 16:5; see also 2 Chr 28:5). At this time of seeming success for Damascus, the prophets Isaiah and Amos predicted the city’s doom (Isa 8:4; 17:1; Amos 1:3-5). But rather than trust in God, King Ahaz of Judah turned to the Assyrians for protection, who responded to his gifts by sacking Damascus and exiling its population in 733\/732 <span>BC<\/span> (2 Kgs 16:7-11). Damascus was no longer an independent city-state.<\/p>\n<p>The language of the Arameans, Aramaic, eventually became the language for diplomacy and administration all over the Near East (see, e.g., 2 Kgs 18:26). During the Exile, the Jews adopted the Aramaic language; portions of Ezra and Daniel are written in Aramaic. Aramaic was the <em>lingua franca<\/em> from Egypt to India during the Persian period and was widely spoken in Palestine in Jesus’ day (see Mark 5:41; 1 Cor 16:22).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 10:22-23; 22:20-21; 25:20; 28:1-7; Deut 26:5; 2 Sam 8:3-4; 10:17-19; 1 Kgs 15:18; 1 Kgs 20:1-34; 22:29-37; 2 Kgs 13:25; 16:9-13; 17:24-34; Hos 12:12; Amos 1:5<\/p>","summary_ro":"Arameans The Arameans were a Semitic group, descendants of Shem (Gen 10:22-23; cp. Gen 22:20-21). Bethuel and Laban were known as Arameans (Gen 25:20; 28:1-7). Jacob lived for some twenty years with them in Aramean territory (Gen 28–31; Hos 12:12), and the people of Israel remembered that their forefathers were (at least culturally) Arameans (Deut 26:5). When the Arameans emerged into history around the time of Abraham, they were settled around the central Euphrates, from which they spread ou...","summary_en":"Arameans The Arameans were a Semitic group, descendants of Shem (Gen 10:22-23; cp. Gen 22:20-21). Bethuel and Laban were known as Arameans (Gen 25:20; 28:1-7). Jacob lived for some twenty years with them in Aramean territory (Gen 28–31; Hos 12:12), and the people of Israel remembered that their forefathers were (at least culturally) Arameans (Deut 26:5). When the Arameans emerged into history around the time of Abraham, they were settled around the central Euphrates, from which they spread ou...","source":"Profiles.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":69272,"type":"profile","type_label":"Profil","type_icon":"👤","type_color":"#f59e0b","title_ro":"Ahaz","title_en":"Ahaz","content_ro":"<h3>Ahaz<\/h3>\n<p>Ahaz reigned in Judah during a turbulent period (743–715 <span>BC<\/span>). His father Jotham (2 Kgs 15:32-38; 2 Chr 27:1-9) and son Hezekiah (2 Kgs 18:1-8) were praised for their obedience to the Lord, but Ahaz was evil, even sacrificing one of his sons to false gods.<\/p>\n<p>Ahaz’s reign was marked with conflict. King Pekah of Israel and King Rezin of Aram (Syria) wanted him to join a coalition against Assyria, but he refused. So Pekah and Rezin turned against Judah and won substantial victories, which severely frightened Ahaz. Isaiah the prophet encouraged Ahaz to rely on the Lord, but Ahaz refused (Isa 7).<\/p>\n<p>Revealing his lack of trust in the true God, Ahaz appealed to Tiglath-pileser III for help (2 Kgs 16:7-9). Ahaz made Judah dangerously dependent on Assyria, and Judah effectively became a vassal state. The Assyrian king subsequently defeated the Arameans in a two-year campaign (734–732 <span>BC<\/span>) and killed Rezin. He subdued Israel and incorporated great tracts of Pekah’s land into the Assyrian Empire (15:29).<\/p>\n<p>Ahaz became an eager servant of Assyria. He adopted many religious innovations based on Assyrian models. Ahaz visited Tiglath-pileser III in Damascus, where he saw an Assyrian altar and sent a model of it to Jerusalem, where a similar altar was built, replacing the original bronze altar (16:10-18). Several other Temple alterations also indicate Ahaz’s defection from faith in the Lord.<\/p>\n<p>Ahaz illustrates why the people of Judah were finally exiled. He did not comport himself appropriately as a king (Deut 17:14-20), and he did not worship the Lord. Upon his death, he was succeeded by his son Hezekiah (2 Kgs 16:20).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>2 Kgs 15:38–16:20; 2 Chr 27:9–28:27; Isa 7:1-25<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Ahaz<\/h3>\n<p>Ahaz reigned in Judah during a turbulent period (743–715 <span>BC<\/span>). His father Jotham (2 Kgs 15:32-38; 2 Chr 27:1-9) and son Hezekiah (2 Kgs 18:1-8) were praised for their obedience to the Lord, but Ahaz was evil, even sacrificing one of his sons to false gods.<\/p>\n<p>Ahaz’s reign was marked with conflict. King Pekah of Israel and King Rezin of Aram (Syria) wanted him to join a coalition against Assyria, but he refused. So Pekah and Rezin turned against Judah and won substantial victories, which severely frightened Ahaz. Isaiah the prophet encouraged Ahaz to rely on the Lord, but Ahaz refused (Isa 7).<\/p>\n<p>Revealing his lack of trust in the true God, Ahaz appealed to Tiglath-pileser III for help (2 Kgs 16:7-9). Ahaz made Judah dangerously dependent on Assyria, and Judah effectively became a vassal state. The Assyrian king subsequently defeated the Arameans in a two-year campaign (734–732 <span>BC<\/span>) and killed Rezin. He subdued Israel and incorporated great tracts of Pekah’s land into the Assyrian Empire (15:29).<\/p>\n<p>Ahaz became an eager servant of Assyria. He adopted many religious innovations based on Assyrian models. Ahaz visited Tiglath-pileser III in Damascus, where he saw an Assyrian altar and sent a model of it to Jerusalem, where a similar altar was built, replacing the original bronze altar (16:10-18). Several other Temple alterations also indicate Ahaz’s defection from faith in the Lord.<\/p>\n<p>Ahaz illustrates why the people of Judah were finally exiled. He did not comport himself appropriately as a king (Deut 17:14-20), and he did not worship the Lord. Upon his death, he was succeeded by his son Hezekiah (2 Kgs 16:20).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>2 Kgs 15:38–16:20; 2 Chr 27:9–28:27; Isa 7:1-25<\/p>","summary_ro":"Ahaz Ahaz reigned in Judah during a turbulent period (743–715 BC). His father Jotham (2 Kgs 15:32-38; 2 Chr 27:1-9) and son Hezekiah (2 Kgs 18:1-8) were praised for their obedience to the Lord, but Ahaz was evil, even sacrificing one of his sons to false gods. Ahaz’s reign was marked with conflict. King Pekah of Israel and King Rezin of Aram (Syria) wanted him to join a coalition against Assyria, but he refused. So Pekah and Rezin turned against Judah and won substantial victories, which seve...","summary_en":"Ahaz Ahaz reigned in Judah during a turbulent period (743–715 BC). His father Jotham (2 Kgs 15:32-38; 2 Chr 27:1-9) and son Hezekiah (2 Kgs 18:1-8) were praised for their obedience to the Lord, but Ahaz was evil, even sacrificing one of his sons to false gods. Ahaz’s reign was marked with conflict. King Pekah of Israel and King Rezin of Aram (Syria) wanted him to join a coalition against Assyria, but he refused. So Pekah and Rezin turned against Judah and won substantial victories, which seve...","source":"Profiles.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":69281,"type":"profile","type_label":"Profil","type_icon":"👤","type_color":"#f59e0b","title_ro":"Hezekiah","title_en":"Hezekiah","content_ro":"<h3>Hezekiah<\/h3>\n<p>Hezekiah, who reigned from 728 to 686 <span>BC<\/span> was one of Judah’s best kings. Hezekiah’s father, Ahaz, betrayed the Lord, but Hezekiah promoted true worship of God. Reversing the damage done by Ahaz, he repaired the Temple doors, had the Levites sanctify themselves, and reinstated religious ceremonies. He brought sacrifices, restored the priestly Temple service, and invited people throughout Judah and Israel to celebrate Passover in Jerusalem (2 Chr 29–30). After the celebration, he faithfully destroyed pagan worship sites.<\/p>\n<p>Soon after Hezekiah started ruling, the Assyrians under Shalmaneser V and his successor Sargon II defeated the northern kingdom, deported its inhabitants, and brought in foreign residents (722 <span>BC<\/span>). When Sargon II died in 705 <span>BC<\/span>, his son Sennacherib came to power, triggering widespread rebellion. Hezekiah stopped paying the tribute that his father Ahaz had paid (2 Kgs 18:7; see 16:7). As a result, in 701 <span>BC<\/span> Sennacherib invaded Judah. Hezekiah tried to appease the Assyrian ruler by sending a vast tribute payment, but the attempted return to servitude failed and the Assyrian forces threatened Jerusalem and mocked Hezekiah’s reliance on the Lord (18:17-35). Hezekiah responded with grieving and supplication. The Lord, speaking through Isaiah the prophet, assured Hezekiah that his prayers had been heard and that Sennacherib would not conquer Jerusalem (19:1-34).<\/p>\n<p>Around that same time, Hezekiah became seriously ill (20:1-11). Isaiah told him to prepare for death, but Hezekiah turned to the Lord and prayed for healing. The Lord promised him fifteen more years as well as deliverance from the Assyrians. When he had recovered, Hezekiah unwisely hosted the rebel Babylonian king Merodach-baladan in his palace, showing him the Temple treasures and seeking support from Babylon rather than the Lord. Isaiah predicted that those treasures would be carried off to Babylon (20:12-19).<\/p>\n<p>After the Assyrian threat in 701 <span>BC<\/span>, Hezekiah’s remaining years were peaceful and prosperous; he died in 686 <span>BC<\/span> and was succeeded by his son Manasseh.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>2 Kgs 18:1–20:21; 2 Chr 28:27–32:33; Isa 36:1–39:8<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Hezekiah<\/h3>\n<p>Hezekiah, who reigned from 728 to 686 <span>BC<\/span> was one of Judah’s best kings. Hezekiah’s father, Ahaz, betrayed the Lord, but Hezekiah promoted true worship of God. Reversing the damage done by Ahaz, he repaired the Temple doors, had the Levites sanctify themselves, and reinstated religious ceremonies. He brought sacrifices, restored the priestly Temple service, and invited people throughout Judah and Israel to celebrate Passover in Jerusalem (2 Chr 29–30). After the celebration, he faithfully destroyed pagan worship sites.<\/p>\n<p>Soon after Hezekiah started ruling, the Assyrians under Shalmaneser V and his successor Sargon II defeated the northern kingdom, deported its inhabitants, and brought in foreign residents (722 <span>BC<\/span>). When Sargon II died in 705 <span>BC<\/span>, his son Sennacherib came to power, triggering widespread rebellion. Hezekiah stopped paying the tribute that his father Ahaz had paid (2 Kgs 18:7; see 16:7). As a result, in 701 <span>BC<\/span> Sennacherib invaded Judah. Hezekiah tried to appease the Assyrian ruler by sending a vast tribute payment, but the attempted return to servitude failed and the Assyrian forces threatened Jerusalem and mocked Hezekiah’s reliance on the Lord (18:17-35). Hezekiah responded with grieving and supplication. The Lord, speaking through Isaiah the prophet, assured Hezekiah that his prayers had been heard and that Sennacherib would not conquer Jerusalem (19:1-34).<\/p>\n<p>Around that same time, Hezekiah became seriously ill (20:1-11). Isaiah told him to prepare for death, but Hezekiah turned to the Lord and prayed for healing. The Lord promised him fifteen more years as well as deliverance from the Assyrians. When he had recovered, Hezekiah unwisely hosted the rebel Babylonian king Merodach-baladan in his palace, showing him the Temple treasures and seeking support from Babylon rather than the Lord. Isaiah predicted that those treasures would be carried off to Babylon (20:12-19).<\/p>\n<p>After the Assyrian threat in 701 <span>BC<\/span>, Hezekiah’s remaining years were peaceful and prosperous; he died in 686 <span>BC<\/span> and was succeeded by his son Manasseh.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>2 Kgs 18:1–20:21; 2 Chr 28:27–32:33; Isa 36:1–39:8<\/p>","summary_ro":"Hezekiah Hezekiah, who reigned from 728 to 686 BC was one of Judah’s best kings. Hezekiah’s father, Ahaz, betrayed the Lord, but Hezekiah promoted true worship of God. Reversing the damage done by Ahaz, he repaired the Temple doors, had the Levites sanctify themselves, and reinstated religious ceremonies. He brought sacrifices, restored the priestly Temple service, and invited people throughout Judah and Israel to celebrate Passover in Jerusalem (2 Chr 29–30). After the celebration, he faithf...","summary_en":"Hezekiah Hezekiah, who reigned from 728 to 686 BC was one of Judah’s best kings. Hezekiah’s father, Ahaz, betrayed the Lord, but Hezekiah promoted true worship of God. Reversing the damage done by Ahaz, he repaired the Temple doors, had the Levites sanctify themselves, and reinstated religious ceremonies. He brought sacrifices, restored the priestly Temple service, and invited people throughout Judah and Israel to celebrate Passover in Jerusalem (2 Chr 29–30). After the celebration, he faithf...","source":"Profiles.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":96858,"type":"profile","type_label":"Profil","type_icon":"👤","type_color":"#f59e0b","title_ro":"Arameans","title_en":"Arameans","content_ro":"<h3>Arameans<\/h3>\n<p>The Arameans were a Semitic group, descendants of Shem (Gen 10:22-23; cp. Gen 22:20-21). Bethuel and Laban were known as Arameans (Gen 25:20; 28:1-7). Jacob lived for some twenty years with them in Aramean territory (Gen 28–31; Hos 12:12), and the people of Israel remembered that their forefathers were (at least culturally) Arameans (Deut 26:5).<\/p>\n<p>When the Arameans emerged into history around the time of Abraham, they were settled around the central Euphrates, from which they spread out to the east, west, and north. By around 1100 <span>BC<\/span>, Aramean tribes had spread throughout Syria and had expanded into northern Transjordan. They set up a number of powerful Aramean city-states, including Zobah and Damascus, that came into conflict with the Israelites beginning in the time of David (see 2 Sam 8:3-8; 10:6-25).<\/p>\n<p>After Solomon’s death and the division of Israel into northern and southern kingdoms, Aramean Damascus became a powerful and opportunistic player in the political struggles between the two states. When war broke out between Israel and Judah in the years 890–880 <span>BC<\/span>, King Asa of Israel sought aid from Ben-hadad I of Damascus (1 Kgs 15:18-19). Roughly thirty years later, in the early 850s <span>BC<\/span>, Ben-hadad invaded Israel, but Ahab defeated him both at Samaria (20:1-21) and at Aphek the following year (20:22-34). After three years of peace between Israel and Damascus, hostilities broke out again in 853 <span>BC<\/span>, resulting in the battle in which Ahab was killed (22:29-37). Aramean Damascus continued to inflict losses on the kingdom of Israel for the next several decades (see 2 Kgs 8:28-29; 12:17-18; 13:1-7).<\/p>\n<p>During this period, the Aramean city-states began feeling pressure from Assyria. Damascus was first defeated by Assyria around 838 <span>BC<\/span> and was forced to become a tribute-paying vassal of Assyria in 803 <span>BC<\/span>. The resulting weakness of Damascus helped enable Jehoash (798–782 <span>BC<\/span>) to defeat the Arameans and expel them from Israel’s territory around 795 <span>BC<\/span> (2 Kgs 13:14-25). Later, Jeroboam II (793–753 <span>BC<\/span>) was able to force Damascus to pay tribute to him (see 2 Kgs 14:28).<\/p>\n<p>Around 738 <span>BC<\/span> the Arameans of Damascus joined forces with Israel to subjugate Judah. They captured much land, but their siege of Jerusalem was unsuccessful (2 Kgs 16:5; see also 2 Chr 28:5). At this time of seeming success for Damascus, the prophets Isaiah and Amos predicted the city’s doom (Isa 8:4; 17:1; Amos 1:3-5). But rather than trust in God, King Ahaz of Judah turned to the Assyrians for protection, who responded to his gifts by sacking Damascus and exiling its population in 733\/732 <span>BC<\/span> (2 Kgs 16:7-11). Damascus was no longer an independent city-state.<\/p>\n<p>The language of the Arameans, Aramaic, eventually became the language for diplomacy and administration all over the Near East (see, e.g., 2 Kgs 18:26). During the Exile, the Jews adopted the Aramaic language; portions of Ezra and Daniel are written in Aramaic. Aramaic was the <em>lingua franca<\/em> from Egypt to India during the Persian period and was widely spoken in Palestine in Jesus’ day (see Mark 5:41; 1 Cor 16:22).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 10:22-23; 22:20-21; 25:20; 28:1-7; Deut 26:5; 2 Sam 8:3-4; 10:17-19; 1 Kgs 15:18; 1 Kgs 20:1-34; 22:29-37; 2 Kgs 13:25; 16:9-13; 17:24-34; Hos 12:12; Amos 1:5<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Arameans<\/h3>\n<p>The Arameans were a Semitic group, descendants of Shem (Gen 10:22-23; cp. Gen 22:20-21). Bethuel and Laban were known as Arameans (Gen 25:20; 28:1-7). Jacob lived for some twenty years with them in Aramean territory (Gen 28–31; Hos 12:12), and the people of Israel remembered that their forefathers were (at least culturally) Arameans (Deut 26:5).<\/p>\n<p>When the Arameans emerged into history around the time of Abraham, they were settled around the central Euphrates, from which they spread out to the east, west, and north. By around 1100 <span>BC<\/span>, Aramean tribes had spread throughout Syria and had expanded into northern Transjordan. They set up a number of powerful Aramean city-states, including Zobah and Damascus, that came into conflict with the Israelites beginning in the time of David (see 2 Sam 8:3-8; 10:6-25).<\/p>\n<p>After Solomon’s death and the division of Israel into northern and southern kingdoms, Aramean Damascus became a powerful and opportunistic player in the political struggles between the two states. When war broke out between Israel and Judah in the years 890–880 <span>BC<\/span>, King Asa of Israel sought aid from Ben-hadad I of Damascus (1 Kgs 15:18-19). Roughly thirty years later, in the early 850s <span>BC<\/span>, Ben-hadad invaded Israel, but Ahab defeated him both at Samaria (20:1-21) and at Aphek the following year (20:22-34). After three years of peace between Israel and Damascus, hostilities broke out again in 853 <span>BC<\/span>, resulting in the battle in which Ahab was killed (22:29-37). Aramean Damascus continued to inflict losses on the kingdom of Israel for the next several decades (see 2 Kgs 8:28-29; 12:17-18; 13:1-7).<\/p>\n<p>During this period, the Aramean city-states began feeling pressure from Assyria. Damascus was first defeated by Assyria around 838 <span>BC<\/span> and was forced to become a tribute-paying vassal of Assyria in 803 <span>BC<\/span>. The resulting weakness of Damascus helped enable Jehoash (798–782 <span>BC<\/span>) to defeat the Arameans and expel them from Israel’s territory around 795 <span>BC<\/span> (2 Kgs 13:14-25). Later, Jeroboam II (793–753 <span>BC<\/span>) was able to force Damascus to pay tribute to him (see 2 Kgs 14:28).<\/p>\n<p>Around 738 <span>BC<\/span> the Arameans of Damascus joined forces with Israel to subjugate Judah. They captured much land, but their siege of Jerusalem was unsuccessful (2 Kgs 16:5; see also 2 Chr 28:5). At this time of seeming success for Damascus, the prophets Isaiah and Amos predicted the city’s doom (Isa 8:4; 17:1; Amos 1:3-5). But rather than trust in God, King Ahaz of Judah turned to the Assyrians for protection, who responded to his gifts by sacking Damascus and exiling its population in 733\/732 <span>BC<\/span> (2 Kgs 16:7-11). Damascus was no longer an independent city-state.<\/p>\n<p>The language of the Arameans, Aramaic, eventually became the language for diplomacy and administration all over the Near East (see, e.g., 2 Kgs 18:26). During the Exile, the Jews adopted the Aramaic language; portions of Ezra and Daniel are written in Aramaic. Aramaic was the <em>lingua franca<\/em> from Egypt to India during the Persian period and was widely spoken in Palestine in Jesus’ day (see Mark 5:41; 1 Cor 16:22).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 10:22-23; 22:20-21; 25:20; 28:1-7; Deut 26:5; 2 Sam 8:3-4; 10:17-19; 1 Kgs 15:18; 1 Kgs 20:1-34; 22:29-37; 2 Kgs 13:25; 16:9-13; 17:24-34; Hos 12:12; Amos 1:5<\/p>","summary_ro":"Arameans The Arameans were a Semitic group, descendants of Shem (Gen 10:22-23; cp. Gen 22:20-21). Bethuel and Laban were known as Arameans (Gen 25:20; 28:1-7). Jacob lived for some twenty years with them in Aramean territory (Gen 28–31; Hos 12:12), and the people of Israel remembered that their forefathers were (at least culturally) Arameans (Deut 26:5). When the Arameans emerged into history around the time of Abraham, they were settled around the central Euphrates, from which they spread ou...","summary_en":"Arameans The Arameans were a Semitic group, descendants of Shem (Gen 10:22-23; cp. Gen 22:20-21). Bethuel and Laban were known as Arameans (Gen 25:20; 28:1-7). Jacob lived for some twenty years with them in Aramean territory (Gen 28–31; Hos 12:12), and the people of Israel remembered that their forefathers were (at least culturally) Arameans (Deut 26:5). When the Arameans emerged into history around the time of Abraham, they were settled around the central Euphrates, from which they spread ou...","source":"Profiles.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":96898,"type":"profile","type_label":"Profil","type_icon":"👤","type_color":"#f59e0b","title_ro":"Ahaz","title_en":"Ahaz","content_ro":"<h3>Ahaz<\/h3>\n<p>Ahaz reigned in Judah during a turbulent period (743–715 <span>BC<\/span>). His father Jotham (2 Kgs 15:32-38; 2 Chr 27:1-9) and son Hezekiah (2 Kgs 18:1-8) were praised for their obedience to the Lord, but Ahaz was evil, even sacrificing one of his sons to false gods.<\/p>\n<p>Ahaz’s reign was marked with conflict. King Pekah of Israel and King Rezin of Aram (Syria) wanted him to join a coalition against Assyria, but he refused. So Pekah and Rezin turned against Judah and won substantial victories, which severely frightened Ahaz. Isaiah the prophet encouraged Ahaz to rely on the Lord, but Ahaz refused (Isa 7).<\/p>\n<p>Revealing his lack of trust in the true God, Ahaz appealed to Tiglath-pileser III for help (2 Kgs 16:7-9). Ahaz made Judah dangerously dependent on Assyria, and Judah effectively became a vassal state. The Assyrian king subsequently defeated the Arameans in a two-year campaign (734–732 <span>BC<\/span>) and killed Rezin. He subdued Israel and incorporated great tracts of Pekah’s land into the Assyrian Empire (15:29).<\/p>\n<p>Ahaz became an eager servant of Assyria. He adopted many religious innovations based on Assyrian models. Ahaz visited Tiglath-pileser III in Damascus, where he saw an Assyrian altar and sent a model of it to Jerusalem, where a similar altar was built, replacing the original bronze altar (16:10-18). Several other Temple alterations also indicate Ahaz’s defection from faith in the Lord.<\/p>\n<p>Ahaz illustrates why the people of Judah were finally exiled. He did not comport himself appropriately as a king (Deut 17:14-20), and he did not worship the Lord. Upon his death, he was succeeded by his son Hezekiah (2 Kgs 16:20).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>2 Kgs 15:38–16:20; 2 Chr 27:9–28:27; Isa 7:1-25<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Ahaz<\/h3>\n<p>Ahaz reigned in Judah during a turbulent period (743–715 <span>BC<\/span>). His father Jotham (2 Kgs 15:32-38; 2 Chr 27:1-9) and son Hezekiah (2 Kgs 18:1-8) were praised for their obedience to the Lord, but Ahaz was evil, even sacrificing one of his sons to false gods.<\/p>\n<p>Ahaz’s reign was marked with conflict. King Pekah of Israel and King Rezin of Aram (Syria) wanted him to join a coalition against Assyria, but he refused. So Pekah and Rezin turned against Judah and won substantial victories, which severely frightened Ahaz. Isaiah the prophet encouraged Ahaz to rely on the Lord, but Ahaz refused (Isa 7).<\/p>\n<p>Revealing his lack of trust in the true God, Ahaz appealed to Tiglath-pileser III for help (2 Kgs 16:7-9). Ahaz made Judah dangerously dependent on Assyria, and Judah effectively became a vassal state. The Assyrian king subsequently defeated the Arameans in a two-year campaign (734–732 <span>BC<\/span>) and killed Rezin. He subdued Israel and incorporated great tracts of Pekah’s land into the Assyrian Empire (15:29).<\/p>\n<p>Ahaz became an eager servant of Assyria. He adopted many religious innovations based on Assyrian models. Ahaz visited Tiglath-pileser III in Damascus, where he saw an Assyrian altar and sent a model of it to Jerusalem, where a similar altar was built, replacing the original bronze altar (16:10-18). Several other Temple alterations also indicate Ahaz’s defection from faith in the Lord.<\/p>\n<p>Ahaz illustrates why the people of Judah were finally exiled. He did not comport himself appropriately as a king (Deut 17:14-20), and he did not worship the Lord. Upon his death, he was succeeded by his son Hezekiah (2 Kgs 16:20).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>2 Kgs 15:38–16:20; 2 Chr 27:9–28:27; Isa 7:1-25<\/p>","summary_ro":"Ahaz Ahaz reigned in Judah during a turbulent period (743–715 BC). His father Jotham (2 Kgs 15:32-38; 2 Chr 27:1-9) and son Hezekiah (2 Kgs 18:1-8) were praised for their obedience to the Lord, but Ahaz was evil, even sacrificing one of his sons to false gods. Ahaz’s reign was marked with conflict. King Pekah of Israel and King Rezin of Aram (Syria) wanted him to join a coalition against Assyria, but he refused. So Pekah and Rezin turned against Judah and won substantial victories, which seve...","summary_en":"Ahaz Ahaz reigned in Judah during a turbulent period (743–715 BC). His father Jotham (2 Kgs 15:32-38; 2 Chr 27:1-9) and son Hezekiah (2 Kgs 18:1-8) were praised for their obedience to the Lord, but Ahaz was evil, even sacrificing one of his sons to false gods. Ahaz’s reign was marked with conflict. King Pekah of Israel and King Rezin of Aram (Syria) wanted him to join a coalition against Assyria, but he refused. So Pekah and Rezin turned against Judah and won substantial victories, which seve...","source":"Profiles.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":96907,"type":"profile","type_label":"Profil","type_icon":"👤","type_color":"#f59e0b","title_ro":"Hezekiah","title_en":"Hezekiah","content_ro":"<h3>Hezekiah<\/h3>\n<p>Hezekiah, who reigned from 728 to 686 <span>BC<\/span> was one of Judah’s best kings. Hezekiah’s father, Ahaz, betrayed the Lord, but Hezekiah promoted true worship of God. Reversing the damage done by Ahaz, he repaired the Temple doors, had the Levites sanctify themselves, and reinstated religious ceremonies. He brought sacrifices, restored the priestly Temple service, and invited people throughout Judah and Israel to celebrate Passover in Jerusalem (2 Chr 29–30). After the celebration, he faithfully destroyed pagan worship sites.<\/p>\n<p>Soon after Hezekiah started ruling, the Assyrians under Shalmaneser V and his successor Sargon II defeated the northern kingdom, deported its inhabitants, and brought in foreign residents (722 <span>BC<\/span>). When Sargon II died in 705 <span>BC<\/span>, his son Sennacherib came to power, triggering widespread rebellion. Hezekiah stopped paying the tribute that his father Ahaz had paid (2 Kgs 18:7; see 16:7). As a result, in 701 <span>BC<\/span> Sennacherib invaded Judah. Hezekiah tried to appease the Assyrian ruler by sending a vast tribute payment, but the attempted return to servitude failed and the Assyrian forces threatened Jerusalem and mocked Hezekiah’s reliance on the Lord (18:17-35). Hezekiah responded with grieving and supplication. The Lord, speaking through Isaiah the prophet, assured Hezekiah that his prayers had been heard and that Sennacherib would not conquer Jerusalem (19:1-34).<\/p>\n<p>Around that same time, Hezekiah became seriously ill (20:1-11). Isaiah told him to prepare for death, but Hezekiah turned to the Lord and prayed for healing. The Lord promised him fifteen more years as well as deliverance from the Assyrians. When he had recovered, Hezekiah unwisely hosted the rebel Babylonian king Merodach-baladan in his palace, showing him the Temple treasures and seeking support from Babylon rather than the Lord. Isaiah predicted that those treasures would be carried off to Babylon (20:12-19).<\/p>\n<p>After the Assyrian threat in 701 <span>BC<\/span>, Hezekiah’s remaining years were peaceful and prosperous; he died in 686 <span>BC<\/span> and was succeeded by his son Manasseh.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>2 Kgs 18:1–20:21; 2 Chr 28:27–32:33; Isa 36:1–39:8<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Hezekiah<\/h3>\n<p>Hezekiah, who reigned from 728 to 686 <span>BC<\/span> was one of Judah’s best kings. Hezekiah’s father, Ahaz, betrayed the Lord, but Hezekiah promoted true worship of God. Reversing the damage done by Ahaz, he repaired the Temple doors, had the Levites sanctify themselves, and reinstated religious ceremonies. He brought sacrifices, restored the priestly Temple service, and invited people throughout Judah and Israel to celebrate Passover in Jerusalem (2 Chr 29–30). After the celebration, he faithfully destroyed pagan worship sites.<\/p>\n<p>Soon after Hezekiah started ruling, the Assyrians under Shalmaneser V and his successor Sargon II defeated the northern kingdom, deported its inhabitants, and brought in foreign residents (722 <span>BC<\/span>). When Sargon II died in 705 <span>BC<\/span>, his son Sennacherib came to power, triggering widespread rebellion. Hezekiah stopped paying the tribute that his father Ahaz had paid (2 Kgs 18:7; see 16:7). As a result, in 701 <span>BC<\/span> Sennacherib invaded Judah. Hezekiah tried to appease the Assyrian ruler by sending a vast tribute payment, but the attempted return to servitude failed and the Assyrian forces threatened Jerusalem and mocked Hezekiah’s reliance on the Lord (18:17-35). Hezekiah responded with grieving and supplication. The Lord, speaking through Isaiah the prophet, assured Hezekiah that his prayers had been heard and that Sennacherib would not conquer Jerusalem (19:1-34).<\/p>\n<p>Around that same time, Hezekiah became seriously ill (20:1-11). Isaiah told him to prepare for death, but Hezekiah turned to the Lord and prayed for healing. The Lord promised him fifteen more years as well as deliverance from the Assyrians. When he had recovered, Hezekiah unwisely hosted the rebel Babylonian king Merodach-baladan in his palace, showing him the Temple treasures and seeking support from Babylon rather than the Lord. Isaiah predicted that those treasures would be carried off to Babylon (20:12-19).<\/p>\n<p>After the Assyrian threat in 701 <span>BC<\/span>, Hezekiah’s remaining years were peaceful and prosperous; he died in 686 <span>BC<\/span> and was succeeded by his son Manasseh.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>2 Kgs 18:1–20:21; 2 Chr 28:27–32:33; Isa 36:1–39:8<\/p>","summary_ro":"Hezekiah Hezekiah, who reigned from 728 to 686 BC was one of Judah’s best kings. Hezekiah’s father, Ahaz, betrayed the Lord, but Hezekiah promoted true worship of God. Reversing the damage done by Ahaz, he repaired the Temple doors, had the Levites sanctify themselves, and reinstated religious ceremonies. He brought sacrifices, restored the priestly Temple service, and invited people throughout Judah and Israel to celebrate Passover in Jerusalem (2 Chr 29–30). After the celebration, he faithf...","summary_en":"Hezekiah Hezekiah, who reigned from 728 to 686 BC was one of Judah’s best kings. Hezekiah’s father, Ahaz, betrayed the Lord, but Hezekiah promoted true worship of God. Reversing the damage done by Ahaz, he repaired the Temple doors, had the Levites sanctify themselves, and reinstated religious ceremonies. He brought sacrifices, restored the priestly Temple service, and invited people throughout Judah and Israel to celebrate Passover in Jerusalem (2 Chr 29–30). After the celebration, he faithf...","source":"Profiles.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":124484,"type":"profile","type_label":"Profil","type_icon":"👤","type_color":"#f59e0b","title_ro":"Arameans","title_en":"Arameans","content_ro":"<h3>Arameans<\/h3>\n<p>The Arameans were a Semitic group, descendants of Shem (Gen 10:22-23; cp. Gen 22:20-21). Bethuel and Laban were known as Arameans (Gen 25:20; 28:1-7). Jacob lived for some twenty years with them in Aramean territory (Gen 28–31; Hos 12:12), and the people of Israel remembered that their forefathers were (at least culturally) Arameans (Deut 26:5).<\/p>\n<p>When the Arameans emerged into history around the time of Abraham, they were settled around the central Euphrates, from which they spread out to the east, west, and north. By around 1100 <span>BC<\/span>, Aramean tribes had spread throughout Syria and had expanded into northern Transjordan. They set up a number of powerful Aramean city-states, including Zobah and Damascus, that came into conflict with the Israelites beginning in the time of David (see 2 Sam 8:3-8; 10:6-25).<\/p>\n<p>After Solomon’s death and the division of Israel into northern and southern kingdoms, Aramean Damascus became a powerful and opportunistic player in the political struggles between the two states. When war broke out between Israel and Judah in the years 890–880 <span>BC<\/span>, King Asa of Israel sought aid from Ben-hadad I of Damascus (1 Kgs 15:18-19). Roughly thirty years later, in the early 850s <span>BC<\/span>, Ben-hadad invaded Israel, but Ahab defeated him both at Samaria (20:1-21) and at Aphek the following year (20:22-34). After three years of peace between Israel and Damascus, hostilities broke out again in 853 <span>BC<\/span>, resulting in the battle in which Ahab was killed (22:29-37). Aramean Damascus continued to inflict losses on the kingdom of Israel for the next several decades (see 2 Kgs 8:28-29; 12:17-18; 13:1-7).<\/p>\n<p>During this period, the Aramean city-states began feeling pressure from Assyria. Damascus was first defeated by Assyria around 838 <span>BC<\/span> and was forced to become a tribute-paying vassal of Assyria in 803 <span>BC<\/span>. The resulting weakness of Damascus helped enable Jehoash (798–782 <span>BC<\/span>) to defeat the Arameans and expel them from Israel’s territory around 795 <span>BC<\/span> (2 Kgs 13:14-25). Later, Jeroboam II (793–753 <span>BC<\/span>) was able to force Damascus to pay tribute to him (see 2 Kgs 14:28).<\/p>\n<p>Around 738 <span>BC<\/span> the Arameans of Damascus joined forces with Israel to subjugate Judah. They captured much land, but their siege of Jerusalem was unsuccessful (2 Kgs 16:5; see also 2 Chr 28:5). At this time of seeming success for Damascus, the prophets Isaiah and Amos predicted the city’s doom (Isa 8:4; 17:1; Amos 1:3-5). But rather than trust in God, King Ahaz of Judah turned to the Assyrians for protection, who responded to his gifts by sacking Damascus and exiling its population in 733\/732 <span>BC<\/span> (2 Kgs 16:7-11). Damascus was no longer an independent city-state.<\/p>\n<p>The language of the Arameans, Aramaic, eventually became the language for diplomacy and administration all over the Near East (see, e.g., 2 Kgs 18:26). During the Exile, the Jews adopted the Aramaic language; portions of Ezra and Daniel are written in Aramaic. Aramaic was the <em>lingua franca<\/em> from Egypt to India during the Persian period and was widely spoken in Palestine in Jesus’ day (see Mark 5:41; 1 Cor 16:22).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 10:22-23; 22:20-21; 25:20; 28:1-7; Deut 26:5; 2 Sam 8:3-4; 10:17-19; 1 Kgs 15:18; 1 Kgs 20:1-34; 22:29-37; 2 Kgs 13:25; 16:9-13; 17:24-34; Hos 12:12; Amos 1:5<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Arameans<\/h3>\n<p>The Arameans were a Semitic group, descendants of Shem (Gen 10:22-23; cp. Gen 22:20-21). Bethuel and Laban were known as Arameans (Gen 25:20; 28:1-7). Jacob lived for some twenty years with them in Aramean territory (Gen 28–31; Hos 12:12), and the people of Israel remembered that their forefathers were (at least culturally) Arameans (Deut 26:5).<\/p>\n<p>When the Arameans emerged into history around the time of Abraham, they were settled around the central Euphrates, from which they spread out to the east, west, and north. By around 1100 <span>BC<\/span>, Aramean tribes had spread throughout Syria and had expanded into northern Transjordan. They set up a number of powerful Aramean city-states, including Zobah and Damascus, that came into conflict with the Israelites beginning in the time of David (see 2 Sam 8:3-8; 10:6-25).<\/p>\n<p>After Solomon’s death and the division of Israel into northern and southern kingdoms, Aramean Damascus became a powerful and opportunistic player in the political struggles between the two states. When war broke out between Israel and Judah in the years 890–880 <span>BC<\/span>, King Asa of Israel sought aid from Ben-hadad I of Damascus (1 Kgs 15:18-19). Roughly thirty years later, in the early 850s <span>BC<\/span>, Ben-hadad invaded Israel, but Ahab defeated him both at Samaria (20:1-21) and at Aphek the following year (20:22-34). After three years of peace between Israel and Damascus, hostilities broke out again in 853 <span>BC<\/span>, resulting in the battle in which Ahab was killed (22:29-37). Aramean Damascus continued to inflict losses on the kingdom of Israel for the next several decades (see 2 Kgs 8:28-29; 12:17-18; 13:1-7).<\/p>\n<p>During this period, the Aramean city-states began feeling pressure from Assyria. Damascus was first defeated by Assyria around 838 <span>BC<\/span> and was forced to become a tribute-paying vassal of Assyria in 803 <span>BC<\/span>. The resulting weakness of Damascus helped enable Jehoash (798–782 <span>BC<\/span>) to defeat the Arameans and expel them from Israel’s territory around 795 <span>BC<\/span> (2 Kgs 13:14-25). Later, Jeroboam II (793–753 <span>BC<\/span>) was able to force Damascus to pay tribute to him (see 2 Kgs 14:28).<\/p>\n<p>Around 738 <span>BC<\/span> the Arameans of Damascus joined forces with Israel to subjugate Judah. They captured much land, but their siege of Jerusalem was unsuccessful (2 Kgs 16:5; see also 2 Chr 28:5). At this time of seeming success for Damascus, the prophets Isaiah and Amos predicted the city’s doom (Isa 8:4; 17:1; Amos 1:3-5). But rather than trust in God, King Ahaz of Judah turned to the Assyrians for protection, who responded to his gifts by sacking Damascus and exiling its population in 733\/732 <span>BC<\/span> (2 Kgs 16:7-11). Damascus was no longer an independent city-state.<\/p>\n<p>The language of the Arameans, Aramaic, eventually became the language for diplomacy and administration all over the Near East (see, e.g., 2 Kgs 18:26). During the Exile, the Jews adopted the Aramaic language; portions of Ezra and Daniel are written in Aramaic. Aramaic was the <em>lingua franca<\/em> from Egypt to India during the Persian period and was widely spoken in Palestine in Jesus’ day (see Mark 5:41; 1 Cor 16:22).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 10:22-23; 22:20-21; 25:20; 28:1-7; Deut 26:5; 2 Sam 8:3-4; 10:17-19; 1 Kgs 15:18; 1 Kgs 20:1-34; 22:29-37; 2 Kgs 13:25; 16:9-13; 17:24-34; Hos 12:12; Amos 1:5<\/p>","summary_ro":"Arameans The Arameans were a Semitic group, descendants of Shem (Gen 10:22-23; cp. Gen 22:20-21). Bethuel and Laban were known as Arameans (Gen 25:20; 28:1-7). Jacob lived for some twenty years with them in Aramean territory (Gen 28–31; Hos 12:12), and the people of Israel remembered that their forefathers were (at least culturally) Arameans (Deut 26:5). When the Arameans emerged into history around the time of Abraham, they were settled around the central Euphrates, from which they spread ou...","summary_en":"Arameans The Arameans were a Semitic group, descendants of Shem (Gen 10:22-23; cp. Gen 22:20-21). Bethuel and Laban were known as Arameans (Gen 25:20; 28:1-7). Jacob lived for some twenty years with them in Aramean territory (Gen 28–31; Hos 12:12), and the people of Israel remembered that their forefathers were (at least culturally) Arameans (Deut 26:5). When the Arameans emerged into history around the time of Abraham, they were settled around the central Euphrates, from which they spread ou...","source":"Profiles.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":124524,"type":"profile","type_label":"Profil","type_icon":"👤","type_color":"#f59e0b","title_ro":"Ahaz","title_en":"Ahaz","content_ro":"<h3>Ahaz<\/h3>\n<p>Ahaz reigned in Judah during a turbulent period (743–715 <span>BC<\/span>). His father Jotham (2 Kgs 15:32-38; 2 Chr 27:1-9) and son Hezekiah (2 Kgs 18:1-8) were praised for their obedience to the Lord, but Ahaz was evil, even sacrificing one of his sons to false gods.<\/p>\n<p>Ahaz’s reign was marked with conflict. King Pekah of Israel and King Rezin of Aram (Syria) wanted him to join a coalition against Assyria, but he refused. So Pekah and Rezin turned against Judah and won substantial victories, which severely frightened Ahaz. Isaiah the prophet encouraged Ahaz to rely on the Lord, but Ahaz refused (Isa 7).<\/p>\n<p>Revealing his lack of trust in the true God, Ahaz appealed to Tiglath-pileser III for help (2 Kgs 16:7-9). Ahaz made Judah dangerously dependent on Assyria, and Judah effectively became a vassal state. The Assyrian king subsequently defeated the Arameans in a two-year campaign (734–732 <span>BC<\/span>) and killed Rezin. He subdued Israel and incorporated great tracts of Pekah’s land into the Assyrian Empire (15:29).<\/p>\n<p>Ahaz became an eager servant of Assyria. He adopted many religious innovations based on Assyrian models. Ahaz visited Tiglath-pileser III in Damascus, where he saw an Assyrian altar and sent a model of it to Jerusalem, where a similar altar was built, replacing the original bronze altar (16:10-18). Several other Temple alterations also indicate Ahaz’s defection from faith in the Lord.<\/p>\n<p>Ahaz illustrates why the people of Judah were finally exiled. He did not comport himself appropriately as a king (Deut 17:14-20), and he did not worship the Lord. Upon his death, he was succeeded by his son Hezekiah (2 Kgs 16:20).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>2 Kgs 15:38–16:20; 2 Chr 27:9–28:27; Isa 7:1-25<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Ahaz<\/h3>\n<p>Ahaz reigned in Judah during a turbulent period (743–715 <span>BC<\/span>). His father Jotham (2 Kgs 15:32-38; 2 Chr 27:1-9) and son Hezekiah (2 Kgs 18:1-8) were praised for their obedience to the Lord, but Ahaz was evil, even sacrificing one of his sons to false gods.<\/p>\n<p>Ahaz’s reign was marked with conflict. King Pekah of Israel and King Rezin of Aram (Syria) wanted him to join a coalition against Assyria, but he refused. So Pekah and Rezin turned against Judah and won substantial victories, which severely frightened Ahaz. Isaiah the prophet encouraged Ahaz to rely on the Lord, but Ahaz refused (Isa 7).<\/p>\n<p>Revealing his lack of trust in the true God, Ahaz appealed to Tiglath-pileser III for help (2 Kgs 16:7-9). Ahaz made Judah dangerously dependent on Assyria, and Judah effectively became a vassal state. The Assyrian king subsequently defeated the Arameans in a two-year campaign (734–732 <span>BC<\/span>) and killed Rezin. He subdued Israel and incorporated great tracts of Pekah’s land into the Assyrian Empire (15:29).<\/p>\n<p>Ahaz became an eager servant of Assyria. He adopted many religious innovations based on Assyrian models. Ahaz visited Tiglath-pileser III in Damascus, where he saw an Assyrian altar and sent a model of it to Jerusalem, where a similar altar was built, replacing the original bronze altar (16:10-18). Several other Temple alterations also indicate Ahaz’s defection from faith in the Lord.<\/p>\n<p>Ahaz illustrates why the people of Judah were finally exiled. He did not comport himself appropriately as a king (Deut 17:14-20), and he did not worship the Lord. Upon his death, he was succeeded by his son Hezekiah (2 Kgs 16:20).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>2 Kgs 15:38–16:20; 2 Chr 27:9–28:27; Isa 7:1-25<\/p>","summary_ro":"Ahaz Ahaz reigned in Judah during a turbulent period (743–715 BC). His father Jotham (2 Kgs 15:32-38; 2 Chr 27:1-9) and son Hezekiah (2 Kgs 18:1-8) were praised for their obedience to the Lord, but Ahaz was evil, even sacrificing one of his sons to false gods. Ahaz’s reign was marked with conflict. King Pekah of Israel and King Rezin of Aram (Syria) wanted him to join a coalition against Assyria, but he refused. So Pekah and Rezin turned against Judah and won substantial victories, which seve...","summary_en":"Ahaz Ahaz reigned in Judah during a turbulent period (743–715 BC). His father Jotham (2 Kgs 15:32-38; 2 Chr 27:1-9) and son Hezekiah (2 Kgs 18:1-8) were praised for their obedience to the Lord, but Ahaz was evil, even sacrificing one of his sons to false gods. Ahaz’s reign was marked with conflict. King Pekah of Israel and King Rezin of Aram (Syria) wanted him to join a coalition against Assyria, but he refused. So Pekah and Rezin turned against Judah and won substantial victories, which seve...","source":"Profiles.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":124533,"type":"profile","type_label":"Profil","type_icon":"👤","type_color":"#f59e0b","title_ro":"Hezekiah","title_en":"Hezekiah","content_ro":"<h3>Hezekiah<\/h3>\n<p>Hezekiah, who reigned from 728 to 686 <span>BC<\/span> was one of Judah’s best kings. Hezekiah’s father, Ahaz, betrayed the Lord, but Hezekiah promoted true worship of God. Reversing the damage done by Ahaz, he repaired the Temple doors, had the Levites sanctify themselves, and reinstated religious ceremonies. He brought sacrifices, restored the priestly Temple service, and invited people throughout Judah and Israel to celebrate Passover in Jerusalem (2 Chr 29–30). After the celebration, he faithfully destroyed pagan worship sites.<\/p>\n<p>Soon after Hezekiah started ruling, the Assyrians under Shalmaneser V and his successor Sargon II defeated the northern kingdom, deported its inhabitants, and brought in foreign residents (722 <span>BC<\/span>). When Sargon II died in 705 <span>BC<\/span>, his son Sennacherib came to power, triggering widespread rebellion. Hezekiah stopped paying the tribute that his father Ahaz had paid (2 Kgs 18:7; see 16:7). As a result, in 701 <span>BC<\/span> Sennacherib invaded Judah. Hezekiah tried to appease the Assyrian ruler by sending a vast tribute payment, but the attempted return to servitude failed and the Assyrian forces threatened Jerusalem and mocked Hezekiah’s reliance on the Lord (18:17-35). Hezekiah responded with grieving and supplication. The Lord, speaking through Isaiah the prophet, assured Hezekiah that his prayers had been heard and that Sennacherib would not conquer Jerusalem (19:1-34).<\/p>\n<p>Around that same time, Hezekiah became seriously ill (20:1-11). Isaiah told him to prepare for death, but Hezekiah turned to the Lord and prayed for healing. The Lord promised him fifteen more years as well as deliverance from the Assyrians. When he had recovered, Hezekiah unwisely hosted the rebel Babylonian king Merodach-baladan in his palace, showing him the Temple treasures and seeking support from Babylon rather than the Lord. Isaiah predicted that those treasures would be carried off to Babylon (20:12-19).<\/p>\n<p>After the Assyrian threat in 701 <span>BC<\/span>, Hezekiah’s remaining years were peaceful and prosperous; he died in 686 <span>BC<\/span> and was succeeded by his son Manasseh.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>2 Kgs 18:1–20:21; 2 Chr 28:27–32:33; Isa 36:1–39:8<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Hezekiah<\/h3>\n<p>Hezekiah, who reigned from 728 to 686 <span>BC<\/span> was one of Judah’s best kings. Hezekiah’s father, Ahaz, betrayed the Lord, but Hezekiah promoted true worship of God. Reversing the damage done by Ahaz, he repaired the Temple doors, had the Levites sanctify themselves, and reinstated religious ceremonies. He brought sacrifices, restored the priestly Temple service, and invited people throughout Judah and Israel to celebrate Passover in Jerusalem (2 Chr 29–30). After the celebration, he faithfully destroyed pagan worship sites.<\/p>\n<p>Soon after Hezekiah started ruling, the Assyrians under Shalmaneser V and his successor Sargon II defeated the northern kingdom, deported its inhabitants, and brought in foreign residents (722 <span>BC<\/span>). When Sargon II died in 705 <span>BC<\/span>, his son Sennacherib came to power, triggering widespread rebellion. Hezekiah stopped paying the tribute that his father Ahaz had paid (2 Kgs 18:7; see 16:7). As a result, in 701 <span>BC<\/span> Sennacherib invaded Judah. Hezekiah tried to appease the Assyrian ruler by sending a vast tribute payment, but the attempted return to servitude failed and the Assyrian forces threatened Jerusalem and mocked Hezekiah’s reliance on the Lord (18:17-35). Hezekiah responded with grieving and supplication. The Lord, speaking through Isaiah the prophet, assured Hezekiah that his prayers had been heard and that Sennacherib would not conquer Jerusalem (19:1-34).<\/p>\n<p>Around that same time, Hezekiah became seriously ill (20:1-11). Isaiah told him to prepare for death, but Hezekiah turned to the Lord and prayed for healing. The Lord promised him fifteen more years as well as deliverance from the Assyrians. When he had recovered, Hezekiah unwisely hosted the rebel Babylonian king Merodach-baladan in his palace, showing him the Temple treasures and seeking support from Babylon rather than the Lord. Isaiah predicted that those treasures would be carried off to Babylon (20:12-19).<\/p>\n<p>After the Assyrian threat in 701 <span>BC<\/span>, Hezekiah’s remaining years were peaceful and prosperous; he died in 686 <span>BC<\/span> and was succeeded by his son Manasseh.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>2 Kgs 18:1–20:21; 2 Chr 28:27–32:33; Isa 36:1–39:8<\/p>","summary_ro":"Hezekiah Hezekiah, who reigned from 728 to 686 BC was one of Judah’s best kings. Hezekiah’s father, Ahaz, betrayed the Lord, but Hezekiah promoted true worship of God. Reversing the damage done by Ahaz, he repaired the Temple doors, had the Levites sanctify themselves, and reinstated religious ceremonies. He brought sacrifices, restored the priestly Temple service, and invited people throughout Judah and Israel to celebrate Passover in Jerusalem (2 Chr 29–30). After the celebration, he faithf...","summary_en":"Hezekiah Hezekiah, who reigned from 728 to 686 BC was one of Judah’s best kings. Hezekiah’s father, Ahaz, betrayed the Lord, but Hezekiah promoted true worship of God. Reversing the damage done by Ahaz, he repaired the Temple doors, had the Levites sanctify themselves, and reinstated religious ceremonies. He brought sacrifices, restored the priestly Temple service, and invited people throughout Judah and Israel to celebrate Passover in Jerusalem (2 Chr 29–30). After the celebration, he faithf...","source":"Profiles.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":1084,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Alliance","title_en":"Alliance","content_ro":"<h3>ALLIANCE<\/h3>\n<p>Close association of powerful individuals or nations for a common objective. Such alliances were ratified by various means, including gifts, oaths, dowries and marriages, and covenants.<\/p>\n<p>In patriarchal times Israelites entered into alliances with foreign nations without hesitation. Abraham had an alliance with three Amorites: Mamre, Eshcol, and Aner (Gn 14:13, 24) and with Abimelech, king of Gerar (Gn 21:22-34). Isaac also made an alliance with Abimelech (Gn 26:26-31). Later, Moses forbade the Israelites to make alliances with the Canaanites (Ex 23:31-33; 34:12; Dt 7:1-4), primarily for religious reasons. In the time of the judges the Israelites were reminded of that command (Jgs 2:1-3), but Joshua 9 tells how Israel was tricked into making an alliance with the Gibeonites.<\/p>\n<p>During the period of the monarchy, various kings formed alliances and intermarried with foreigners. David (before he was king of all Israel) made an agreement with Achish, king of Gath, under which he was expected to fight with the Philistines against the Israelite army of Saul (1 Sm 27:1; 28:2). Solomon made alliances for the purpose of trade with Hiram of Tyre (1 Kgs 5:1-18; 9:26-28) and with the king of Egypt (1 Kgs 9:16). After the division of the kingdom, Asa formed an alliance with the king of Syria, Ben-hadad (1 Kgs 15:18-20). Shortly thereafter, Ahab, King of Israel, joined Jehoshaphat in fighting Syria (1 Kgs 22:1-4; 2 Chr 18:1-13). About a century later, King Pekah of Israel formed an alliance with Rezin, king of Syria, to fight Ahaz, king of Judah (Is 7:1-9), and Ahaz in turn made an alliance with Tiglath-pileser, king of Assyria, to fight against Pekah and Rezin (2 Kgs 16:7-9). The last king of Judah, Zedekiah, made an alliance with Egypt against the Babylonians (2 Kgs 24:20; Ez 17:1-21). In general these alliances brought foreign cults into Jerusalem (2 Kgs 16:10-18) and led the prophets to cry out against them (Hos 8:8-10; Is 30:1-3, 15-16; Jer 2:18).<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>ALLIANCE<\/h3>\n<p>Close association of powerful individuals or nations for a common objective. Such alliances were ratified by various means, including gifts, oaths, dowries and marriages, and covenants.<\/p>\n<p>In patriarchal times Israelites entered into alliances with foreign nations without hesitation. Abraham had an alliance with three Amorites: Mamre, Eshcol, and Aner (Gn 14:13, 24) and with Abimelech, king of Gerar (Gn 21:22-34). Isaac also made an alliance with Abimelech (Gn 26:26-31). Later, Moses forbade the Israelites to make alliances with the Canaanites (Ex 23:31-33; 34:12; Dt 7:1-4), primarily for religious reasons. In the time of the judges the Israelites were reminded of that command (Jgs 2:1-3), but Joshua 9 tells how Israel was tricked into making an alliance with the Gibeonites.<\/p>\n<p>During the period of the monarchy, various kings formed alliances and intermarried with foreigners. David (before he was king of all Israel) made an agreement with Achish, king of Gath, under which he was expected to fight with the Philistines against the Israelite army of Saul (1 Sm 27:1; 28:2). Solomon made alliances for the purpose of trade with Hiram of Tyre (1 Kgs 5:1-18; 9:26-28) and with the king of Egypt (1 Kgs 9:16). After the division of the kingdom, Asa formed an alliance with the king of Syria, Ben-hadad (1 Kgs 15:18-20). Shortly thereafter, Ahab, King of Israel, joined Jehoshaphat in fighting Syria (1 Kgs 22:1-4; 2 Chr 18:1-13). About a century later, King Pekah of Israel formed an alliance with Rezin, king of Syria, to fight Ahaz, king of Judah (Is 7:1-9), and Ahaz in turn made an alliance with Tiglath-pileser, king of Assyria, to fight against Pekah and Rezin (2 Kgs 16:7-9). The last king of Judah, Zedekiah, made an alliance with Egypt against the Babylonians (2 Kgs 24:20; Ez 17:1-21). In general these alliances brought foreign cults into Jerusalem (2 Kgs 16:10-18) and led the prophets to cry out against them (Hos 8:8-10; Is 30:1-3, 15-16; Jer 2:18).<\/p>","summary_ro":"ALLIANCE Close association of powerful individuals or nations for a common objective. Such alliances were ratified by various means, including gifts, oaths, dowries and marriages, and covenants. In patriarchal times Israelites entered into alliances with foreign nations without hesitation. Abraham had an alliance with three Amorites: Mamre, Eshcol, and Aner (Gn 14:13, 24) and with Abimelech, king of Gerar (Gn 21:22-34). Isaac also made an alliance with Abimelech (Gn 26:26-31). Later, Moses fo...","summary_en":"ALLIANCE Close association of powerful individuals or nations for a common objective. Such alliances were ratified by various means, including gifts, oaths, dowries and marriages, and covenants. In patriarchal times Israelites entered into alliances with foreign nations without hesitation. Abraham had an alliance with three Amorites: Mamre, Eshcol, and Aner (Gn 14:13, 24) and with Abimelech, king of Gerar (Gn 21:22-34). Isaac also made an alliance with Abimelech (Gn 26:26-31). Later, Moses fo...","source":"Articles\/A.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":17745,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Book of Isaiah","title_en":"Book of Isaiah","content_ro":"<h3>ISAIAH, Book of<\/h3>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Author<\/p>\n<p>• Date<\/p>\n<p>• Background<\/p>\n<p>• Literary Unity<\/p>\n<p>• Theological Teaching<\/p>\n<p>• Content<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Author\">Author<\/p>\n<p>The prophet Isaiah, whose name means “the Lord saves,” lived and ministered in Jerusalem. Because of his repeated contact with the kings of Judah, some scholars believed that Isaiah was related to the royal family, but this is not certain. According to chapters 7 and 8, Isaiah was married and had at least two sons, Shear-jashub and Maher-shalal-hash-baz, whose symbolic names illustrated God’s dealings with the nation as a whole. The “disciples” mentioned in 8:16 probably assisted Isaiah in his ministry and may have helped him record the book that bears his name.<\/p>\n<p>When Isaiah saw the Lord in the famous temple vision described in chapter 6, he was willing to go wherever God sent him, even though he would face strong opposition (6:9-10). King Ahaz proved to be particularly resistant to Isaiah’s advice (7:4-17), and the people in general ridiculed his preaching (5:10-12; 28:9-10). During the reign of the godly Hezekiah, however, Isaiah’s ministry was much appreciated, and the king consulted him eagerly during times of crisis (37:1-7, 21-35).<\/p>\n<p>Isaiah is usually regarded as the greatest of the writing prophets. Some of the chapters in his book display an unparalleled literary beauty and make use of poetic devices and a rich variety of symbols. Chapters 40–66 contain many powerful passages that underscore the grandeur of the book. It is ironic, then, that many scholars attribute these chapters to a “second” or “third” Isaiah, unknown authors who wrote much later than Isaiah in connection with the Babylonian exile. Yet elsewhere in the OT, the names of all who wrote the prophetic books are preserved, and it would be most unusual for the Jews not to know who wrote such magnificent prophecy as chapters 40–66.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Date\">Date<\/p>\n<p>Since many of the events recorded in chapters 1–39 took place during the ministry of Isaiah, most of these chapters were probably written by about 700 <span>BC<\/span> or shortly thereafter. The destruction of the Assyrian army in 701 <span>BC<\/span> represents the climax of the first half of the book, fulfilling the prophecy of 10:16, 24-34 and 30:31-33. In 37:38 Isaiah refers to the death of King Sennacherib, which did not occur until 681 <span>BC<\/span>. This means that some of the earlier chapters, along with 40–66, were probably written later, during Isaiah’s retirement years. A gap of several decades could help account for the change in subject matter that is found in the last half of the book. In these chapters Isaiah projects into the future as he addresses the Jews who would be in exile in Babylon about 550 <span>BC<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Background\">Background<\/p>\n<p>Isaiah’s public ministry occurred primarily from 740–700 <span>BC<\/span>, a period marked by the rapid expansion of the nation of Assyria. Under King Tiglath-pileser III (745–727 <span>BC<\/span>), the Assyrians moved to the west and south, and by 738 <span>BC<\/span> the Assyrian monarch was demanding tribute from Damascus and Israel. About 734 <span>BC<\/span> Rezin of Damascus (Syria) and Pekah of Israel organized a coalition to rebel against Assyria, and they tried to enlist the support of King Ahaz of Judah. But Ahaz refused to join, and when the kings of Damascus and Israel invaded Judah (see 7:1), Ahaz appealed directly to Tiglath-pileser for help (cf. 2 Kgs 16:7-9). With little hesitation the Assyrians returned to capture Damascus and to turn the northern kingdom of Israel into an Assyrian province.<\/p>\n<p>The puppet king Hoshea ruled over Israel from 732–723 BC but was imprisoned when he joined a revolt against Shalmaneser V, the new Assyrian king. Shalmaneser besieged the capital city of Samaria, which finally fell in 722 <span>BC<\/span>, spelling the end of the northern kingdom. Sargon succeeded Shalmaneser in 722 and had to quell a number of revolts. In 711 <span>BC<\/span> Sargon captured the Philistine city of Ashdod in a campaign that became the occasion of Isaiah’s prophecy of chapter 20.<\/p>\n\n<p>Even more important was the widespread rebellion that broke out with the accession of Sennacherib in 705 <span>BC<\/span>. King Hezekiah of Judah withheld his normal tribute payment, and by 701 <span>BC<\/span> Sennacherib had invaded Palestine to punish the rebels. The details of this campaign are given in Isaiah 36–37 and tell how city after city was captured by the Assyrians before the invaders stood at the gates of Jerusalem and demanded total surrender. With almost no hope of survival, Hezekiah nevertheless was encouraged by Isaiah to trust God, and in one night the angel of the Lord struck down 185,000 Assyrian soldiers, virtually wiping out Sennacherib’s army (Is 37:36-37).<\/p>\n<p>In an effort to befriend the enemies of Assyria, Hezekiah showed his treasures to envoys of the king of Babylon (39:1-4). Isaiah warned that someday the Babylonian armies would conquer Jerusalem and carry off those very treasures, along with the residents of the city (vv 5-7). Not only did Isaiah predict the Babylonian captivity of 586–539 <span>BC<\/span> (cf. 6:11-12), but he also foretold that Israel would be released from Babylon (48:20). The Chaldean kingdom led by Nebuchadnezzar would be God’s instrument of judgment upon Judah, but they too would suffer defeat. One of Isaiah’s most remarkable prophecies was the naming of Cyrus, king of Persia, the ruler who would conquer the Babylonians in 539 <span>BC<\/span> and release Israel from exile (cf. 44:28). Along with the Medes (cf. 13:17), Cyrus won several important victories before sending his troops against Babylon. Isaiah hailed him as one anointed by the Lord to bring deliverance for Israel (45:1-5).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"LiteraryUnity\">Literary Unity<\/p>\n<p>Largely because of the references to the later kingdoms of Babylon and Persia, the unity of Isaiah has been called into question. Chapters 40–66 move abruptly into the exilic period of 550 <span>BC<\/span>, almost 150 years after Isaiah lived. Moreover, the Servant of the Lord plays a prominent role in these chapters and the messianic king fades into the background. Brilliant poetic passages are found in chapters 40, 53, 55, and 60, demonstrating remarkable depth and power.<\/p>\n<p>Although these factors are sometimes cited as a sign of disunity, there are actually strong indications for unity in the book. For example, the historical interlude (chs 36–39) forms a hinge or bridge that links chapters 1–35 and 40–66. Chapters 36–37 complete the Assyrian section, and chapters 38–39 introduce the Babylonian material. Most of the linking chapters are written in prose, while the others (in some translations) are largely poetry. From the standpoint of verbal or stylistic unity, one can point to Isaiah’s favorite title for God, “the Holy One of Israel.” This title appears 12 times in chapters 1–39, and 14 times in chapters 40–66, but only seven times in the rest of the OT. A study of the famous Servant Songs of 52:13–53:12 reveals several ties with earlier passages, especially in chapters 1–6. The servant who is smitten and wounded (53:4-5) receives the same punishment as the beaten and injured nation of 1:5-6 (also cf. 52:13 with 2:12 and 6:1).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheologicalTeaching\">Theological Teaching<\/p>\n<p>Isaiah is to the OT as the book of Romans is to the NT—a book filled with rich theological truth. Like Romans, Isaiah unveils the sinfulness of God’s rebellious people and his gracious provision of salvation. Because God is the Holy One of Israel (1:4; 6:3), he cannot ignore sin but must punish those who are guilty. Both Israel (5:30; 42:25) and the other nations (2:11, 17, 20) experience a time of judgment known as the Day of the Lord. In anger God raises his hand against his people (cf. 5:25), but ultimately his wrath is poured out upon Babylon and the nations (cf. 13:3-5; 34:2).<\/p>\n<p>With the fall of Assyria and Babylon, the Day of the Lord becomes a day of joyous victory (10:27; 61:2). According to Isaiah 63:4, it is the year of the Lord’s redemption. Earlier, Israel had been redeemed from slavery in Egypt; now the return from the Babylonian captivity brings equal joy (52:9; 61:1). The ultimate redemption is to be accomplished through the death of Christ, and Isaiah 53 describes our Lord’s suffering and death in graphic terms. His ministry as the Suffering Servant is also introduced in 49:4 and 50:6-7; meanwhile, 49:6 states that the servant will be “a light for the Gentiles.” Looking ahead to the Second Coming, Isaiah predicts a messianic age of peace and righteousness. Nations will “beat their swords into plowshares” (2:4) and the “Prince of Peace” will rule forever (9:6-7).<\/p>\n<p>Throughout the book God is pictured as the all-powerful Creator (48:13)—the sovereign One seated on a throne, high and exalted; the King, the Lord Almighty (6:1, 5). He controls the armies of the earth (13:4) and removes rulers as he wills (40:23-24). Before him, nations “are but a drop in the bucket” (40:15, <span>nlt<\/span>), and compared with him all idols are worthless and without power (41:29; 44:6). This is the God who shows his fury to his foes and his love to his servants (66:14).<\/p>\n\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Content\">Content<\/p>\n<h5>Messages of Judgment and Hope (1–12)<\/h5>\n<p>In the opening chapter Isaiah characterizes Israel (including Judah) as “a sinful nation” that has rebelled against God. Although the people regularly bring offerings to him, their worship is hypocritical, an attempt to mask their oppression of the poor and helpless. The Lord encourages the nation to repent of their sin or face the fires of judgment. After this introduction, Isaiah turns to describe the peace of the messianic age in 2:1-4. The day will come when all nations will obey God’s word and live at peace. “The mountain of the <span>Lord<\/span>”—Jerusalem—will be raised up “and all the nations shall flow to it” (2:2-3, <span>rsv<\/span>). In the meantime, however, both Israel and the nations have exalted themselves against the Lord, and he will judge them in an awesome display of power. For Israel, God’s judgment will bring great upheaval, including the loss of its leaders. Defiant and ruthless, the rulers will face either death or deportation. Chapter 3 ends by denouncing the pride and vanity of the women of Zion; they, too, will suffer disgrace. After Jerusalem is cleansed of its sin, the remnant will enjoy the rule of “the branch of the <span>Lord<\/span>,” who will protect and shield his people (4:2-6).<\/p>\n<p>In 5:1-7 Isaiah presents a short song about Israel as God’s vineyard. The Lord did everything possible to ensure a yield of good grapes, but the vineyard produced nothing but bad fruit and had to be destroyed. Isaiah then pronounces six woes against Israel, and announces that the Assyrian army will invade the land. Against the backdrop of Israel’s sin, Isaiah (ch 6) gives an account of the vision through which he was called as a prophet. Overwhelmed by the holiness of God and by his own sinfulness, Isaiah thought he was ruined, but when he was assured that his sins were forgiven, he responded positively to God’s call in spite of the stubbornness of the nation to which he was sent.<\/p>\n<p>One of the most stubborn individuals in all the nation was King Ahaz of Judah, and chapter 7 describes Isaiah’s encounter with this godless ruler. When Ahaz was threatened by Damascus and the northern kingdom, he refused to believe Isaiah’s promise that God would protect him. This was the occasion on which Isaiah gave Ahaz the sign of Immanuel (7:14). The “virgin” refers ultimately to Mary and “Immanuel” to Christ (Mt 1:23), but in the near fulfillment the child could be Isaiah’s own son Maher-shalal-hash-baz (Is 8:3). (<em>See<\/em> four interpretations of this passage in Virgin Birth of Jesus.) This name (meaning “swift to plunder and quick to spoil,” v 1, <span>nlt<\/span> mg) would be a sign that soon Judah’s enemies would fall; “Immanuel” signified that God would be with Judah (v 10, <span>nlt<\/span> mg). However, if Ahaz appealed for help to the king of Assyria, Isaiah warned him, Assyria’s powerful armies would one day invade Judah also (cf. 7:17-25; 8:6-8). The destruction brought by Assyria would plunge Judah into a time of famine and distress (8:21-22).<\/p>\n<p>Nevertheless, the gloom and darkness associated with the Assyrian invasion would not last indefinitely, and 9:1-5 speaks of a time of peace and joy. Verses 6-7 introduce a child who would become a righteous King and would rule forever. This “Prince of Peace” is the Messiah, the “Mighty God” whose kingdom is described in 2:2-4.<\/p>\n<p>For the immediate future, however, both Israel and Judah will suffer the agony of war as punishment for their sins. God is angry with his people because they are proud and arrogant, and their leaders disregard the pleas of the poor and needy. Civil war and foreign invasion will crush the hapless nation (9:8–10:4). But once Israel has been judged, God will turn his hand against Assyria, the instrument he has used to judge other nations. Because of her string of victories, Assyria is filled with pride and is eager for more triumph. Yet even at the moment when Jerusalem is about to succumb, God will cut down the Assyrian army like a cedar in Lebanon and spare his people (10:26-34).<\/p>\n<p>After Assyria’s defeat, Isaiah describes the restoration of Israel and the powerful rule of the Messiah (ch 11). Both Jews and Gentiles will be attracted to Jerusalem to enjoy an era of peace and justice. Like David, the Messiah will have the Spirit of God resting upon him as he judges the wicked and protects the needy. To conclude these opening messages, Isaiah offers two short songs of praise that celebrate God’s past deliverance and his promise of future blessing (ch 12).<\/p>\n<h5>Oracles against the Nations (13–23)<\/h5>\n<p>Although Babylon is not the major power of the day, Isaiah begins his announcements of judgment with two chapters about the destruction of Assyria’s neighbor to the south. Babylon will eventually conquer Jerusalem (between 605 and 586 <span>BC<\/span>), but the Medes (13:17) along with the Elamites will capture Babylon (539 <span>BC<\/span>). In spite of the glory to be achieved by future kings of Babylon, God will bring their pomp down to the grave (14:9-10). The chapter ends with short prophecies against Assyria and the Philistines.<\/p>\n<p>One of Israel’s oldest enemies was the nation of Moab, situated east of the Dead Sea. Even though it was a small country, Isaiah devotes two chapters to these descendants of Lot. Chapter 15 describes the extensive mourning that will overwhelm their cities. After a brief interlude urging the Moabites to submit to Israel and to her God (16:1-5), Isaiah notes that pride will lead to Moab’s downfall. Sounds of weeping fill the land as the vines and fields wither and are trampled.<\/p>\n<p>In chapter 17 the fourth oracle is directed against Damascus and Ephraim (the northern kingdom of Israel), probably reflecting their alliance against Judah about 734 <span>BC<\/span>. Both nations will face ruin, and Ephraim is condemned for abandoning the Lord, her “Savior” and “Rock” (17:10).<\/p>\n<p>In chapters 18 and 19 Isaiah turns to the south and addresses Ethiopia and Egypt, countries that had strong links from 715–633 <span>BC<\/span>, when an Ethiopian named Shabako became pharaoh in Egypt. But Egypt is plagued with disunity and suffers greatly at the hands of Assyrian kings. In spite of the supposed wisdom of her leaders, Egypt faces economic and political ruin (19:5-15). Yet the time is coming when the Egyptians will be restored and will worship the God of Israel. Along with Assyria and Israel, Egypt will become a blessing (19:24). Some interpreters think this is a prophecy of the salvation of Gentiles during the church age, but others relate this day to the peace of the millennial age (cf. 2:2-4; 11:6-9). For the immediate future, however, Isaiah announces that Assyria will take many Egyptians and Ethiopians into captivity (ch 20).<\/p>\n<p>A second oracle about Babylon (cf. 13:1–14:23) is contained in chapter 21, and Isaiah is staggered as he considers the impact of Babylon’s fall (21:3-4). When Babylon collapses, the world will know that her gods were powerless (21:9; cf. Rv 14:8; 18:2).<\/p>\n<p>Although it seems out of place among these oracles against the nations, chapter 22 condemns the city of Jerusalem. Like the nations, Jerusalem is full of revelry (22:2) but will soon experience the terrors of a siege. Since the people no longer rely on the Lord (v 11), he will hand them over to the enemy. Jerusalem’s unfaithfulness is exemplified by Shebna, a high official guilty of pride and materialism whose position will be taken by the godly Eliakim (vv 15-23).<\/p>\n<p>The last oracle (ch 23) is directed against the city of Tyre, which resisted capture until Alexander the Great conquered the island fortress in 332 <span>BC<\/span>. When Tyre fell, the economy of the entire Mediterranean world was shaken, for her ships had carried the goods of the nations far and wide.<\/p>\n<h5>Final Judgment and Blessing (24–27)<\/h5>\n<p>This section functions as a grand finale to chapters 13–23 in that it anticipates God’s judgment upon the nations and the inauguration of the kingdom of God. A defiled earth must bear its punishment (24:5-6) and even the forces of Satan face judgment (vv 21-22).<\/p>\n<p>In chapter 25 Isaiah rejoices over God’s great triumph and looks ahead to a day when death will be swallowed up and tears will be wiped from all faces (25:8). Israel’s longtime enemies, symbolized by Moab, will be laid low (vv 10-12), but Jerusalem will be a stronghold for the righteous (26:1-3). In 26:7-19 the nation prays that these promises will become a reality. Verses 20-21 indicate that the Lord will indeed respond, pouring out his wrath upon a sin-cursed earth and upon Satan himself (27:1). When that takes place, Israel will be a fruitful vineyard, a blessing to the whole world (27:2-6; contrast 5:1-7). First, however, Israel will have to endure war and exile, and then the remnant will return to Jerusalem.<\/p>\n<h5>A Series of Woes (28–33)<\/h5>\n<p>Returning to his own historical period, Isaiah pronounces a series of woes upon both the northern and southern kingdoms, as well as one upon Assyria (ch 33). Chapter 28 begins with a description of the fading power of Samaria, the capital of the northern kingdom. Verses 7-10 portray the leaders of Judah in the same light; they have disregarded Isaiah’s message and are out of touch with God. Judgment is on the way, and their false preparation (vv 15, 18) will be of no avail. God will fight against Israel (vv 21-22), and even Jerusalem will be put under siege until God in his mercy intervenes (29:1-8). Because of their hypocritical worship, the people deserve to be punished, but in the future Israel will again acknowledge the Lord and be made physically and spiritually whole (29:17-24).<\/p>\n<p>Chapters 30 and 31 denounce Judah’s proposed alliance with Egypt in the effort to thwart Assyria. God wants his people to trust him, not their unreliable neighbors to the south. The Lord promises to protect Jerusalem (30:18; 31:5) and defeat the invading Assyrian army (30:31-33; 31:8-9). None can stand before his mighty sword.<\/p>\n<p>Continuing on this positive note, Isaiah goes on to emphasize the righteous rule of the messianic king in chapters 32 and 33. Zion will enjoy peace and security at last (32:2, 17-18; 33:6), a great change from Isaiah’s own time. In eighth-century <span>BC<\/span> Judah the women might feel secure (32:9), but the Assyrian troops will devastate the crops and precipitate widespread mourning. However, the lamenting will soon end, as the prophet pronounces woe upon Assyria in 33:1. After Isaiah prays for the destruction of Assyria (33:2-9), God promises to take action (vv 10-12). Gone will be the enemy soldiers and officials, for the Lord will save his people and bring them justice and security.<\/p>\n<h5>More Judgment and Blessing (34–35)<\/h5>\n<p>This section forms a climax to chapters 28–33. Once more, cataclysmic judgment precedes a time of blessing and restoration. In chapter 34 Isaiah depicts a judgment of cosmic dimensions as he moves to a consideration of the last days. Heaven and earth endure the wrath of God that is poured out upon the nations, and verse 4 provides the basis for John’s description of the great tribulation in Revelation 6:13-14. Edom (like Moab; see Is 25:10-12) represents a world judged by the sword of the Lord in his day of vengeance.<\/p>\n<p>Chapter 35, on the other hand, speaks of joy and restoration in a passage that pulsates with life. A blooming desert corresponds to the physical and spiritual age when God will come to redeem his people. Both the return of the Israelites from the Babylonian captivity and the second coming of Christ fit this glorious scene.<\/p>\n<h5>Historical Interlude (36–39)<\/h5>\n<p>These chapters form the hinge that connects the two halves of the book. Chapters 36 and 37 contain the fulfillment of Isaiah’s prophecies about Assyria’s collapse, and chapters 38 and 39 introduce the Babylonian captivity that forms the backdrop for chapters 40–66. In 701 <span>BC<\/span> King Sennacherib of Assyria demands the unconditional surrender of Jerusalem. He sends his field commander to address the people and try to gain their submission. With persuasive words, the commander tries to convince the city that surrender is the best policy. Amazingly the people do not panic, and King Hezekiah asks Isaiah to pray for the beleaguered city. The prophet does so and announces that the proud Assyrians will not triumph. Instead, they suffer a terrible disaster as the angel of the Lord strikes down 185,000 men.<\/p>\n<p>Chapters 38 and 39 relate another crisis in Hezekiah’s life when he becomes desperately ill. Miraculously, God heals him, and Hezekiah praises the Lord for his gracious intervention. When the king of Babylon sends envoys to congratulate Hezekiah on his recovery, Hezekiah foolishly shows these messengers his royal treasures. Isaiah solemnly announces that someday the armies of Babylon will capture Jerusalem, plunder the land, and take away these treasures.<\/p>\n<h5>The Return from Babylon (40–48)<\/h5>\n<p>The Babylonian captivity eventually comes, but Isaiah promises that it will end. God, the incomparably powerful Creator, is far greater than any king, nation, or god, and he will bring his people back to Jerusalem. To accomplish this return from exile, God raises up Cyrus, the king of Persia (41:2, 25). The Lord does not forget his people, and he encourages them to take heart and to rejoice.<\/p>\n<p>In chapter 42 we are introduced to a person even more significant than Cyrus the Persian. Verses 1-7 (the first of four Servant Songs) describe the servant of the Lord, who will bring justice to the nations and will be “a light for the Gentiles” (42:6). This is the Messiah, and the redemption he will accomplish on Calvary (cf. ch 53) is greater than the release from Babylon. In light of the good news associated with the servant, Isaiah praises the Lord for punishing the wicked and rescuing his wayward people. Chapter 43 declares that nothing will stand in the way of Israel’s return, and the Lord will remember their sins no more. In fact, he will pour out his Spirit on their descendants (44:3).<\/p>\n<p>A God so great is far more powerful than any idol. In 44:6-20 Isaiah makes use of satire to show the worthlessness of man-made images. God alone has the power to create and to restore, and he will bring Cyrus on the scene to effect the release of the exiles and to begin the rebuilding of Jerusalem. Chapters 46 and 47 contrast the God of Israel and the idols of Babylon. When God raises up Cyrus, Babylon’s idols will be unable to save their nation, and the queen of kingdoms (47:5) will collapse along with her sorcerers and astrologers. The final chapter in this section (ch 48) restates God’s purpose of gaining release of the Israelites from Babylon through his chosen ally, Cyrus of Persia.<\/p>\n<h5>Salvation through the Servant of the Lord (49–57)<\/h5>\n<p>Chapters 49–53 contain the final three Servant Songs (cf. also 42:1-7), culminating in the death of the servant for the sins of the world (52:13–53:12). In the second Servant Song (49:1-7), Isaiah describes the call and ministry of the servant, noting that he will face strong opposition as he accomplishes salvation for Israel and the nations. The rest of chapter 49 deals primarily with the way God will bring Israel back from exile. Soon the land will be filled with a mighty throng (vv 19-21), and the Gentiles will acknowledge Israel and her God (vv 22-23).<\/p>\n<p>Although Israel has fully deserved the exile because of her sins (50:1-3), the suffering endured by the servant (vv 4-11; the third Servant Song) is wholly undeserved. The beating and mocking of verse 6 are prophetic of Christ’s experience (cf. Mt 27:26, 30; Mk 15:19). In verses 10-11 of Isaiah 50 the whole nation is challenged to trust in the Lord, as the servant did. There is, in fact, a believing remnant who obey the Lord (51:1-8), and the Lord promises that he will restore them to their homeland. Israel has drunk the cup of God’s wrath (vv 17, 22), but the good news of release from exile causes even the ruins of Jerusalem to burst into songs of joy (52:7-10).<\/p>\n<p>Yet the best news of all is salvation from sin; the final Servant Song (52:13–53:12) tells how Christ wins freedom for those held in bondage to sin. In this brief passage we learn how Christ suffers rejection (53:3) and even disfigurement (52:14). Led like a lamb to the slaughter (53:7), he carries our sins in his body as he dies in ignominy. The people think he is suffering for his own sins (v 4), but he is “pierced” and “crushed for our iniquities” (v 5). The first and last paragraphs of this section (52:13-15; 53:10-12) state that through his suffering the servant is highly exalted. What seems like a terrible defeat is actually victory over death and Satan and brings salvation for many.<\/p>\n<p>As a direct result of the servant’s death, great joy comes to all people. In chapter 54 this joy is reflected in Jerusalem’s new status as the Lord’s wife. Her descendants will be numerous and eager to learn from the Lord. For the first time the plural “servants of the <span>Lord<\/span>” appears (54:17), apparently including all believers, whether Jew or Gentile (cf. 65:8-9, 13-15). Joy and prosperity also characterize chapter 55, an invitation to a great spiritual banquet. All people are urged to turn to the Lord who keeps his promises to Israel. In 56:1-8, foreigners are invited to come to God’s “holy mountain” in Jerusalem, for the temple will be a house of prayer for all the nations (56:7; cf. Mt 21:13).<\/p>\n<p>Believing Gentiles are contrasted sharply with unbelieving Jews, and in 56:9–57:13 Isaiah returns again to the theme of judgment. Israel suffers because her leaders are wicked and because the people are guilty of idolatry. Spiritual healing is available, but unless individuals repent, they cannot be part of the remnant who will return from exile and enjoy peace in the Promised Land.<\/p>\n<h5>Ultimate Blessing and Final Judgment (58–66)<\/h5>\n<p>The last nine chapters of Isaiah emphasize redemption and glory, but the reality of judgment is also very much in evidence. In fact, chapters 58 and 59 bemoan the sins of Israel. The people are hypocritical in their worship; they are selfish and fail to keep the Sabbath. Lying, oppression, and murder separate the people from God. When Isaiah openly confesses these sins (59:12-13), the Lord suddenly takes action on behalf of his people. Like a mighty warrior, he rescues the believing remnant from Babylon and brings them back to Jerusalem.<\/p>\n<p>In chapter 60 the glory and wealth of Jerusalem reach new heights. Both the city and the sanctuary are adorned with splendor, matching the prosperity of Solomon’s reign. Just as the nations treated Solomon with honor, so earth’s leaders will assist and strengthen the returning exiles. While it is true that the Persian government did help the Jews repeatedly, the conditions described here will have their ultimate fulfillment during the Millennium and in connection with the new Jerusalem (cf. Rv 21:23; 22:5). The ancient ruins will be rebuilt (Is 61:4), and the Lord will fulfill the covenant made with Abraham and David (Is 61:8; cf. Gn 12:1-3; Is 55:3). Jerusalem will be the city of the holy people, the redeemed of the Lord (Is 62:12), and the Lord will take delight in her (v 4).<\/p>\n<p>In order to accomplish salvation for his people, God will have to judge the ungodly first. The great trampling of the winepress (63:2-3) graphically portrays the judgment process and is linked with the Day of the Lord (cf. 13:3; 34:2). Since God has promised to intervene on behalf of his people, Isaiah prays for the realization of that promise (63:7–64:12). He recalls God’s faithfulness in the past and pleads that he will again have mercy upon his suffering people.<\/p>\n<p>The answer to Isaiah’s prayer is found in chapter 65. God does promise to give the Holy Land back to his servants, to those who worship him and obey him. But for that segment of the nation that continues in its obstinacy, God promises anguish and destruction. The ultimate joy of God’s servants is contained in a description of new heavens and a new earth (65:17-25). Peace, long life, and prosperity will be among the blessings enjoyed in an era that seems to combine features of the Millennium and the eternal state (cf. ch 60).<\/p>\n<p>In a fitting summary, chapter 66 ties together the themes of salvation and judgment. God will comfort Jerusalem and abundantly bless her, but sinners are the objects of his wrath. Those who honor him will endure forever, but those who rebel will suffer everlasting rejection.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Isaiah (Person); Israel, History of; Messiah; Prophecy; Prophet, Prophetess; Servant of the Lord; Virgin Birth of Jesus.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>ISAIAH, Book of<\/h3>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Author<\/p>\n<p>• Date<\/p>\n<p>• Background<\/p>\n<p>• Literary Unity<\/p>\n<p>• Theological Teaching<\/p>\n<p>• Content<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Author\">Author<\/p>\n<p>The prophet Isaiah, whose name means “the Lord saves,” lived and ministered in Jerusalem. Because of his repeated contact with the kings of Judah, some scholars believed that Isaiah was related to the royal family, but this is not certain. According to chapters 7 and 8, Isaiah was married and had at least two sons, Shear-jashub and Maher-shalal-hash-baz, whose symbolic names illustrated God’s dealings with the nation as a whole. The “disciples” mentioned in 8:16 probably assisted Isaiah in his ministry and may have helped him record the book that bears his name.<\/p>\n<p>When Isaiah saw the Lord in the famous temple vision described in chapter 6, he was willing to go wherever God sent him, even though he would face strong opposition (6:9-10). King Ahaz proved to be particularly resistant to Isaiah’s advice (7:4-17), and the people in general ridiculed his preaching (5:10-12; 28:9-10). During the reign of the godly Hezekiah, however, Isaiah’s ministry was much appreciated, and the king consulted him eagerly during times of crisis (37:1-7, 21-35).<\/p>\n<p>Isaiah is usually regarded as the greatest of the writing prophets. Some of the chapters in his book display an unparalleled literary beauty and make use of poetic devices and a rich variety of symbols. Chapters 40–66 contain many powerful passages that underscore the grandeur of the book. It is ironic, then, that many scholars attribute these chapters to a “second” or “third” Isaiah, unknown authors who wrote much later than Isaiah in connection with the Babylonian exile. Yet elsewhere in the OT, the names of all who wrote the prophetic books are preserved, and it would be most unusual for the Jews not to know who wrote such magnificent prophecy as chapters 40–66.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Date\">Date<\/p>\n<p>Since many of the events recorded in chapters 1–39 took place during the ministry of Isaiah, most of these chapters were probably written by about 700 <span>BC<\/span> or shortly thereafter. The destruction of the Assyrian army in 701 <span>BC<\/span> represents the climax of the first half of the book, fulfilling the prophecy of 10:16, 24-34 and 30:31-33. In 37:38 Isaiah refers to the death of King Sennacherib, which did not occur until 681 <span>BC<\/span>. This means that some of the earlier chapters, along with 40–66, were probably written later, during Isaiah’s retirement years. A gap of several decades could help account for the change in subject matter that is found in the last half of the book. In these chapters Isaiah projects into the future as he addresses the Jews who would be in exile in Babylon about 550 <span>BC<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Background\">Background<\/p>\n<p>Isaiah’s public ministry occurred primarily from 740–700 <span>BC<\/span>, a period marked by the rapid expansion of the nation of Assyria. Under King Tiglath-pileser III (745–727 <span>BC<\/span>), the Assyrians moved to the west and south, and by 738 <span>BC<\/span> the Assyrian monarch was demanding tribute from Damascus and Israel. About 734 <span>BC<\/span> Rezin of Damascus (Syria) and Pekah of Israel organized a coalition to rebel against Assyria, and they tried to enlist the support of King Ahaz of Judah. But Ahaz refused to join, and when the kings of Damascus and Israel invaded Judah (see 7:1), Ahaz appealed directly to Tiglath-pileser for help (cf. 2 Kgs 16:7-9). With little hesitation the Assyrians returned to capture Damascus and to turn the northern kingdom of Israel into an Assyrian province.<\/p>\n<p>The puppet king Hoshea ruled over Israel from 732–723 BC but was imprisoned when he joined a revolt against Shalmaneser V, the new Assyrian king. Shalmaneser besieged the capital city of Samaria, which finally fell in 722 <span>BC<\/span>, spelling the end of the northern kingdom. Sargon succeeded Shalmaneser in 722 and had to quell a number of revolts. In 711 <span>BC<\/span> Sargon captured the Philistine city of Ashdod in a campaign that became the occasion of Isaiah’s prophecy of chapter 20.<\/p>\n\n<p>Even more important was the widespread rebellion that broke out with the accession of Sennacherib in 705 <span>BC<\/span>. King Hezekiah of Judah withheld his normal tribute payment, and by 701 <span>BC<\/span> Sennacherib had invaded Palestine to punish the rebels. The details of this campaign are given in Isaiah 36–37 and tell how city after city was captured by the Assyrians before the invaders stood at the gates of Jerusalem and demanded total surrender. With almost no hope of survival, Hezekiah nevertheless was encouraged by Isaiah to trust God, and in one night the angel of the Lord struck down 185,000 Assyrian soldiers, virtually wiping out Sennacherib’s army (Is 37:36-37).<\/p>\n<p>In an effort to befriend the enemies of Assyria, Hezekiah showed his treasures to envoys of the king of Babylon (39:1-4). Isaiah warned that someday the Babylonian armies would conquer Jerusalem and carry off those very treasures, along with the residents of the city (vv 5-7). Not only did Isaiah predict the Babylonian captivity of 586–539 <span>BC<\/span> (cf. 6:11-12), but he also foretold that Israel would be released from Babylon (48:20). The Chaldean kingdom led by Nebuchadnezzar would be God’s instrument of judgment upon Judah, but they too would suffer defeat. One of Isaiah’s most remarkable prophecies was the naming of Cyrus, king of Persia, the ruler who would conquer the Babylonians in 539 <span>BC<\/span> and release Israel from exile (cf. 44:28). Along with the Medes (cf. 13:17), Cyrus won several important victories before sending his troops against Babylon. Isaiah hailed him as one anointed by the Lord to bring deliverance for Israel (45:1-5).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"LiteraryUnity\">Literary Unity<\/p>\n<p>Largely because of the references to the later kingdoms of Babylon and Persia, the unity of Isaiah has been called into question. Chapters 40–66 move abruptly into the exilic period of 550 <span>BC<\/span>, almost 150 years after Isaiah lived. Moreover, the Servant of the Lord plays a prominent role in these chapters and the messianic king fades into the background. Brilliant poetic passages are found in chapters 40, 53, 55, and 60, demonstrating remarkable depth and power.<\/p>\n<p>Although these factors are sometimes cited as a sign of disunity, there are actually strong indications for unity in the book. For example, the historical interlude (chs 36–39) forms a hinge or bridge that links chapters 1–35 and 40–66. Chapters 36–37 complete the Assyrian section, and chapters 38–39 introduce the Babylonian material. Most of the linking chapters are written in prose, while the others (in some translations) are largely poetry. From the standpoint of verbal or stylistic unity, one can point to Isaiah’s favorite title for God, “the Holy One of Israel.” This title appears 12 times in chapters 1–39, and 14 times in chapters 40–66, but only seven times in the rest of the OT. A study of the famous Servant Songs of 52:13–53:12 reveals several ties with earlier passages, especially in chapters 1–6. The servant who is smitten and wounded (53:4-5) receives the same punishment as the beaten and injured nation of 1:5-6 (also cf. 52:13 with 2:12 and 6:1).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheologicalTeaching\">Theological Teaching<\/p>\n<p>Isaiah is to the OT as the book of Romans is to the NT—a book filled with rich theological truth. Like Romans, Isaiah unveils the sinfulness of God’s rebellious people and his gracious provision of salvation. Because God is the Holy One of Israel (1:4; 6:3), he cannot ignore sin but must punish those who are guilty. Both Israel (5:30; 42:25) and the other nations (2:11, 17, 20) experience a time of judgment known as the Day of the Lord. In anger God raises his hand against his people (cf. 5:25), but ultimately his wrath is poured out upon Babylon and the nations (cf. 13:3-5; 34:2).<\/p>\n<p>With the fall of Assyria and Babylon, the Day of the Lord becomes a day of joyous victory (10:27; 61:2). According to Isaiah 63:4, it is the year of the Lord’s redemption. Earlier, Israel had been redeemed from slavery in Egypt; now the return from the Babylonian captivity brings equal joy (52:9; 61:1). The ultimate redemption is to be accomplished through the death of Christ, and Isaiah 53 describes our Lord’s suffering and death in graphic terms. His ministry as the Suffering Servant is also introduced in 49:4 and 50:6-7; meanwhile, 49:6 states that the servant will be “a light for the Gentiles.” Looking ahead to the Second Coming, Isaiah predicts a messianic age of peace and righteousness. Nations will “beat their swords into plowshares” (2:4) and the “Prince of Peace” will rule forever (9:6-7).<\/p>\n<p>Throughout the book God is pictured as the all-powerful Creator (48:13)—the sovereign One seated on a throne, high and exalted; the King, the Lord Almighty (6:1, 5). He controls the armies of the earth (13:4) and removes rulers as he wills (40:23-24). Before him, nations “are but a drop in the bucket” (40:15, <span>nlt<\/span>), and compared with him all idols are worthless and without power (41:29; 44:6). This is the God who shows his fury to his foes and his love to his servants (66:14).<\/p>\n\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Content\">Content<\/p>\n<h5>Messages of Judgment and Hope (1–12)<\/h5>\n<p>In the opening chapter Isaiah characterizes Israel (including Judah) as “a sinful nation” that has rebelled against God. Although the people regularly bring offerings to him, their worship is hypocritical, an attempt to mask their oppression of the poor and helpless. The Lord encourages the nation to repent of their sin or face the fires of judgment. After this introduction, Isaiah turns to describe the peace of the messianic age in 2:1-4. The day will come when all nations will obey God’s word and live at peace. “The mountain of the <span>Lord<\/span>”—Jerusalem—will be raised up “and all the nations shall flow to it” (2:2-3, <span>rsv<\/span>). In the meantime, however, both Israel and the nations have exalted themselves against the Lord, and he will judge them in an awesome display of power. For Israel, God’s judgment will bring great upheaval, including the loss of its leaders. Defiant and ruthless, the rulers will face either death or deportation. Chapter 3 ends by denouncing the pride and vanity of the women of Zion; they, too, will suffer disgrace. After Jerusalem is cleansed of its sin, the remnant will enjoy the rule of “the branch of the <span>Lord<\/span>,” who will protect and shield his people (4:2-6).<\/p>\n<p>In 5:1-7 Isaiah presents a short song about Israel as God’s vineyard. The Lord did everything possible to ensure a yield of good grapes, but the vineyard produced nothing but bad fruit and had to be destroyed. Isaiah then pronounces six woes against Israel, and announces that the Assyrian army will invade the land. Against the backdrop of Israel’s sin, Isaiah (ch 6) gives an account of the vision through which he was called as a prophet. Overwhelmed by the holiness of God and by his own sinfulness, Isaiah thought he was ruined, but when he was assured that his sins were forgiven, he responded positively to God’s call in spite of the stubbornness of the nation to which he was sent.<\/p>\n<p>One of the most stubborn individuals in all the nation was King Ahaz of Judah, and chapter 7 describes Isaiah’s encounter with this godless ruler. When Ahaz was threatened by Damascus and the northern kingdom, he refused to believe Isaiah’s promise that God would protect him. This was the occasion on which Isaiah gave Ahaz the sign of Immanuel (7:14). The “virgin” refers ultimately to Mary and “Immanuel” to Christ (Mt 1:23), but in the near fulfillment the child could be Isaiah’s own son Maher-shalal-hash-baz (Is 8:3). (<em>See<\/em> four interpretations of this passage in Virgin Birth of Jesus.) This name (meaning “swift to plunder and quick to spoil,” v 1, <span>nlt<\/span> mg) would be a sign that soon Judah’s enemies would fall; “Immanuel” signified that God would be with Judah (v 10, <span>nlt<\/span> mg). However, if Ahaz appealed for help to the king of Assyria, Isaiah warned him, Assyria’s powerful armies would one day invade Judah also (cf. 7:17-25; 8:6-8). The destruction brought by Assyria would plunge Judah into a time of famine and distress (8:21-22).<\/p>\n<p>Nevertheless, the gloom and darkness associated with the Assyrian invasion would not last indefinitely, and 9:1-5 speaks of a time of peace and joy. Verses 6-7 introduce a child who would become a righteous King and would rule forever. This “Prince of Peace” is the Messiah, the “Mighty God” whose kingdom is described in 2:2-4.<\/p>\n<p>For the immediate future, however, both Israel and Judah will suffer the agony of war as punishment for their sins. God is angry with his people because they are proud and arrogant, and their leaders disregard the pleas of the poor and needy. Civil war and foreign invasion will crush the hapless nation (9:8–10:4). But once Israel has been judged, God will turn his hand against Assyria, the instrument he has used to judge other nations. Because of her string of victories, Assyria is filled with pride and is eager for more triumph. Yet even at the moment when Jerusalem is about to succumb, God will cut down the Assyrian army like a cedar in Lebanon and spare his people (10:26-34).<\/p>\n<p>After Assyria’s defeat, Isaiah describes the restoration of Israel and the powerful rule of the Messiah (ch 11). Both Jews and Gentiles will be attracted to Jerusalem to enjoy an era of peace and justice. Like David, the Messiah will have the Spirit of God resting upon him as he judges the wicked and protects the needy. To conclude these opening messages, Isaiah offers two short songs of praise that celebrate God’s past deliverance and his promise of future blessing (ch 12).<\/p>\n<h5>Oracles against the Nations (13–23)<\/h5>\n<p>Although Babylon is not the major power of the day, Isaiah begins his announcements of judgment with two chapters about the destruction of Assyria’s neighbor to the south. Babylon will eventually conquer Jerusalem (between 605 and 586 <span>BC<\/span>), but the Medes (13:17) along with the Elamites will capture Babylon (539 <span>BC<\/span>). In spite of the glory to be achieved by future kings of Babylon, God will bring their pomp down to the grave (14:9-10). The chapter ends with short prophecies against Assyria and the Philistines.<\/p>\n<p>One of Israel’s oldest enemies was the nation of Moab, situated east of the Dead Sea. Even though it was a small country, Isaiah devotes two chapters to these descendants of Lot. Chapter 15 describes the extensive mourning that will overwhelm their cities. After a brief interlude urging the Moabites to submit to Israel and to her God (16:1-5), Isaiah notes that pride will lead to Moab’s downfall. Sounds of weeping fill the land as the vines and fields wither and are trampled.<\/p>\n<p>In chapter 17 the fourth oracle is directed against Damascus and Ephraim (the northern kingdom of Israel), probably reflecting their alliance against Judah about 734 <span>BC<\/span>. Both nations will face ruin, and Ephraim is condemned for abandoning the Lord, her “Savior” and “Rock” (17:10).<\/p>\n<p>In chapters 18 and 19 Isaiah turns to the south and addresses Ethiopia and Egypt, countries that had strong links from 715–633 <span>BC<\/span>, when an Ethiopian named Shabako became pharaoh in Egypt. But Egypt is plagued with disunity and suffers greatly at the hands of Assyrian kings. In spite of the supposed wisdom of her leaders, Egypt faces economic and political ruin (19:5-15). Yet the time is coming when the Egyptians will be restored and will worship the God of Israel. Along with Assyria and Israel, Egypt will become a blessing (19:24). Some interpreters think this is a prophecy of the salvation of Gentiles during the church age, but others relate this day to the peace of the millennial age (cf. 2:2-4; 11:6-9). For the immediate future, however, Isaiah announces that Assyria will take many Egyptians and Ethiopians into captivity (ch 20).<\/p>\n<p>A second oracle about Babylon (cf. 13:1–14:23) is contained in chapter 21, and Isaiah is staggered as he considers the impact of Babylon’s fall (21:3-4). When Babylon collapses, the world will know that her gods were powerless (21:9; cf. Rv 14:8; 18:2).<\/p>\n<p>Although it seems out of place among these oracles against the nations, chapter 22 condemns the city of Jerusalem. Like the nations, Jerusalem is full of revelry (22:2) but will soon experience the terrors of a siege. Since the people no longer rely on the Lord (v 11), he will hand them over to the enemy. Jerusalem’s unfaithfulness is exemplified by Shebna, a high official guilty of pride and materialism whose position will be taken by the godly Eliakim (vv 15-23).<\/p>\n<p>The last oracle (ch 23) is directed against the city of Tyre, which resisted capture until Alexander the Great conquered the island fortress in 332 <span>BC<\/span>. When Tyre fell, the economy of the entire Mediterranean world was shaken, for her ships had carried the goods of the nations far and wide.<\/p>\n<h5>Final Judgment and Blessing (24–27)<\/h5>\n<p>This section functions as a grand finale to chapters 13–23 in that it anticipates God’s judgment upon the nations and the inauguration of the kingdom of God. A defiled earth must bear its punishment (24:5-6) and even the forces of Satan face judgment (vv 21-22).<\/p>\n<p>In chapter 25 Isaiah rejoices over God’s great triumph and looks ahead to a day when death will be swallowed up and tears will be wiped from all faces (25:8). Israel’s longtime enemies, symbolized by Moab, will be laid low (vv 10-12), but Jerusalem will be a stronghold for the righteous (26:1-3). In 26:7-19 the nation prays that these promises will become a reality. Verses 20-21 indicate that the Lord will indeed respond, pouring out his wrath upon a sin-cursed earth and upon Satan himself (27:1). When that takes place, Israel will be a fruitful vineyard, a blessing to the whole world (27:2-6; contrast 5:1-7). First, however, Israel will have to endure war and exile, and then the remnant will return to Jerusalem.<\/p>\n<h5>A Series of Woes (28–33)<\/h5>\n<p>Returning to his own historical period, Isaiah pronounces a series of woes upon both the northern and southern kingdoms, as well as one upon Assyria (ch 33). Chapter 28 begins with a description of the fading power of Samaria, the capital of the northern kingdom. Verses 7-10 portray the leaders of Judah in the same light; they have disregarded Isaiah’s message and are out of touch with God. Judgment is on the way, and their false preparation (vv 15, 18) will be of no avail. God will fight against Israel (vv 21-22), and even Jerusalem will be put under siege until God in his mercy intervenes (29:1-8). Because of their hypocritical worship, the people deserve to be punished, but in the future Israel will again acknowledge the Lord and be made physically and spiritually whole (29:17-24).<\/p>\n<p>Chapters 30 and 31 denounce Judah’s proposed alliance with Egypt in the effort to thwart Assyria. God wants his people to trust him, not their unreliable neighbors to the south. The Lord promises to protect Jerusalem (30:18; 31:5) and defeat the invading Assyrian army (30:31-33; 31:8-9). None can stand before his mighty sword.<\/p>\n<p>Continuing on this positive note, Isaiah goes on to emphasize the righteous rule of the messianic king in chapters 32 and 33. Zion will enjoy peace and security at last (32:2, 17-18; 33:6), a great change from Isaiah’s own time. In eighth-century <span>BC<\/span> Judah the women might feel secure (32:9), but the Assyrian troops will devastate the crops and precipitate widespread mourning. However, the lamenting will soon end, as the prophet pronounces woe upon Assyria in 33:1. After Isaiah prays for the destruction of Assyria (33:2-9), God promises to take action (vv 10-12). Gone will be the enemy soldiers and officials, for the Lord will save his people and bring them justice and security.<\/p>\n<h5>More Judgment and Blessing (34–35)<\/h5>\n<p>This section forms a climax to chapters 28–33. Once more, cataclysmic judgment precedes a time of blessing and restoration. In chapter 34 Isaiah depicts a judgment of cosmic dimensions as he moves to a consideration of the last days. Heaven and earth endure the wrath of God that is poured out upon the nations, and verse 4 provides the basis for John’s description of the great tribulation in Revelation 6:13-14. Edom (like Moab; see Is 25:10-12) represents a world judged by the sword of the Lord in his day of vengeance.<\/p>\n<p>Chapter 35, on the other hand, speaks of joy and restoration in a passage that pulsates with life. A blooming desert corresponds to the physical and spiritual age when God will come to redeem his people. Both the return of the Israelites from the Babylonian captivity and the second coming of Christ fit this glorious scene.<\/p>\n<h5>Historical Interlude (36–39)<\/h5>\n<p>These chapters form the hinge that connects the two halves of the book. Chapters 36 and 37 contain the fulfillment of Isaiah’s prophecies about Assyria’s collapse, and chapters 38 and 39 introduce the Babylonian captivity that forms the backdrop for chapters 40–66. In 701 <span>BC<\/span> King Sennacherib of Assyria demands the unconditional surrender of Jerusalem. He sends his field commander to address the people and try to gain their submission. With persuasive words, the commander tries to convince the city that surrender is the best policy. Amazingly the people do not panic, and King Hezekiah asks Isaiah to pray for the beleaguered city. The prophet does so and announces that the proud Assyrians will not triumph. Instead, they suffer a terrible disaster as the angel of the Lord strikes down 185,000 men.<\/p>\n<p>Chapters 38 and 39 relate another crisis in Hezekiah’s life when he becomes desperately ill. Miraculously, God heals him, and Hezekiah praises the Lord for his gracious intervention. When the king of Babylon sends envoys to congratulate Hezekiah on his recovery, Hezekiah foolishly shows these messengers his royal treasures. Isaiah solemnly announces that someday the armies of Babylon will capture Jerusalem, plunder the land, and take away these treasures.<\/p>\n<h5>The Return from Babylon (40–48)<\/h5>\n<p>The Babylonian captivity eventually comes, but Isaiah promises that it will end. God, the incomparably powerful Creator, is far greater than any king, nation, or god, and he will bring his people back to Jerusalem. To accomplish this return from exile, God raises up Cyrus, the king of Persia (41:2, 25). The Lord does not forget his people, and he encourages them to take heart and to rejoice.<\/p>\n<p>In chapter 42 we are introduced to a person even more significant than Cyrus the Persian. Verses 1-7 (the first of four Servant Songs) describe the servant of the Lord, who will bring justice to the nations and will be “a light for the Gentiles” (42:6). This is the Messiah, and the redemption he will accomplish on Calvary (cf. ch 53) is greater than the release from Babylon. In light of the good news associated with the servant, Isaiah praises the Lord for punishing the wicked and rescuing his wayward people. Chapter 43 declares that nothing will stand in the way of Israel’s return, and the Lord will remember their sins no more. In fact, he will pour out his Spirit on their descendants (44:3).<\/p>\n<p>A God so great is far more powerful than any idol. In 44:6-20 Isaiah makes use of satire to show the worthlessness of man-made images. God alone has the power to create and to restore, and he will bring Cyrus on the scene to effect the release of the exiles and to begin the rebuilding of Jerusalem. Chapters 46 and 47 contrast the God of Israel and the idols of Babylon. When God raises up Cyrus, Babylon’s idols will be unable to save their nation, and the queen of kingdoms (47:5) will collapse along with her sorcerers and astrologers. The final chapter in this section (ch 48) restates God’s purpose of gaining release of the Israelites from Babylon through his chosen ally, Cyrus of Persia.<\/p>\n<h5>Salvation through the Servant of the Lord (49–57)<\/h5>\n<p>Chapters 49–53 contain the final three Servant Songs (cf. also 42:1-7), culminating in the death of the servant for the sins of the world (52:13–53:12). In the second Servant Song (49:1-7), Isaiah describes the call and ministry of the servant, noting that he will face strong opposition as he accomplishes salvation for Israel and the nations. The rest of chapter 49 deals primarily with the way God will bring Israel back from exile. Soon the land will be filled with a mighty throng (vv 19-21), and the Gentiles will acknowledge Israel and her God (vv 22-23).<\/p>\n<p>Although Israel has fully deserved the exile because of her sins (50:1-3), the suffering endured by the servant (vv 4-11; the third Servant Song) is wholly undeserved. The beating and mocking of verse 6 are prophetic of Christ’s experience (cf. Mt 27:26, 30; Mk 15:19). In verses 10-11 of Isaiah 50 the whole nation is challenged to trust in the Lord, as the servant did. There is, in fact, a believing remnant who obey the Lord (51:1-8), and the Lord promises that he will restore them to their homeland. Israel has drunk the cup of God’s wrath (vv 17, 22), but the good news of release from exile causes even the ruins of Jerusalem to burst into songs of joy (52:7-10).<\/p>\n<p>Yet the best news of all is salvation from sin; the final Servant Song (52:13–53:12) tells how Christ wins freedom for those held in bondage to sin. In this brief passage we learn how Christ suffers rejection (53:3) and even disfigurement (52:14). Led like a lamb to the slaughter (53:7), he carries our sins in his body as he dies in ignominy. The people think he is suffering for his own sins (v 4), but he is “pierced” and “crushed for our iniquities” (v 5). The first and last paragraphs of this section (52:13-15; 53:10-12) state that through his suffering the servant is highly exalted. What seems like a terrible defeat is actually victory over death and Satan and brings salvation for many.<\/p>\n<p>As a direct result of the servant’s death, great joy comes to all people. In chapter 54 this joy is reflected in Jerusalem’s new status as the Lord’s wife. Her descendants will be numerous and eager to learn from the Lord. For the first time the plural “servants of the <span>Lord<\/span>” appears (54:17), apparently including all believers, whether Jew or Gentile (cf. 65:8-9, 13-15). Joy and prosperity also characterize chapter 55, an invitation to a great spiritual banquet. All people are urged to turn to the Lord who keeps his promises to Israel. In 56:1-8, foreigners are invited to come to God’s “holy mountain” in Jerusalem, for the temple will be a house of prayer for all the nations (56:7; cf. Mt 21:13).<\/p>\n<p>Believing Gentiles are contrasted sharply with unbelieving Jews, and in 56:9–57:13 Isaiah returns again to the theme of judgment. Israel suffers because her leaders are wicked and because the people are guilty of idolatry. Spiritual healing is available, but unless individuals repent, they cannot be part of the remnant who will return from exile and enjoy peace in the Promised Land.<\/p>\n<h5>Ultimate Blessing and Final Judgment (58–66)<\/h5>\n<p>The last nine chapters of Isaiah emphasize redemption and glory, but the reality of judgment is also very much in evidence. In fact, chapters 58 and 59 bemoan the sins of Israel. The people are hypocritical in their worship; they are selfish and fail to keep the Sabbath. Lying, oppression, and murder separate the people from God. When Isaiah openly confesses these sins (59:12-13), the Lord suddenly takes action on behalf of his people. Like a mighty warrior, he rescues the believing remnant from Babylon and brings them back to Jerusalem.<\/p>\n<p>In chapter 60 the glory and wealth of Jerusalem reach new heights. Both the city and the sanctuary are adorned with splendor, matching the prosperity of Solomon’s reign. Just as the nations treated Solomon with honor, so earth’s leaders will assist and strengthen the returning exiles. While it is true that the Persian government did help the Jews repeatedly, the conditions described here will have their ultimate fulfillment during the Millennium and in connection with the new Jerusalem (cf. Rv 21:23; 22:5). The ancient ruins will be rebuilt (Is 61:4), and the Lord will fulfill the covenant made with Abraham and David (Is 61:8; cf. Gn 12:1-3; Is 55:3). Jerusalem will be the city of the holy people, the redeemed of the Lord (Is 62:12), and the Lord will take delight in her (v 4).<\/p>\n<p>In order to accomplish salvation for his people, God will have to judge the ungodly first. The great trampling of the winepress (63:2-3) graphically portrays the judgment process and is linked with the Day of the Lord (cf. 13:3; 34:2). Since God has promised to intervene on behalf of his people, Isaiah prays for the realization of that promise (63:7–64:12). He recalls God’s faithfulness in the past and pleads that he will again have mercy upon his suffering people.<\/p>\n<p>The answer to Isaiah’s prayer is found in chapter 65. God does promise to give the Holy Land back to his servants, to those who worship him and obey him. But for that segment of the nation that continues in its obstinacy, God promises anguish and destruction. The ultimate joy of God’s servants is contained in a description of new heavens and a new earth (65:17-25). Peace, long life, and prosperity will be among the blessings enjoyed in an era that seems to combine features of the Millennium and the eternal state (cf. ch 60).<\/p>\n<p>In a fitting summary, chapter 66 ties together the themes of salvation and judgment. God will comfort Jerusalem and abundantly bless her, but sinners are the objects of his wrath. Those who honor him will endure forever, but those who rebel will suffer everlasting rejection.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Isaiah (Person); Israel, History of; Messiah; Prophecy; Prophet, Prophetess; Servant of the Lord; Virgin Birth of Jesus.<\/p>","summary_ro":"ISAIAH, Book of Preview • Author • Date • Background • Literary Unity • Theological Teaching • Content Author The prophet Isaiah, whose name means “the Lord saves,” lived and ministered in Jerusalem. Because of his repeated contact with the kings of Judah, some scholars believed that Isaiah was related to the royal family, but this is not certain. According to chapters 7 and 8, Isaiah was married and had at least two sons, Shear-jashub and Maher-shalal-hash-baz, whose symbolic names illustrat...","summary_en":"ISAIAH, Book of Preview • Author • Date • Background • Literary Unity • Theological Teaching • Content Author The prophet Isaiah, whose name means “the Lord saves,” lived and ministered in Jerusalem. Because of his repeated contact with the kings of Judah, some scholars believed that Isaiah was related to the royal family, but this is not certain. According to chapters 7 and 8, Isaiah was married and had at least two sons, Shear-jashub and Maher-shalal-hash-baz, whose symbolic names illustrat...","source":"Articles\/I.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":22086,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Books of First and Second Kings","title_en":"Books of First and Second Kings","content_ro":"<h3>KINGS, Books of First and Second<\/h3>\n<p>Books continuing the history of the covenant people as recorded in Joshua, Judges, and the books of Samuel. The record in Kings begins with the events at the end of David’s reign (1 Kgs 1–2). It continues through the reign of Solomon (chs 3–11); the histories of the divided kingdoms (1 Kgs 12—2 Kgs 17); and the history of the surviving kingdom in the south, through its fall in 586 <span>BC<\/span> and the subsequent kindness shown Jehoiachin by Evil-merodach, king of Babylon, around 561 <span>BC<\/span> (2 Kgs 18–25).<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Authorship and Date<\/p>\n<p>• Sources<\/p>\n<p>• Theology and Purpose<\/p>\n<p>• Content<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"AuthorshipandDate\">Authorship and Date<\/p>\n<p>Kings was originally regarded as one book in the Hebrew canon; the division into two books of approximately equal length appeared first in the Septuagint and finally entered the Hebrew Bible in the 15th century <span>AD<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p>The book itself is anonymous, and information about its author can only be deduced by examining the concerns and perspectives of the work. The Babylonian Talmud (<em>Baba Bathra<\/em> 15a) attributes Kings to Jeremiah. Although this identification could have arisen from the tendency of later Jewish tradition to assign biblical books to prophetic authors, the theory of origin in prophetic circles fits the evidence quite well. Substantial portions are given to the lives of the prophets; 16 of 47 chapters are devoted to the lives of Elijah and Elisha (1 Kgs 17—2 Kgs 10), and there is considerable interest in other prophetic figures such as Ahijah (1 Kgs 11:29-39; 14:1-16), an unnamed man of God (13:1-10), and Micaiah (22:13-28). Possible dependence on Isaiah (2 Kgs 18–20; cf. Is 36–39) and Jeremiah (2 Kgs 24–25; cf. Jer 52) also suggest prophetic origin. The author-compiler also shows intense concern with the efficacy of the prophetic word, frequently calling attention to the fulfillment of words spoken earlier by the prophets.<\/p>\n<p>One might initially think that such a history would be unlikely for a prophet, but the evidence is to the contrary. The prophets were the guardians of the covenant relationship and are known to have produced accounts used as sources by other biblical historians. The following are among such sources: the acts of Samuel the seer, the acts of Nathan the prophet, the acts of Gad the seer (1 Chr 29:29); the acts of Nathan the prophet, the prophecy of Ahijah the Shilonite, the visions of Iddo the seer (2 Chr 9:29); the chronicles of Shemaiah the prophet and of Iddo the seer (12:15); the annotations of the prophet Iddo (13:22); and the acts of Uzziah by Isaiah the prophet (26:22). Add to this the fact that Kings is positioned in the Hebrew canon in the Former Prophets (Joshua to 2 Kings), and a consistent picture of prophetic origin emerges.<\/p>\n<p>The date of the final part of the book must be after the last events recorded. Evil-merodach’s kindness toward Jehoiachin (c. 561 <span>BC<\/span>) is the terminus of the book and therefore fixes the earliest date. Since the work shows no knowledge of the restoration period, a date before 539 <span>BC<\/span> is probable. The author’s selection of his data to answer the burning theological questions of the exilic community also suggests a date between 561 and 539 <span>BC<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Sources\">Sources<\/p>\n<p>The compiler of Kings specifically names three of the sources that he used in his work, and biblical scholars have suggested the presence of a number of other sources that may have been cited. Of course, the sources not mentioned specifically by the compiler are only the speculations of those who have studied his work and can have only varying degrees of probability. The sources both specified and alleged are as follows.<\/p>\n<h5>The Book of the Acts of Solomon<\/h5>\n<p>As 1 Kings 11:41 says, “The rest of the events in Solomon’s reign, including his wisdom, are recorded in <em>The Book of the Acts of Solomon”<\/em> (<span>nlt<\/span>). Presumably additional materials of a biographical nature were included, specifically accounts similar to the judgment between the two mothers (3:16-28) or the visit of the queen of Sheba (10:1-10). There has been debate as to whether these materials were official court records or nonofficial documents. Some scholars have attempted to isolate further materials within this section by identifying descriptions of the buildings as from temple archives (chs 6–7) and lists of administrators as from administrative documents (chs 4–5), but this must remain speculative.<\/p>\n<h5>The Book of the History of the Kings of Israel<\/h5>\n<p>This source is mentioned 17 times in Kings, usually in the closing formulas at the end of the account of the reign of a northern king. Some idea of the nature of these chronicles can be derived from looking at the type of information to which the compiler refers his readers (see 1 Kgs 14:19; 16:27; 22:39; 2 Kgs 13:12; 14:28). These passages suggest that this source was the official annals covering the reigns of the kings.<\/p>\n<h5>The Book of the History of the Kings of Judah<\/h5>\n<p>This source is mentioned in 15 passages, and as with the kings of Israel, is found in the concluding formulas to the accounts of the reigns. This source was to be consulted for additional details on individuals’ reigns (for example, see 1 Kgs 15:23; 22:45; 2 Kgs 20:20; 21:17). These sources for the histories of the two kingdoms were probably similar to the annals known from the surrounding cultures, particularly from the reigns of Assyrian kings. They were likely official court histories kept in Samaria and Jerusalem.<\/p>\n<p>In addition to these explicitly mentioned sources, scholars have suggested the compiler drew on other sources that he does not name.<\/p>\n<h5>Davidic Court History<\/h5>\n<p>Second Samuel 9–20 is often identified as a unit of material in the composition of the books of Samuel; it is variously called “the court history” or “the succession narrative.” Because of similar vocabulary and outlook, 1 Kings 1–2 are often associated with this material from Samuel. The statement of 1 Kings 2:46, “so the kingdom was now firmly in Solomon’s grip,” is taken to be the end of this record.<\/p>\n<h5>Sources for the House of Ahab<\/h5>\n<p>The reigns of individual kings are ordinarily given only brief notices; for example, the father of Ahab, Omri, is given eight verses, even though when judged by political and economic significance, he was among the greatest of the northern kings (1 Kgs 16:21-28). However, beginning with the reign of Ahab, the record becomes quite expansive, and extensive coverage is given the dynasty of Ahab through the coup by Jehu (1 Kgs 16—2 Kgs 12). The use of the stereotyped formulas for the reigns is suspended in this material, and the existence of other literature used by the compiler is probable. This material is commonly subdivided into further sources for the lives of Elijah and Elisha and the reign of Ahab.<\/p>\n<p>The Elijah section covers material in the following chapters: 1 Kings 17–19, including the feeding by the ravens, the incidents with the widow of Zarephath, the drought, the fire on Carmel, and the revelation of God at Sinai; 1 Kings 21, the affair of Naboth’s vineyard; and 2 Kings 1, the death of Ahaziah’s messengers. The reign of Ahab, which gets so much attention in Kings, is primarily a backdrop for the accounts concerning Elijah.<\/p>\n<p>The Elisha material found in 2 Kings 2–13 may have had an independent literary development from that of the Elijah accounts. It includes the following: chapter 2 (Elisha’s succession to the prophetic office, the purification of a spring, the death of mocking children); chapter 3 (on the campaign against Moab); chapter 4 (the widow’s oil, the Shunammite woman); chapter 5 (Naaman’s leprosy); chapter 6 (the Aramean attempt to capture Elisha); chapter 7 (the famine in Samaria); chapter 8 (the Shunammite’s property, the coup of Hazael); chapter 9 (the anointing of Jehu); and chapter 13 (the death of Elisha). No other portion of the OT takes the sheer delight in the miraculous that is seen in the Elisha narratives.<\/p>\n<p>In 1 Kings 16 to 2 Kings 13 there are additional incidents not directly related to the biographies of Elijah and Elisha; accounts such as the military campaigns of 1 Kings 20:1-34 and further details of Jehu’s coup (2 Kgs 9:11–10:36) are often attributed to a third source containing accounts of the dynasty of Ahab and his successors. In all three of these possible sources the orientation is toward affairs in the northern kingdom.<\/p>\n<h5>Isaiah Source<\/h5>\n<p>The account of the reign of Hezekiah contains a section (2 Kgs 18:13–20:19) that is nearly a verbatim citation of material also found in Isaiah (Is 36:1–39:8). The section records the invasion of Sennacherib, the mission of the Rabshakeh, Hezekiah’s prayer, Isaiah’s prophecy, Hezekiah’s illness, the regression of the sun, and the envoys from Merodach-baladan. The material must be regarded as based on the book of Isaiah or some other source used in both Isaiah and Kings.<\/p>\n<h5>A Prophetic Source<\/h5>\n<p>Because Kings shows great interest in the prophets and their ministries, various scholars have suggested that yet another source was used by the compiler; this would be an independent literary unit containing accounts of the prophets. This source would have contained the records for the material on Ahijah (1 Kgs 11:29-39; 14:1-16), unnamed prophets (ch 12; 20:35-43), Micaiah (22:13-28), and other references.<\/p>\n<p>Apart from the sources explicitly mentioned and inferences about their character, the remainder of the sources suggested have only varying degrees of probability. Considerable scholarly effort has gone into identifying and characterizing such sources, but it remains speculative. When considering the sources the compiler may have used, one important caution must be kept in mind. Even if such sources did exist, one cannot have confidence in a reconstruction of the compositional history. Which sources had already been integrated into a larger composition before they were used by the compiler of Kings? We cannot be certain that the life situation out of which these other sources grew has been correctly identified, nor can we know that even the compiler himself was aware of the past history of his sources. Biblical scholarship has expended considerable energy in trying to delineate the past history of the book of Kings, but it has often been at the neglect of the unity of perspective that is the product of the final compiler(s) in whose hands the book received its canonical form.<\/p>\n<p>What is important to understanding the book is not the perspective of its various sources (of which the compiler himself may have been unaware), but the perspective of the book as a whole on the history of the kingdoms. It is the outline that the compiler has imposed on the sources that establishes the teaching of the book; his sources are used in accord with his own purposes, a fact that makes the purposes for which the sources had been prepared largely irrelevant to the teaching of the book in its present form. Exploring possible sources, worthwhile in itself, must not eclipse the message of the book as a whole. This is not to imply that the books of Kings are simply a compilation of unaltered sources. The writer(s) undoubtedly exercised a measure of selectivity and literary skill in composing the historical narrative.<\/p>\n<p>One compositional technique of the compiler is quite prominent in the histories of the divided kingdoms: this is the use of formulaic introductions and conclusions to the various reigns. The formulas for both kingdoms are quite similar, differing only in minor details. For the kings of Judah, the full introductory formula is as follows: (1) year of accession synchronized with the regnal year of the northern king; (2) age of the king at his accession; (3) length of his reign; (4) name of his mother; (5) judgment on the character of the reign. The account of a Judean king’s reign is concluded as follows: (1) a reference to the chronicles of the kings of Judah for further information; (2) a statement regarding the death of the king, including the place of burial; (3) successor: “And his son reigned in his stead” (<span>rsv<\/span>). The full formula for a Judean king can be seen, for example, in the reign of Rehoboam (1 Kgs 14:21-22, 29-31).<\/p>\n<p>The formulas differ slightly for the kings of Israel; the introduction is as follows: (1) year of succession synchronized with the regnal year of the southern king; (2) length of his reign; (3) location of the royal residence; (4) condemnation for idolatry; (5) name of the king’s father. The account of an Israelite king’s reign ends as follows: (1) a reference to the chronicles of the kings of Israel for further information; (2) a statement regarding his death; (3) a statement of the succession of his son, unless a usurper follows. The full formula for an Israelite king can be seen, for example, in the reign of Baasha (1 Kgs 15:33-34; 16:5-6).<\/p>\n<p>There is some variation in the use of these patterns, but on the whole, they are consistently followed and provide the basic framework for the history of the divided kingdom. The synchronisms of the reigns provide data for constructing the chronology of the period. The variations in the formulas may reflect the characteristics of the sources the compiler was using or may reflect his own interests. The name of the mother of a Judean king is recorded, but not of an Israelite king, perhaps reflecting concern with a more exact and fuller record of the Davidic succession. The royal residence is presumed to be Jerusalem for the southern kings (though it may be mentioned) but is recorded for the northern kings since it moved several times, from Shechem to Penuel to Tirzah to Samaria. The mention of the king’s father for a northern ruler also reflects the frequent change in dynasties there, as opposed to the dynastic stability of Judah, which is reinforced by mentioning the burial of almost all its kings in the city of David.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheologyandPurpose\">Theology and Purpose<\/p>\n<p>The books of Kings record the history of the covenant people from the end of the reign of David (961 <span>BC<\/span>) through the fall of the southern kingdom (586 <span>BC<\/span>). Yet it is not history written in accord with modern expectations for history textbooks. Rather than concentrating on economic, political, and military themes as they shaped the history of the period, the compiler of Kings is motivated by theological concerns.<\/p>\n<p>Evaluation of the theology and purpose of the books of Kings is made easier by the fact that there is a parallel history for much of Kings found in the books of Chronicles. By comparing the two accounts, especially where the later Chronicler adds or deletes material found in Kings, the interests of both histories are thrown into clearer relief.<\/p>\n<p>The books of Kings were composed during the exile, likely between 560 and 539 <span>BC<\/span>. Jerusalem had been turned into rubble, and there was no longer a throne of David. Those two pillars of the popular theology—the inviolability of the temple and the throne of David (Jer 7:4; 13:13-14; 22:1-9; see 1 Kgs 8:16, 29)—had tumbled. If Israel’s faith was to survive, the burning questions that had to be answered were “How did it all happen? Can’t God keep his promises to David and to Zion? Have the promises failed?” The writer of Kings aims to deal with the bewilderment of the chosen people in response to the disasters of 722 <span>BC<\/span> (fall of Samaria) and 586 <span>BC<\/span> (fall of Jerusalem). Kings, like the book of Job, is a theodicy, a justification of the ways of God to men.<\/p>\n<p>In order to answer the question “How did it happen?” the compiler adopts the procedure of recounting the history of the covenant people in light of standards propounded in the Law. For this reason Kings could be called Pentateuchal history, or even more pointedly, Deuteronomic history, for standards propounded only in the book of Deuteronomy in the Pentateuch are used by the compiler to measure the kingdoms. Among the prominent themes selected from Deuteronomy and applied to the kingdoms are the centralization of worship, the institution of the monarchy, the efficacy of the prophetic word, and the outworking of the covenant curses on disobedience.<\/p>\n<h5>Centralization of Worship<\/h5>\n<p>The primary concern of the writer is the purity of the worship of the Lord. His major criterion for measuring this purity is the attitude of the kings toward centralization of worship in the Jerusalem temple as opposed to the worship of the Lord elsewhere and the continuation of Canaanite cults mingled with Yahwism at the high places. Centralization of worship at the central shrine is called for in Deuteronomy 12. Perhaps “centralization of worship” is a misnomer, for worship was always centered around the tabernacle in the periods prior to the temple; the change that is envisaged in Deuteronomy is not the centralizing of worship but rather the fact that the shrine would no longer be mobile but stationary. For the kings of the northern kingdom, this criterion becomes virtually a stereotyped formula that “he did that which was evil in the sight of the Lord and walked in the way of Jeroboam son of Nebat, who sinned and made all Israel sin along with him” (see 1 Kgs 14:16; 15:30; 16:31; 2 Kgs 3:3; 10:31; 13:2, 11; 14:24; 15:9, 18, 24, 28; 17:22). The compiler of Kings sees the rival altars with the golden calves at Dan and Bethel as the great sin of which the northern kings never repented (1 Kgs 12:25–13:34). Rejecting the primacy of Jerusalem, these altars became the rod with which to measure the northern kings. All the kings of Israel are condemned by this standard (except for Shallum, who reigned but a month, and Hoshea, the last of the northern kings)—even Zimri, the murderer of Elah, who ruled only one week before committing suicide in the flames of his own palace (16:9-20). For the kings of Judah, a different standard is used: what their attitude was to the high places where heterodox worship was allowed to flourish in the environs of Jerusalem. Only Hezekiah and Josiah receive the compiler’s unqualified endorsement for following the ways of David (2 Kgs 18:3; 22:2). Six others are commended for their zeal in suppressing idolatry, though they did not remove the high places (Asa, 1 Kgs 15:9-15; Jehoshaphat, 22:43; Jehoash, 2 Kgs 12:2-3; Amaziah, 14:3-4; Azariah, 15:3-4; Jotham, 15:34-35). The remainder of the Judean kings are condemned for their participation in the high places and their desecration of the temple itself. This one theme is the preeminent motif in the book.<\/p>\n<h5>History of the Monarchy<\/h5>\n<p>A second prominent interest for the compiler was to trace the history of the monarchy. Deuteronomy 17:14-20 provides for the day when Israel would ask for a king and charges that king with the basic religious responsibility for the people. This provision for a king, again a feature found only in Deuteronomy, becomes the basis for the compiler’s intense interest in the history of the monarchy, and particularly the religious fidelity of the kings. David becomes the model of the ideal king, the one by whom the others are measured, the one whose sons “continue long in his kingdom in the midst of Israel” (17:20; see also 1 Kgs 15:11; 2 Kgs 18:3; 22:2 for following in the ways of David, and 1 Kgs 14:8; 15:3-5; 2 Kgs 14:3; 16:2 for the reverse). The compiler wanted to show that God had been faithful to David even though David’s sons were not faithful. While both kingdoms had about the same number of kings, the northern kingdom is marked by repeated dynastic changes and regicide through its 200 years, while the dynasty of David is maintained as a lamp in the south through 350 years (1 Kgs 11:13, 32, 36; 15:4-5; 2 Kgs 8:19; 19:34; 20:6). It is the disaster that had befallen the house of David, and the consequent doubts about the promises of God, that prompted the compiler to write.<\/p>\n<h5>Efficacy of the Prophetic Word<\/h5>\n<p>Another reason why Kings can be called Deuteronomic history is its concern with the efficacy of the prophetic word. There are three passages in the Pentateuch that deal with the institution of the prophetic order: Numbers 12:1-8; Deuteronomy 13:1-5; and Deuteronomy 18:14-22. It is only in Deuteronomy 18 that the test of a true prophet is given: that what he has spoken comes about, that his words are fulfilled. Notice the number of instances where the writer calls attention to the fulfillment of the words of the prophets: 2 Samuel 7:13 in 1 Kings 8:20; 1 Kings 11:29-36 in 12:15; 1 Kings 13:1-3 in 2 Kings 23:16-18; 1 Kings 14:6-12 in 14:17-18 and 15:29; 1 Kings 16:1-4 in 16:7, 11-12; Joshua 6:26 in 1 Kings 16:34; 1 Kings 22:17 in 22:35-38; 1 Kings 21:21-29 in 2 Kings 9:7-10, 30-37 and 10:10-11, 30; 2 Kings 1:6 in 1:17; 2 Kings 21:10-15 in 24:2; 2 Kings 22:15-20 in 23:30. The writer is concerned to show that the words of the prophets were efficacious, powerful words. His concern with the prophetic order is also seen in the material devoted to Elijah and Elisha and to other prophetic figures.<\/p>\n<h5>Fulfillment of the Curses<\/h5>\n<p>Another aspect of the compiler’s interest in Deuteronomy is seen in his concern to trace the fulfillment of the covenant curses on disobedience. God’s covenant with Israel would issue in curses or blessings depending on the obedience of the people; the compiler of Kings sees the curses inflicted on the two kingdoms because of their failure to meet the demands of the covenant. He takes care to show that most of the curses of Deuteronomy 28:15-68 had some historical realization in the life of the people. Moses had warned that disobedience would “bring a nation against you from afar, from the end of the earth, as the eagle swoops down” (Dt 28:49, <span>nasb<\/span>), and the Assyrians came to Samaria and the Babylonians to Jerusalem (28:52). The siege of Samaria lasted from 724 to 722 <span>BC<\/span>, and the siege of Jerusalem from 588 to 586 <span>BC<\/span>. The dire conditions of the siege would drive the people to devouring their own children; women would feed on their afterbirths. It happened to Israel in the siege of Ben-hadad (2 Kgs 6:24-30). Just as the Lord had delighted to prosper and multiply his people, so he would not refrain from destroying them and scattering them among the peoples of the earth (Dt 28:63-67).<\/p>\n<p>In these and other ways the writer of Kings set out to write the history of Israel and Judah to solve a theological dilemma. How was one to reconcile the exile with God’s promises to the nation and David? His answer is twofold: (1) the problem was not with God but with the people’s disobedience—God remains just; (2) the end of the state does not equal the end of the people or the house of David. Here the ending of the book is instructive: Evil-merodach releases Jehoiachin from prison, elevates him above the other kings, and provides his rations (2 Kgs 25:27-30). Even during the exile, though cut down to almost nothing, the house of David still enjoys the favor and blessing of God. God has not abandoned his promises; the people should keep hope.<\/p>\n<p>Other themes in Kings also show the theological motivations underlying the compiler’s selection and arrangement of the data, particularly his use of Deuteronomy as a framework for examining the history of the people. Compare the laws governing the observance of Passover in Exodus 12:1-20 and Deuteronomy 16:1-8: whereas the Passover is centered in the family in Exodus, it is celebrated at the sanctuary in Deuteronomy. The writer of Kings is careful to show that the Passover during the reign of Josiah was celebrated in accordance with the requirements of Deuteronomy (2 Kgs 23:21-23). A passage in Deuteronomy is explicitly cited with reference to Amaziah’s keeping the law (Dt 24:16 in 2 Kgs 14:6).<\/p>\n<h5>Contrast with Chronicles<\/h5>\n<p>The interests of Kings are further highlighted when compared with the parallel accounts in Chronicles. While the writer of Kings worked in the aftermath of the destruction of Jerusalem and had to answer the “how?” and “why?” questions, the Chronicler is part of the restoration community. Here the burning theological questions were not “how?” and “why?” but rather “What continuity do we have with David? Is God still interested in us?” The need is not to account for the exile but rather to relate the postexilic and the preexilic. The building of the second temple and the ordering of worship there show up in increased detail in Chronicles in any matter pertaining to the former temple. Chronicles is a history of Judah and of the Davidic line, reflecting the fact that it alone survives after the exile. Interesting, too, are the things omitted from the account by the Chronicler. Since he is not building a case for an indictment, as was done in Samuel and Kings, he is free to omit references to David’s sin with Bathsheba (2 Sm 11) or to Solomon’s difficulties in gaining the throne (1 Kgs 1–2). Since in his day the northern kingdom had not survived, the Chronicler did not go into detail about the sins of Jeroboam (chs 13–14). Chronicles is interested more in the affairs of the temple and does not show the marked interest in prophetic matters found in Kings, so that the lives of Elijah and Elisha are omitted (1 Kgs 16—2 Kgs 10). Nor does the Chronicler recite the sins that led to the demise of the northern kingdom (2 Kgs 17:1–18:12). In all these examples one can see the interplay of the historical moment and theological concerns of the people and the compilers. Each compiler has selected and arranged the data in accordance with the concerns and needs of the community in which he was a member; comparing the two accounts throws the interests of each into sharp relief.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Content\">Content<\/p>\n\n<p>The books of Kings fall into three parts: (1) the reign of Solomon (1 Kgs 1–11); (2) the history of the divided kingdom (1 Kgs 12–2 Kgs 17); (3) the history of the surviving kingdom in Judah (2 Kgs 18–25).<\/p>\n<h5>The Reign of Solomon (1 Kgs 1–11)<\/h5>\n<p>The record begins with an account of the court intrigue surrounding Solomon’s accession to the throne, set against the backdrop of the abortive coup by Adonijah (ch 1). The dying David charges Solomon to obey the commandments of God (2:1-4) and also to take vengeance on his enemies (vv 5-9). After David’s death Solomon orders the deaths of Adonijah, Joab, and Shimei, and the banishment of Abiathar, the priest who had supported Adonijah in his bid for the throne (vv 13-46). Enemies eliminated, the kingdom was firmly established by Solomon (v 46).<\/p>\n<p>The remainder of Solomon’s reign is divided into two parts: Solomon the good, who follows in the ways of his father, David (chs 3–10); and Solomon the bad, whose heart is led astray (ch 11). While sacrificing at Gibeon, Solomon asks God to give him the gift of wisdom to rule—wisdom promptly demonstrated in the quarrel of two prostitutes about a child (ch 3). An account is given of the administrative organization of the kingdom and the incomparable wisdom of Solomon (ch 4). The compiler of Kings gives extensive coverage to the preparations (ch 5), building (chs 6–7), and dedication (ch 8) of the temple. God appeared to Solomon a second time, reminding him to keep his commandments as David had done (9:1-9). Details are given of the king’s building and commercial activities (vv 10-27). The account of the visit by the queen of Sheba is followed with elaboration of Solomon’s splendor (ch 10). But Solomon did not keep God’s commands; seduced to pagan worship by his foreign wives, he was not fully devoted to the Lord as David had been (11:4), and God determined to take away the northern tribes from the rule of his son (vv 11-13). As punishment from the hand of God, Solomon faced rebellion among conquered peoples (vv 14-25) and within Israel in the person of Jeroboam (vv 26-40).<\/p>\n<h5>History of the Divided Kingdom (1 Kgs 12—2 Kgs 17)<\/h5>\n\n<p>The united monarchy dissolved after the death of Solomon. The northern kingdom (Israel) would exist for about two centuries, would be ruled by 20 kings from nine different dynasties, and would show a history of internal weakness riddled with regicide and usurpation. In contrast, the southern kingdom would last for three and a half centuries and would be ruled by 19 kings of Davidic descent (apart from a short period under the dynastic interloper Athaliah).<\/p>\n<p>There had been a long history of independent action and even warfare between the northern and southern tribes prior to David and Solomon, so it is no surprise that the division would take place along the lines that it did. The immediate cause, however, was the unwise severity with which Rehoboam replied to the representatives of the northern tribes while negotiating for the kingship. Jeroboam, the popular hero of the earlier insurrection against Solomon, became king in the north. He immediately erected the rival sanctuaries at Dan and Bethel (1 Kgs 12); these rival altars became the measure by which the kings of Israel were condemned for following in the sins of Jeroboam.<\/p>\n<p>For two generations there would be warfare between Israel and Judah over the border areas in Benjamin claimed by both sides. Fifty years of sporadic fighting on their mutual frontier, interlaced with invasions from the Arameans in the north or the Egyptians in the south, would consume the reigns of Jeroboam, Nadab, Baasha, Elah, and Zimri in Israel and of Rehoboam, Abijam, and Asa in Judah (1 Kgs 13:1–16:20).<\/p>\n<p>The accession of Omri in Israel introduced a ruling house that would last for a total of four generations and end the dynastic instability of the northern kingdom. Though Kings gives Omri a scant eight verses (1 Kgs 16:21-28), he was among the greatest of the northern kings, forging alliances with the Phoenicians and Judah; for over a century, the Assyrians would call Israel “the house of Omri.”<\/p>\n<p>The reigns of Omri’s successors, Ahab, Ahaziah, and Jehoram, are treated at disproportionate length, taking almost a third of the total book, 16 of 47 chapters (1 Kgs 17—2 Kgs 10). This is due to the fact that the compiler of Kings incorporated extensive coverage of the lives of Elijah and Elisha, weaving a contrast between good and evil by paralleling the dynasty of Omri with these prophets. Ahab and Jezebel were used as foils for the account of Elijah, so that Ahab became a paradigm of the evil king (e.g., 2 Kgs 21:3).<\/p>\n<p>Because of this preoccupation with the dynasty of Omri and the lives of Elijah and Elisha, the equivalent period in Judah is not given as extensive coverage. During this period, the northern kingdom appears to have exercised some hegemony over Judah, as attested by the marriage of an Omride (Athaliah, 2 Kgs 8:18, 26) to Jehoram of Judah and the subservient role of Jehoshaphat to Ahab at the battle of Ramoth-gilead (1 Kgs 22). Judah’s fortunes declined in this period when Edom revolted against Jehoram (2 Kgs 8:20-22), costing Judah control over the port at Ezion-geber and consequent economic losses.<\/p>\n<p>In 842 <span>BC<\/span> Jehu, after being anointed king by a prophet (2 Kgs 9:1-13), led a coup ending the house of Omri and also killing Ahaziah of Judah (vv 14-29). Jehu’s purge also brought the death of Jezebel, Ahab’s family, members of the family of Ahaziah, and the ministers of Baal (9:30–10:36). The consequences were severe politically: the murder of the Phoenician princess Jezebel and the king of Judah cost Israel its allies to the north and south.<\/p>\n<p>Jehu’s dynasty had the longest succession of any in Israel, including Jehoahaz, Jehoash, Jeroboam II, and Zechariah, a period spanning 90 years. Jehu’s murder of Ahaziah of Judah set the stage for the one threat to the continuity of the Davidic dynasty. Queen Athaliah, herself an Omride, seized the throne and attempted a purge of Davidic pretenders. She ruled for six years, until the faithful priest Jehoiada staged a countercoup to place the child Joash on the throne of David (ch 11).<\/p>\n<p>Israel endured a half century of weakness as a result of Jehu’s coup, during which the Arameans had a free hand, reducing the forces of Jehu’s son Jehoahaz to a small army and bodyguard (2 Kgs 13:1-7).<\/p>\n<p>The reemergence of Assyria early in the ninth century <span>BC<\/span> gave relief to Israel and Judah. Assyrian armies conquered the Arameans; with that threat removed, Israel and Judah enjoyed a dramatic resurgence. Jehoash of Israel, grandson of Jehu, reconquered cities lost to the Arameans (2 Kgs 13:25); Elisha died during his reign (v 20). In the south Amaziah reconquered the Edomites (14:7). Amaziah and Jehoash renewed the warfare between the kingdoms, with the north again victorious (vv 8-14).<\/p>\n<p>Under Jeroboam II, Israel enjoyed a period of prosperity when the borders of the kingdom reached the same extent as they had under Solomon (2 Kgs 14:23-28). Uzziah (Azariah), his contemporary in Judah, also fortified Jerusalem and undertook a program of offensive operations extending Judah’s sway to the south (14:21-22; 15:1-7).<\/p>\n<p>Yet this resurgence was but a brilliant sunset in the history of the two kingdoms. After the death of Jeroboam II, the history is one of successive disasters, culminating in the fall of Israel and the subjugation of Judah to the might of Assyria. The next 30 years in Israel would see four dynasties, three represented by only one king, and repeated regicides as the northern kingdom hastened to its demise. A period of civil war and anarchy would see five kings in just over ten years (2 Kgs 15). Heavy tribute was paid to Tiglath-pileser III in both the north and south (15:19-20; 16:7-10). Israel and the Arameans forged a coalition to throw back the Assyrians and sought to press Ahaz of Judah into the fight; Ahaz appealed to Tiglath-pileser III for help. The coalition was destroyed, and Israel and Judah became vassals. Hoshea defected as soon as he felt safe, looking to Egypt for help, but it was suicide for the northern kingdom. Shalmaneser V retaliated, and the political history of the state of Israel came to an end (17:1-23). The area was resettled with other displaced populations (vv 24-41).<\/p>\n<p>Israel had faced the Arameans and survived, only to fall to Assyria. And now, similarly, Judah would outlast Assyria, only to fall to Babylon.<\/p>\n<h5>History of the Surviving Kingdom of Judah (2 Kgs 18–25)<\/h5>\n<p>Ahaz’s appeal for Assyrian aid cost him his liberty, and Judah became a vassal of the Assyrian Empire. Illegitimate worship flourished under his rule (2 Kgs 16:1-19). Ahaz was succeeded by the first of the outstanding reform kings of Judah: Hezekiah. Much of the account of his reign is given to his rebellion against Sennacherib of Assyria: the rebellion, the Assyrian envoys and threats, Isaiah’s assurances of deliverance, and the destruction of the Assyrian armies (18:9–19:37). Hezekiah’s illness was averted after a sign and oracle from Isaiah (20:1-11). As part of what appears to be negotiations toward an anti-Assyrian alliance, Hezekiah also entertained envoys from Babylon, a decision that the prophet announced would be costly (vv 12-21).<\/p>\n<p>Hezekiah was followed by Manasseh, who ruled longer than any other king of Judah (a total of 55 years). His reign was marked by great apostasy—apostasy so severe that the compiler of Kings regarded his reign as sufficient reason for the exile that was unavoidable (2 Kgs 21:1-18; cf. 23:26; 24:3-4; Jer 15:1-4). Manasseh was followed by his son Amon, a carbon copy of his father, who ruled only two years before he was deposed by the people (2 Kings 21:19-26).<\/p>\n<p>The second great reform king of Judah, Josiah, followed. In his reign the Book of the Law was found while the temple was being refurbished; he led the people in a renewal of the covenant and suppressed illegitimate worship (2 Kgs 22:1–23:14). The Assyrian Empire was in rapid decline, so Josiah extended his borders to the north, destroying the altar at Bethel and the high places throughout Samaria (23:15-20). A great Passover celebration was convened in Jerusalem, and further measures were taken to rectify worship (vv 21-25). Josiah tried to block Pharaoh Neco’s foray to assist Assyria, and he lost his life at Megiddo (vv 26-30).<\/p>\n<p>Josiah was the only king of Judah to have three of his sons succeed him. At his death the people put Jehoahaz on the throne, but Neco removed him three months later and took him to Egypt in chains (2 Kgs 23:31-33), replacing him with another son of Josiah, Eliakim, whose name was changed to Jehoiakim (vv 34-37). During his reign, Nebuchadnezzar conquered Judah, and Jehoiakim became his vassal. Late in his life Jehoiakim rebelled against Nebuchadnezzar. Jehoiakim died, leaving his son Jehoiachin to face retaliation from Babylon (24:1-10). Nebuchadnezzar besieged Jerusalem; when the city fell, Jehoiachin, the queen mother, the army, and the leaders of the land were carried away captive. Nebuchadnezzar put Mattaniah (uncle of Jehoiachin and third son of Josiah) on the throne, changing his name to Zedekiah (vv 11-17). Nine years later Zedekiah, too, would rebel against Babylon. Nebuchadnezzar besieged the city for two years and, when it fell, utterly destroyed it. Zedekiah’s sons were killed before his eyes, and then his own eyes were put out, and he was taken to Babylon (24:18–25:21). Nebuchadnezzar appointed Gedaliah to rule as governor from nearby Mizpah; he was assassinated, and the conspirators fled to Egypt (25:22-26).<\/p>\n<p>The book concludes by showing that God had not forgotten his promise to David, mentioning that in captivity Jehoiachin enjoyed favor from the hand of Evil-merodach, successor of Nebuchadnezzar (2 Kgs 25:27-30).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Chronicles, Books of First and Second.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>KINGS, Books of First and Second<\/h3>\n<p>Books continuing the history of the covenant people as recorded in Joshua, Judges, and the books of Samuel. The record in Kings begins with the events at the end of David’s reign (1 Kgs 1–2). It continues through the reign of Solomon (chs 3–11); the histories of the divided kingdoms (1 Kgs 12—2 Kgs 17); and the history of the surviving kingdom in the south, through its fall in 586 <span>BC<\/span> and the subsequent kindness shown Jehoiachin by Evil-merodach, king of Babylon, around 561 <span>BC<\/span> (2 Kgs 18–25).<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Authorship and Date<\/p>\n<p>• Sources<\/p>\n<p>• Theology and Purpose<\/p>\n<p>• Content<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"AuthorshipandDate\">Authorship and Date<\/p>\n<p>Kings was originally regarded as one book in the Hebrew canon; the division into two books of approximately equal length appeared first in the Septuagint and finally entered the Hebrew Bible in the 15th century <span>AD<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p>The book itself is anonymous, and information about its author can only be deduced by examining the concerns and perspectives of the work. The Babylonian Talmud (<em>Baba Bathra<\/em> 15a) attributes Kings to Jeremiah. Although this identification could have arisen from the tendency of later Jewish tradition to assign biblical books to prophetic authors, the theory of origin in prophetic circles fits the evidence quite well. Substantial portions are given to the lives of the prophets; 16 of 47 chapters are devoted to the lives of Elijah and Elisha (1 Kgs 17—2 Kgs 10), and there is considerable interest in other prophetic figures such as Ahijah (1 Kgs 11:29-39; 14:1-16), an unnamed man of God (13:1-10), and Micaiah (22:13-28). Possible dependence on Isaiah (2 Kgs 18–20; cf. Is 36–39) and Jeremiah (2 Kgs 24–25; cf. Jer 52) also suggest prophetic origin. The author-compiler also shows intense concern with the efficacy of the prophetic word, frequently calling attention to the fulfillment of words spoken earlier by the prophets.<\/p>\n<p>One might initially think that such a history would be unlikely for a prophet, but the evidence is to the contrary. The prophets were the guardians of the covenant relationship and are known to have produced accounts used as sources by other biblical historians. The following are among such sources: the acts of Samuel the seer, the acts of Nathan the prophet, the acts of Gad the seer (1 Chr 29:29); the acts of Nathan the prophet, the prophecy of Ahijah the Shilonite, the visions of Iddo the seer (2 Chr 9:29); the chronicles of Shemaiah the prophet and of Iddo the seer (12:15); the annotations of the prophet Iddo (13:22); and the acts of Uzziah by Isaiah the prophet (26:22). Add to this the fact that Kings is positioned in the Hebrew canon in the Former Prophets (Joshua to 2 Kings), and a consistent picture of prophetic origin emerges.<\/p>\n<p>The date of the final part of the book must be after the last events recorded. Evil-merodach’s kindness toward Jehoiachin (c. 561 <span>BC<\/span>) is the terminus of the book and therefore fixes the earliest date. Since the work shows no knowledge of the restoration period, a date before 539 <span>BC<\/span> is probable. The author’s selection of his data to answer the burning theological questions of the exilic community also suggests a date between 561 and 539 <span>BC<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Sources\">Sources<\/p>\n<p>The compiler of Kings specifically names three of the sources that he used in his work, and biblical scholars have suggested the presence of a number of other sources that may have been cited. Of course, the sources not mentioned specifically by the compiler are only the speculations of those who have studied his work and can have only varying degrees of probability. The sources both specified and alleged are as follows.<\/p>\n<h5>The Book of the Acts of Solomon<\/h5>\n<p>As 1 Kings 11:41 says, “The rest of the events in Solomon’s reign, including his wisdom, are recorded in <em>The Book of the Acts of Solomon”<\/em> (<span>nlt<\/span>). Presumably additional materials of a biographical nature were included, specifically accounts similar to the judgment between the two mothers (3:16-28) or the visit of the queen of Sheba (10:1-10). There has been debate as to whether these materials were official court records or nonofficial documents. Some scholars have attempted to isolate further materials within this section by identifying descriptions of the buildings as from temple archives (chs 6–7) and lists of administrators as from administrative documents (chs 4–5), but this must remain speculative.<\/p>\n<h5>The Book of the History of the Kings of Israel<\/h5>\n<p>This source is mentioned 17 times in Kings, usually in the closing formulas at the end of the account of the reign of a northern king. Some idea of the nature of these chronicles can be derived from looking at the type of information to which the compiler refers his readers (see 1 Kgs 14:19; 16:27; 22:39; 2 Kgs 13:12; 14:28). These passages suggest that this source was the official annals covering the reigns of the kings.<\/p>\n<h5>The Book of the History of the Kings of Judah<\/h5>\n<p>This source is mentioned in 15 passages, and as with the kings of Israel, is found in the concluding formulas to the accounts of the reigns. This source was to be consulted for additional details on individuals’ reigns (for example, see 1 Kgs 15:23; 22:45; 2 Kgs 20:20; 21:17). These sources for the histories of the two kingdoms were probably similar to the annals known from the surrounding cultures, particularly from the reigns of Assyrian kings. They were likely official court histories kept in Samaria and Jerusalem.<\/p>\n<p>In addition to these explicitly mentioned sources, scholars have suggested the compiler drew on other sources that he does not name.<\/p>\n<h5>Davidic Court History<\/h5>\n<p>Second Samuel 9–20 is often identified as a unit of material in the composition of the books of Samuel; it is variously called “the court history” or “the succession narrative.” Because of similar vocabulary and outlook, 1 Kings 1–2 are often associated with this material from Samuel. The statement of 1 Kings 2:46, “so the kingdom was now firmly in Solomon’s grip,” is taken to be the end of this record.<\/p>\n<h5>Sources for the House of Ahab<\/h5>\n<p>The reigns of individual kings are ordinarily given only brief notices; for example, the father of Ahab, Omri, is given eight verses, even though when judged by political and economic significance, he was among the greatest of the northern kings (1 Kgs 16:21-28). However, beginning with the reign of Ahab, the record becomes quite expansive, and extensive coverage is given the dynasty of Ahab through the coup by Jehu (1 Kgs 16—2 Kgs 12). The use of the stereotyped formulas for the reigns is suspended in this material, and the existence of other literature used by the compiler is probable. This material is commonly subdivided into further sources for the lives of Elijah and Elisha and the reign of Ahab.<\/p>\n<p>The Elijah section covers material in the following chapters: 1 Kings 17–19, including the feeding by the ravens, the incidents with the widow of Zarephath, the drought, the fire on Carmel, and the revelation of God at Sinai; 1 Kings 21, the affair of Naboth’s vineyard; and 2 Kings 1, the death of Ahaziah’s messengers. The reign of Ahab, which gets so much attention in Kings, is primarily a backdrop for the accounts concerning Elijah.<\/p>\n<p>The Elisha material found in 2 Kings 2–13 may have had an independent literary development from that of the Elijah accounts. It includes the following: chapter 2 (Elisha’s succession to the prophetic office, the purification of a spring, the death of mocking children); chapter 3 (on the campaign against Moab); chapter 4 (the widow’s oil, the Shunammite woman); chapter 5 (Naaman’s leprosy); chapter 6 (the Aramean attempt to capture Elisha); chapter 7 (the famine in Samaria); chapter 8 (the Shunammite’s property, the coup of Hazael); chapter 9 (the anointing of Jehu); and chapter 13 (the death of Elisha). No other portion of the OT takes the sheer delight in the miraculous that is seen in the Elisha narratives.<\/p>\n<p>In 1 Kings 16 to 2 Kings 13 there are additional incidents not directly related to the biographies of Elijah and Elisha; accounts such as the military campaigns of 1 Kings 20:1-34 and further details of Jehu’s coup (2 Kgs 9:11–10:36) are often attributed to a third source containing accounts of the dynasty of Ahab and his successors. In all three of these possible sources the orientation is toward affairs in the northern kingdom.<\/p>\n<h5>Isaiah Source<\/h5>\n<p>The account of the reign of Hezekiah contains a section (2 Kgs 18:13–20:19) that is nearly a verbatim citation of material also found in Isaiah (Is 36:1–39:8). The section records the invasion of Sennacherib, the mission of the Rabshakeh, Hezekiah’s prayer, Isaiah’s prophecy, Hezekiah’s illness, the regression of the sun, and the envoys from Merodach-baladan. The material must be regarded as based on the book of Isaiah or some other source used in both Isaiah and Kings.<\/p>\n<h5>A Prophetic Source<\/h5>\n<p>Because Kings shows great interest in the prophets and their ministries, various scholars have suggested that yet another source was used by the compiler; this would be an independent literary unit containing accounts of the prophets. This source would have contained the records for the material on Ahijah (1 Kgs 11:29-39; 14:1-16), unnamed prophets (ch 12; 20:35-43), Micaiah (22:13-28), and other references.<\/p>\n<p>Apart from the sources explicitly mentioned and inferences about their character, the remainder of the sources suggested have only varying degrees of probability. Considerable scholarly effort has gone into identifying and characterizing such sources, but it remains speculative. When considering the sources the compiler may have used, one important caution must be kept in mind. Even if such sources did exist, one cannot have confidence in a reconstruction of the compositional history. Which sources had already been integrated into a larger composition before they were used by the compiler of Kings? We cannot be certain that the life situation out of which these other sources grew has been correctly identified, nor can we know that even the compiler himself was aware of the past history of his sources. Biblical scholarship has expended considerable energy in trying to delineate the past history of the book of Kings, but it has often been at the neglect of the unity of perspective that is the product of the final compiler(s) in whose hands the book received its canonical form.<\/p>\n<p>What is important to understanding the book is not the perspective of its various sources (of which the compiler himself may have been unaware), but the perspective of the book as a whole on the history of the kingdoms. It is the outline that the compiler has imposed on the sources that establishes the teaching of the book; his sources are used in accord with his own purposes, a fact that makes the purposes for which the sources had been prepared largely irrelevant to the teaching of the book in its present form. Exploring possible sources, worthwhile in itself, must not eclipse the message of the book as a whole. This is not to imply that the books of Kings are simply a compilation of unaltered sources. The writer(s) undoubtedly exercised a measure of selectivity and literary skill in composing the historical narrative.<\/p>\n<p>One compositional technique of the compiler is quite prominent in the histories of the divided kingdoms: this is the use of formulaic introductions and conclusions to the various reigns. The formulas for both kingdoms are quite similar, differing only in minor details. For the kings of Judah, the full introductory formula is as follows: (1) year of accession synchronized with the regnal year of the northern king; (2) age of the king at his accession; (3) length of his reign; (4) name of his mother; (5) judgment on the character of the reign. The account of a Judean king’s reign is concluded as follows: (1) a reference to the chronicles of the kings of Judah for further information; (2) a statement regarding the death of the king, including the place of burial; (3) successor: “And his son reigned in his stead” (<span>rsv<\/span>). The full formula for a Judean king can be seen, for example, in the reign of Rehoboam (1 Kgs 14:21-22, 29-31).<\/p>\n<p>The formulas differ slightly for the kings of Israel; the introduction is as follows: (1) year of succession synchronized with the regnal year of the southern king; (2) length of his reign; (3) location of the royal residence; (4) condemnation for idolatry; (5) name of the king’s father. The account of an Israelite king’s reign ends as follows: (1) a reference to the chronicles of the kings of Israel for further information; (2) a statement regarding his death; (3) a statement of the succession of his son, unless a usurper follows. The full formula for an Israelite king can be seen, for example, in the reign of Baasha (1 Kgs 15:33-34; 16:5-6).<\/p>\n<p>There is some variation in the use of these patterns, but on the whole, they are consistently followed and provide the basic framework for the history of the divided kingdom. The synchronisms of the reigns provide data for constructing the chronology of the period. The variations in the formulas may reflect the characteristics of the sources the compiler was using or may reflect his own interests. The name of the mother of a Judean king is recorded, but not of an Israelite king, perhaps reflecting concern with a more exact and fuller record of the Davidic succession. The royal residence is presumed to be Jerusalem for the southern kings (though it may be mentioned) but is recorded for the northern kings since it moved several times, from Shechem to Penuel to Tirzah to Samaria. The mention of the king’s father for a northern ruler also reflects the frequent change in dynasties there, as opposed to the dynastic stability of Judah, which is reinforced by mentioning the burial of almost all its kings in the city of David.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheologyandPurpose\">Theology and Purpose<\/p>\n<p>The books of Kings record the history of the covenant people from the end of the reign of David (961 <span>BC<\/span>) through the fall of the southern kingdom (586 <span>BC<\/span>). Yet it is not history written in accord with modern expectations for history textbooks. Rather than concentrating on economic, political, and military themes as they shaped the history of the period, the compiler of Kings is motivated by theological concerns.<\/p>\n<p>Evaluation of the theology and purpose of the books of Kings is made easier by the fact that there is a parallel history for much of Kings found in the books of Chronicles. By comparing the two accounts, especially where the later Chronicler adds or deletes material found in Kings, the interests of both histories are thrown into clearer relief.<\/p>\n<p>The books of Kings were composed during the exile, likely between 560 and 539 <span>BC<\/span>. Jerusalem had been turned into rubble, and there was no longer a throne of David. Those two pillars of the popular theology—the inviolability of the temple and the throne of David (Jer 7:4; 13:13-14; 22:1-9; see 1 Kgs 8:16, 29)—had tumbled. If Israel’s faith was to survive, the burning questions that had to be answered were “How did it all happen? Can’t God keep his promises to David and to Zion? Have the promises failed?” The writer of Kings aims to deal with the bewilderment of the chosen people in response to the disasters of 722 <span>BC<\/span> (fall of Samaria) and 586 <span>BC<\/span> (fall of Jerusalem). Kings, like the book of Job, is a theodicy, a justification of the ways of God to men.<\/p>\n<p>In order to answer the question “How did it happen?” the compiler adopts the procedure of recounting the history of the covenant people in light of standards propounded in the Law. For this reason Kings could be called Pentateuchal history, or even more pointedly, Deuteronomic history, for standards propounded only in the book of Deuteronomy in the Pentateuch are used by the compiler to measure the kingdoms. Among the prominent themes selected from Deuteronomy and applied to the kingdoms are the centralization of worship, the institution of the monarchy, the efficacy of the prophetic word, and the outworking of the covenant curses on disobedience.<\/p>\n<h5>Centralization of Worship<\/h5>\n<p>The primary concern of the writer is the purity of the worship of the Lord. His major criterion for measuring this purity is the attitude of the kings toward centralization of worship in the Jerusalem temple as opposed to the worship of the Lord elsewhere and the continuation of Canaanite cults mingled with Yahwism at the high places. Centralization of worship at the central shrine is called for in Deuteronomy 12. Perhaps “centralization of worship” is a misnomer, for worship was always centered around the tabernacle in the periods prior to the temple; the change that is envisaged in Deuteronomy is not the centralizing of worship but rather the fact that the shrine would no longer be mobile but stationary. For the kings of the northern kingdom, this criterion becomes virtually a stereotyped formula that “he did that which was evil in the sight of the Lord and walked in the way of Jeroboam son of Nebat, who sinned and made all Israel sin along with him” (see 1 Kgs 14:16; 15:30; 16:31; 2 Kgs 3:3; 10:31; 13:2, 11; 14:24; 15:9, 18, 24, 28; 17:22). The compiler of Kings sees the rival altars with the golden calves at Dan and Bethel as the great sin of which the northern kings never repented (1 Kgs 12:25–13:34). Rejecting the primacy of Jerusalem, these altars became the rod with which to measure the northern kings. All the kings of Israel are condemned by this standard (except for Shallum, who reigned but a month, and Hoshea, the last of the northern kings)—even Zimri, the murderer of Elah, who ruled only one week before committing suicide in the flames of his own palace (16:9-20). For the kings of Judah, a different standard is used: what their attitude was to the high places where heterodox worship was allowed to flourish in the environs of Jerusalem. Only Hezekiah and Josiah receive the compiler’s unqualified endorsement for following the ways of David (2 Kgs 18:3; 22:2). Six others are commended for their zeal in suppressing idolatry, though they did not remove the high places (Asa, 1 Kgs 15:9-15; Jehoshaphat, 22:43; Jehoash, 2 Kgs 12:2-3; Amaziah, 14:3-4; Azariah, 15:3-4; Jotham, 15:34-35). The remainder of the Judean kings are condemned for their participation in the high places and their desecration of the temple itself. This one theme is the preeminent motif in the book.<\/p>\n<h5>History of the Monarchy<\/h5>\n<p>A second prominent interest for the compiler was to trace the history of the monarchy. Deuteronomy 17:14-20 provides for the day when Israel would ask for a king and charges that king with the basic religious responsibility for the people. This provision for a king, again a feature found only in Deuteronomy, becomes the basis for the compiler’s intense interest in the history of the monarchy, and particularly the religious fidelity of the kings. David becomes the model of the ideal king, the one by whom the others are measured, the one whose sons “continue long in his kingdom in the midst of Israel” (17:20; see also 1 Kgs 15:11; 2 Kgs 18:3; 22:2 for following in the ways of David, and 1 Kgs 14:8; 15:3-5; 2 Kgs 14:3; 16:2 for the reverse). The compiler wanted to show that God had been faithful to David even though David’s sons were not faithful. While both kingdoms had about the same number of kings, the northern kingdom is marked by repeated dynastic changes and regicide through its 200 years, while the dynasty of David is maintained as a lamp in the south through 350 years (1 Kgs 11:13, 32, 36; 15:4-5; 2 Kgs 8:19; 19:34; 20:6). It is the disaster that had befallen the house of David, and the consequent doubts about the promises of God, that prompted the compiler to write.<\/p>\n<h5>Efficacy of the Prophetic Word<\/h5>\n<p>Another reason why Kings can be called Deuteronomic history is its concern with the efficacy of the prophetic word. There are three passages in the Pentateuch that deal with the institution of the prophetic order: Numbers 12:1-8; Deuteronomy 13:1-5; and Deuteronomy 18:14-22. It is only in Deuteronomy 18 that the test of a true prophet is given: that what he has spoken comes about, that his words are fulfilled. Notice the number of instances where the writer calls attention to the fulfillment of the words of the prophets: 2 Samuel 7:13 in 1 Kings 8:20; 1 Kings 11:29-36 in 12:15; 1 Kings 13:1-3 in 2 Kings 23:16-18; 1 Kings 14:6-12 in 14:17-18 and 15:29; 1 Kings 16:1-4 in 16:7, 11-12; Joshua 6:26 in 1 Kings 16:34; 1 Kings 22:17 in 22:35-38; 1 Kings 21:21-29 in 2 Kings 9:7-10, 30-37 and 10:10-11, 30; 2 Kings 1:6 in 1:17; 2 Kings 21:10-15 in 24:2; 2 Kings 22:15-20 in 23:30. The writer is concerned to show that the words of the prophets were efficacious, powerful words. His concern with the prophetic order is also seen in the material devoted to Elijah and Elisha and to other prophetic figures.<\/p>\n<h5>Fulfillment of the Curses<\/h5>\n<p>Another aspect of the compiler’s interest in Deuteronomy is seen in his concern to trace the fulfillment of the covenant curses on disobedience. God’s covenant with Israel would issue in curses or blessings depending on the obedience of the people; the compiler of Kings sees the curses inflicted on the two kingdoms because of their failure to meet the demands of the covenant. He takes care to show that most of the curses of Deuteronomy 28:15-68 had some historical realization in the life of the people. Moses had warned that disobedience would “bring a nation against you from afar, from the end of the earth, as the eagle swoops down” (Dt 28:49, <span>nasb<\/span>), and the Assyrians came to Samaria and the Babylonians to Jerusalem (28:52). The siege of Samaria lasted from 724 to 722 <span>BC<\/span>, and the siege of Jerusalem from 588 to 586 <span>BC<\/span>. The dire conditions of the siege would drive the people to devouring their own children; women would feed on their afterbirths. It happened to Israel in the siege of Ben-hadad (2 Kgs 6:24-30). Just as the Lord had delighted to prosper and multiply his people, so he would not refrain from destroying them and scattering them among the peoples of the earth (Dt 28:63-67).<\/p>\n<p>In these and other ways the writer of Kings set out to write the history of Israel and Judah to solve a theological dilemma. How was one to reconcile the exile with God’s promises to the nation and David? His answer is twofold: (1) the problem was not with God but with the people’s disobedience—God remains just; (2) the end of the state does not equal the end of the people or the house of David. Here the ending of the book is instructive: Evil-merodach releases Jehoiachin from prison, elevates him above the other kings, and provides his rations (2 Kgs 25:27-30). Even during the exile, though cut down to almost nothing, the house of David still enjoys the favor and blessing of God. God has not abandoned his promises; the people should keep hope.<\/p>\n<p>Other themes in Kings also show the theological motivations underlying the compiler’s selection and arrangement of the data, particularly his use of Deuteronomy as a framework for examining the history of the people. Compare the laws governing the observance of Passover in Exodus 12:1-20 and Deuteronomy 16:1-8: whereas the Passover is centered in the family in Exodus, it is celebrated at the sanctuary in Deuteronomy. The writer of Kings is careful to show that the Passover during the reign of Josiah was celebrated in accordance with the requirements of Deuteronomy (2 Kgs 23:21-23). A passage in Deuteronomy is explicitly cited with reference to Amaziah’s keeping the law (Dt 24:16 in 2 Kgs 14:6).<\/p>\n<h5>Contrast with Chronicles<\/h5>\n<p>The interests of Kings are further highlighted when compared with the parallel accounts in Chronicles. While the writer of Kings worked in the aftermath of the destruction of Jerusalem and had to answer the “how?” and “why?” questions, the Chronicler is part of the restoration community. Here the burning theological questions were not “how?” and “why?” but rather “What continuity do we have with David? Is God still interested in us?” The need is not to account for the exile but rather to relate the postexilic and the preexilic. The building of the second temple and the ordering of worship there show up in increased detail in Chronicles in any matter pertaining to the former temple. Chronicles is a history of Judah and of the Davidic line, reflecting the fact that it alone survives after the exile. Interesting, too, are the things omitted from the account by the Chronicler. Since he is not building a case for an indictment, as was done in Samuel and Kings, he is free to omit references to David’s sin with Bathsheba (2 Sm 11) or to Solomon’s difficulties in gaining the throne (1 Kgs 1–2). Since in his day the northern kingdom had not survived, the Chronicler did not go into detail about the sins of Jeroboam (chs 13–14). Chronicles is interested more in the affairs of the temple and does not show the marked interest in prophetic matters found in Kings, so that the lives of Elijah and Elisha are omitted (1 Kgs 16—2 Kgs 10). Nor does the Chronicler recite the sins that led to the demise of the northern kingdom (2 Kgs 17:1–18:12). In all these examples one can see the interplay of the historical moment and theological concerns of the people and the compilers. Each compiler has selected and arranged the data in accordance with the concerns and needs of the community in which he was a member; comparing the two accounts throws the interests of each into sharp relief.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Content\">Content<\/p>\n\n<p>The books of Kings fall into three parts: (1) the reign of Solomon (1 Kgs 1–11); (2) the history of the divided kingdom (1 Kgs 12–2 Kgs 17); (3) the history of the surviving kingdom in Judah (2 Kgs 18–25).<\/p>\n<h5>The Reign of Solomon (1 Kgs 1–11)<\/h5>\n<p>The record begins with an account of the court intrigue surrounding Solomon’s accession to the throne, set against the backdrop of the abortive coup by Adonijah (ch 1). The dying David charges Solomon to obey the commandments of God (2:1-4) and also to take vengeance on his enemies (vv 5-9). After David’s death Solomon orders the deaths of Adonijah, Joab, and Shimei, and the banishment of Abiathar, the priest who had supported Adonijah in his bid for the throne (vv 13-46). Enemies eliminated, the kingdom was firmly established by Solomon (v 46).<\/p>\n<p>The remainder of Solomon’s reign is divided into two parts: Solomon the good, who follows in the ways of his father, David (chs 3–10); and Solomon the bad, whose heart is led astray (ch 11). While sacrificing at Gibeon, Solomon asks God to give him the gift of wisdom to rule—wisdom promptly demonstrated in the quarrel of two prostitutes about a child (ch 3). An account is given of the administrative organization of the kingdom and the incomparable wisdom of Solomon (ch 4). The compiler of Kings gives extensive coverage to the preparations (ch 5), building (chs 6–7), and dedication (ch 8) of the temple. God appeared to Solomon a second time, reminding him to keep his commandments as David had done (9:1-9). Details are given of the king’s building and commercial activities (vv 10-27). The account of the visit by the queen of Sheba is followed with elaboration of Solomon’s splendor (ch 10). But Solomon did not keep God’s commands; seduced to pagan worship by his foreign wives, he was not fully devoted to the Lord as David had been (11:4), and God determined to take away the northern tribes from the rule of his son (vv 11-13). As punishment from the hand of God, Solomon faced rebellion among conquered peoples (vv 14-25) and within Israel in the person of Jeroboam (vv 26-40).<\/p>\n<h5>History of the Divided Kingdom (1 Kgs 12—2 Kgs 17)<\/h5>\n\n<p>The united monarchy dissolved after the death of Solomon. The northern kingdom (Israel) would exist for about two centuries, would be ruled by 20 kings from nine different dynasties, and would show a history of internal weakness riddled with regicide and usurpation. In contrast, the southern kingdom would last for three and a half centuries and would be ruled by 19 kings of Davidic descent (apart from a short period under the dynastic interloper Athaliah).<\/p>\n<p>There had been a long history of independent action and even warfare between the northern and southern tribes prior to David and Solomon, so it is no surprise that the division would take place along the lines that it did. The immediate cause, however, was the unwise severity with which Rehoboam replied to the representatives of the northern tribes while negotiating for the kingship. Jeroboam, the popular hero of the earlier insurrection against Solomon, became king in the north. He immediately erected the rival sanctuaries at Dan and Bethel (1 Kgs 12); these rival altars became the measure by which the kings of Israel were condemned for following in the sins of Jeroboam.<\/p>\n<p>For two generations there would be warfare between Israel and Judah over the border areas in Benjamin claimed by both sides. Fifty years of sporadic fighting on their mutual frontier, interlaced with invasions from the Arameans in the north or the Egyptians in the south, would consume the reigns of Jeroboam, Nadab, Baasha, Elah, and Zimri in Israel and of Rehoboam, Abijam, and Asa in Judah (1 Kgs 13:1–16:20).<\/p>\n<p>The accession of Omri in Israel introduced a ruling house that would last for a total of four generations and end the dynastic instability of the northern kingdom. Though Kings gives Omri a scant eight verses (1 Kgs 16:21-28), he was among the greatest of the northern kings, forging alliances with the Phoenicians and Judah; for over a century, the Assyrians would call Israel “the house of Omri.”<\/p>\n<p>The reigns of Omri’s successors, Ahab, Ahaziah, and Jehoram, are treated at disproportionate length, taking almost a third of the total book, 16 of 47 chapters (1 Kgs 17—2 Kgs 10). This is due to the fact that the compiler of Kings incorporated extensive coverage of the lives of Elijah and Elisha, weaving a contrast between good and evil by paralleling the dynasty of Omri with these prophets. Ahab and Jezebel were used as foils for the account of Elijah, so that Ahab became a paradigm of the evil king (e.g., 2 Kgs 21:3).<\/p>\n<p>Because of this preoccupation with the dynasty of Omri and the lives of Elijah and Elisha, the equivalent period in Judah is not given as extensive coverage. During this period, the northern kingdom appears to have exercised some hegemony over Judah, as attested by the marriage of an Omride (Athaliah, 2 Kgs 8:18, 26) to Jehoram of Judah and the subservient role of Jehoshaphat to Ahab at the battle of Ramoth-gilead (1 Kgs 22). Judah’s fortunes declined in this period when Edom revolted against Jehoram (2 Kgs 8:20-22), costing Judah control over the port at Ezion-geber and consequent economic losses.<\/p>\n<p>In 842 <span>BC<\/span> Jehu, after being anointed king by a prophet (2 Kgs 9:1-13), led a coup ending the house of Omri and also killing Ahaziah of Judah (vv 14-29). Jehu’s purge also brought the death of Jezebel, Ahab’s family, members of the family of Ahaziah, and the ministers of Baal (9:30–10:36). The consequences were severe politically: the murder of the Phoenician princess Jezebel and the king of Judah cost Israel its allies to the north and south.<\/p>\n<p>Jehu’s dynasty had the longest succession of any in Israel, including Jehoahaz, Jehoash, Jeroboam II, and Zechariah, a period spanning 90 years. Jehu’s murder of Ahaziah of Judah set the stage for the one threat to the continuity of the Davidic dynasty. Queen Athaliah, herself an Omride, seized the throne and attempted a purge of Davidic pretenders. She ruled for six years, until the faithful priest Jehoiada staged a countercoup to place the child Joash on the throne of David (ch 11).<\/p>\n<p>Israel endured a half century of weakness as a result of Jehu’s coup, during which the Arameans had a free hand, reducing the forces of Jehu’s son Jehoahaz to a small army and bodyguard (2 Kgs 13:1-7).<\/p>\n<p>The reemergence of Assyria early in the ninth century <span>BC<\/span> gave relief to Israel and Judah. Assyrian armies conquered the Arameans; with that threat removed, Israel and Judah enjoyed a dramatic resurgence. Jehoash of Israel, grandson of Jehu, reconquered cities lost to the Arameans (2 Kgs 13:25); Elisha died during his reign (v 20). In the south Amaziah reconquered the Edomites (14:7). Amaziah and Jehoash renewed the warfare between the kingdoms, with the north again victorious (vv 8-14).<\/p>\n<p>Under Jeroboam II, Israel enjoyed a period of prosperity when the borders of the kingdom reached the same extent as they had under Solomon (2 Kgs 14:23-28). Uzziah (Azariah), his contemporary in Judah, also fortified Jerusalem and undertook a program of offensive operations extending Judah’s sway to the south (14:21-22; 15:1-7).<\/p>\n<p>Yet this resurgence was but a brilliant sunset in the history of the two kingdoms. After the death of Jeroboam II, the history is one of successive disasters, culminating in the fall of Israel and the subjugation of Judah to the might of Assyria. The next 30 years in Israel would see four dynasties, three represented by only one king, and repeated regicides as the northern kingdom hastened to its demise. A period of civil war and anarchy would see five kings in just over ten years (2 Kgs 15). Heavy tribute was paid to Tiglath-pileser III in both the north and south (15:19-20; 16:7-10). Israel and the Arameans forged a coalition to throw back the Assyrians and sought to press Ahaz of Judah into the fight; Ahaz appealed to Tiglath-pileser III for help. The coalition was destroyed, and Israel and Judah became vassals. Hoshea defected as soon as he felt safe, looking to Egypt for help, but it was suicide for the northern kingdom. Shalmaneser V retaliated, and the political history of the state of Israel came to an end (17:1-23). The area was resettled with other displaced populations (vv 24-41).<\/p>\n<p>Israel had faced the Arameans and survived, only to fall to Assyria. And now, similarly, Judah would outlast Assyria, only to fall to Babylon.<\/p>\n<h5>History of the Surviving Kingdom of Judah (2 Kgs 18–25)<\/h5>\n<p>Ahaz’s appeal for Assyrian aid cost him his liberty, and Judah became a vassal of the Assyrian Empire. Illegitimate worship flourished under his rule (2 Kgs 16:1-19). Ahaz was succeeded by the first of the outstanding reform kings of Judah: Hezekiah. Much of the account of his reign is given to his rebellion against Sennacherib of Assyria: the rebellion, the Assyrian envoys and threats, Isaiah’s assurances of deliverance, and the destruction of the Assyrian armies (18:9–19:37). Hezekiah’s illness was averted after a sign and oracle from Isaiah (20:1-11). As part of what appears to be negotiations toward an anti-Assyrian alliance, Hezekiah also entertained envoys from Babylon, a decision that the prophet announced would be costly (vv 12-21).<\/p>\n<p>Hezekiah was followed by Manasseh, who ruled longer than any other king of Judah (a total of 55 years). His reign was marked by great apostasy—apostasy so severe that the compiler of Kings regarded his reign as sufficient reason for the exile that was unavoidable (2 Kgs 21:1-18; cf. 23:26; 24:3-4; Jer 15:1-4). Manasseh was followed by his son Amon, a carbon copy of his father, who ruled only two years before he was deposed by the people (2 Kings 21:19-26).<\/p>\n<p>The second great reform king of Judah, Josiah, followed. In his reign the Book of the Law was found while the temple was being refurbished; he led the people in a renewal of the covenant and suppressed illegitimate worship (2 Kgs 22:1–23:14). The Assyrian Empire was in rapid decline, so Josiah extended his borders to the north, destroying the altar at Bethel and the high places throughout Samaria (23:15-20). A great Passover celebration was convened in Jerusalem, and further measures were taken to rectify worship (vv 21-25). Josiah tried to block Pharaoh Neco’s foray to assist Assyria, and he lost his life at Megiddo (vv 26-30).<\/p>\n<p>Josiah was the only king of Judah to have three of his sons succeed him. At his death the people put Jehoahaz on the throne, but Neco removed him three months later and took him to Egypt in chains (2 Kgs 23:31-33), replacing him with another son of Josiah, Eliakim, whose name was changed to Jehoiakim (vv 34-37). During his reign, Nebuchadnezzar conquered Judah, and Jehoiakim became his vassal. Late in his life Jehoiakim rebelled against Nebuchadnezzar. Jehoiakim died, leaving his son Jehoiachin to face retaliation from Babylon (24:1-10). Nebuchadnezzar besieged Jerusalem; when the city fell, Jehoiachin, the queen mother, the army, and the leaders of the land were carried away captive. Nebuchadnezzar put Mattaniah (uncle of Jehoiachin and third son of Josiah) on the throne, changing his name to Zedekiah (vv 11-17). Nine years later Zedekiah, too, would rebel against Babylon. Nebuchadnezzar besieged the city for two years and, when it fell, utterly destroyed it. Zedekiah’s sons were killed before his eyes, and then his own eyes were put out, and he was taken to Babylon (24:18–25:21). Nebuchadnezzar appointed Gedaliah to rule as governor from nearby Mizpah; he was assassinated, and the conspirators fled to Egypt (25:22-26).<\/p>\n<p>The book concludes by showing that God had not forgotten his promise to David, mentioning that in captivity Jehoiachin enjoyed favor from the hand of Evil-merodach, successor of Nebuchadnezzar (2 Kgs 25:27-30).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Chronicles, Books of First and Second.<\/p>","summary_ro":"KINGS, Books of First and Second Books continuing the history of the covenant people as recorded in Joshua, Judges, and the books of Samuel. The record in Kings begins with the events at the end of David’s reign (1 Kgs 1–2). It continues through the reign of Solomon (chs 3–11); the histories of the divided kingdoms (1 Kgs 12—2 Kgs 17); and the history of the surviving kingdom in the south, through its fall in 586 BC and the subsequent kindness shown Jehoiachin by Evil-merodach, king of Babylo...","summary_en":"KINGS, Books of First and Second Books continuing the history of the covenant people as recorded in Joshua, Judges, and the books of Samuel. The record in Kings begins with the events at the end of David’s reign (1 Kgs 1–2). It continues through the reign of Solomon (chs 3–11); the histories of the divided kingdoms (1 Kgs 12—2 Kgs 17); and the history of the surviving kingdom in the south, through its fall in 586 BC and the subsequent kindness shown Jehoiachin by Evil-merodach, king of Babylo...","source":"Articles\/K.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":36998,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Temple","title_en":"Temple","content_ro":"<h3>TEMPLE<\/h3>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Background<\/p>\n<p>• Solomon’s Temple<\/p>\n<p>• Zerubbabel’s Temple<\/p>\n<p>• Herod’s Temple<\/p>\n<p>• Significance of the Temple in the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>• Significance of the Temple in the New Testament<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Background\">Background<\/p>\n<p>David’s capture of Jerusalem (2 Sm 5:6-9) and his designation of it as the nation’s capital is one of the great masterstrokes of history. Occupied by the Jebusites, it was a pocket of neutral territory between the northern and southern sections of David’s united kingdom and was politically acceptable to both. Jerusalem was then established as the national religious center by the return of the ark, which had been largely neglected since its capture by the Philistines (2 Sm 6:1-17). Henceforth, God’s choices of both David and Jerusalem (“Mount Zion”) were indissolubly linked (Ps 78:67-72).<\/p>\n<p>David’s great impulse was to build an adequate dwelling place for Israel’s God. The idea was initially approved by Nathan the prophet (2 Sm 7:1-3), but God revealed otherwise to him, and he conveyed the divine purpose to David (vv 4-17). In a significant wordplay, David was informed that, while he was not to build a house (temple) for God, God would build a house (dynasty) for him. David was not the one to build a temple because of the numerous wars during his reign; the temple would instead be built by his son (1 Kgs 5:3; 1 Chr 22:7-8; 28:3). Nevertheless, David enthusiastically amassed most of the necessary finances and materials and drew up the blueprints for the temple (1 Chr 22:3-5, 14; 28:2, 11-19). He also purchased the temple site (21:25).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"SolomonsTemple\">Solomon’s Temple<\/p>\n\n<h5>Date<\/h5>\n<p>Construction commenced in Solomon’s fourth year, about 966 <span>BC<\/span>, and took seven years to complete (1 Kgs 6:1, 38). Everything necessary for the temple, including the workers, had been prepared by David (1 Chr 28:21). The temple evidently had first priority among Solomon’s building schemes, as he built his own palace later (1 Kgs 7:1).<\/p>\n<h5>Superintendents and Workforce<\/h5>\n<p>The principal architect for the bronze furnishings was Huram (Hebrew “Hiram”), whose father was a metal craftsman from Tyre and whose mother was an Israelite (1 Kgs 7:13-14). Cedar for the temple came from Lebanon and was felled and transported by the skilled woodsmen of another Hiram—the king of Tyre, Solomon’s ally (5:5-9). Thirty thousand Israelites, divided into three groups, were drafted to assist at Lebanon. Each group was on duty for one month in three. For the stonework, Solomon conscripted 153,600 foreigners resident in Israel to provide a self-contained group of carriers, stone cutters, and supervisors (vv 15-17; 2 Chr 2:17-18). Possibly the “men of Gebal,” with their specialized skills, formed yet another group (1 Kgs 5:18). Building the temple was obviously a national project of immense size and effort. In order to preserve the sanctity of the site and to eliminate noise, the masonry and carpentry were not done at the temple site (6:7).<\/p>\n<h5>Description<\/h5>\n<p>The details given in the Bible are sufficiently clear for us to make a reasonably accurate description of the temple. The accounts in Kings and Chronicles are supplemented by Ezekiel’s depiction of the temple (see below), which was broadly based on his knowledge of the Jerusalem temple (Ez 40–48).<\/p>\n<p>The side rooms probably rested on a foundation or platform that was separate from the temple itself (1 Kgs 6:5, 10; cf. Ez 41:8-9) and were arranged in three stories, each seven and a half feet (2.3 meters) high, extending around the whole building except for the porch side. Each successive story was one and a half feet (.5 meter) wider than the one below, these dimensions coinciding with the thickness of the side wall of the Holy Place. The ground floor rooms were seven and a half feet (2.3 meters) wide; the first story was nine feet (2.7 meters), and the second was ten and a half feet (3.2 meters). Access to the upper stories was possibly by winding staircases (1 Kgs 6:8). There is some uncertainty concerning the location of the entrances; there may have been one on either side, but only one is mentioned (v 8). As in Ezekiel’s temple (Ez 40:17, 28), there were two adjacent courts, an inner and an outer (1 Kgs 6:36; 7:12), but no dimensions are given for these. The inner court, or “court of the priests,” being next to the temple itself, was also called “the upper court” (2 Chr 4:9; Jer 36:10). The wall of the inner court was made of three layers of hewn stone held together by a layer of cedar beams (1 Kgs 6:36), and the doors of both courts were sheathed in bronze (2 Chr 4:9). The palace buildings were within the outer court area, probably with a private passageway between the palace and the temple that was later closed during the reign of Ahaz (2 Chr 4:9, 12; 2 Kgs 16:18).<\/p>\n<p>The temple itself was 90 feet (27.4 meters) long, 30 feet (9.1 meters) wide, and 45 feet (13.7 meters) high (1 Kgs 6:2), with a porch or vestibule 15 feet (4.6 meters) deep stretching across the width. Probably the vestibule was on the east end of the temple, thus corresponding with the orientation of Ezekiel’s temple (Ez 43:1; 44:1). The larger part of the main sanctuary, next to the porch, formed the Holy Place, which was 60 feet (18.3 meters) long (1 Kgs 6:17). Beyond this was the innermost sanctuary, the Holy of Holies (or the “Most Holy Place“), which was a perfect cube of 30 feet (9.1 meters). All the interior walls were paneled with cedar decorated with flower patterns, cherubim, and palm trees, so that no masonry was visible. The walls of both inner and outer sanctuaries were “overlaid” (v 22) with pure gold. Actually the gold decoration may have been inlaid, on the basis that a solid sheath of gold would spoil the natural beauty of the wood carving. The floor was made of cypress planks (v 15). Narrow windows set high in the walls above the level of the three-storied outer chambers provided light in the Holy Place (v 4). The ceiling was paneled with beams and planks of cedar. No detail is given about the exterior roofing, but probably the contemporary technique was employed, using a wooden, latticelike framework into which a waterproof, limestone plaster was packed and rolled.<\/p>\n<p>The outer porch was apparently an open space, since no doors are mentioned. Access into the Holy Place was by double doors, both hinged to fold back on themselves, made of cypress and decorated in exactly the same way as the interior walls (vv 34-35). The doorposts were made of olive wood. Within the Holy Place was the altar of incense made of cedar overlaid with gold; it was placed centrally before the Holy of Holies. Also in the Holy Place were a table for the bread of the Presence of God, ten lampstands arranged in two groups of five on either side, and various utensils required for maintaining the priestly duties (1 Kgs 7:48-50). All these were made or overlaid with gold. The ten tables, arranged five on each side, were presumably for the utensils and accessories (2 Chr 4:8).<\/p>\n<p>Between the Holy Place and the Holy of Holies was a double door made of olive wood, carved with cherubim, palm trees, and flower patterns and overlaid with gold. Inside these doors, veiling still further the Holy of Holies, was a blue, purple, and crimson curtain, made of the finest fabrics and ornamented with cherubim (2 Chr 3:14).<\/p>\n<p>In the Holy of Holies were two cherubim, each 15 feet (4.6 meters) high and made of olive wood covered with gold (1 Kgs 6:23-28). Each wing measured seven and a half feet (2.3 meters). A wing of each touched the side walls; the other wings met at the center of the room. The divine throne had been considerably less impressive in the tabernacle, where a wing of each cherubim fused into the mercy seat above the ark (Ex 25:17-22). In Solomon’s temple, the ark of the covenant was placed below the forward-facing cherubim, the symbolic protectors. The ark, the only major item surviving from the Mosaic tabernacle, still contained the tablets of the law, but the pot of manna and Aaron’s rod were missing (1 Kgs 8:9).<\/p>\n<p>Immediately outside the temple and on either side of the vestibule were two hollow bronze pillars (1 Kgs 7:15-20; 2 Chr 3:15-17). According to the book of Kings, these pillars were 27 feet (8.2 meters) high, with a circumference of 18 feet (5.5 meters). The metal itself was about four inches (10.2 centimeters) thick. The pillars were surmounted by bronze, lily-shaped capitals seven and a half feet (2.3 meters) high and six feet (1.8 meters) wide, intricately adorned with a chain latticework that supported two rows of pomegranates. The total weight must have been enormous, and their size is attested to by Jeremiah, who notes that the Babylonians had to break them in pieces before transporting them to Babylon (Jer 52:17, 21-23).<\/p>\n<p>The bronze altar of sacrifice in front of the vestibule is not listed in the specifications of 1 Kings 7. However, it is mentioned in the temple dedication and subsequently (1 Kgs 8:22, 54, 64; 9:25) and clearly stood in the inner court. Its dimensions were 30 feet (9.1 meters) square and 15 feet (4.6 meters) high (2 Chr 4:1). In view of its weight, it was probably cast in sections at Solomon’s foundry in the Jordan Rift valley (vv 17-18) and then transported to the temple site for assembly.<\/p>\n<p>Probably the most striking article in the inner court was the “molten (bronze) sea,” a huge, round tank made of bronze 3 inches (8 centimeters) thick, 7½ feet (2.3 meters) high, and 15 feet (4.6 meters) in diameter (1 Kgs 7:23-26). Its rim flared out like a lily (2 Chr 4:2-5). The tank was supported on 12 bronze oxen, four on each side, and had two rows of decoration, possibly gourds or pomegranates, under the brim. Its capacity was between 10,000 and 12,000 gallons (37,850–45,420 liters). The bronze sea was used for priestly ablutions (v 6). Presumably this involved a platform of sorts, for the brim of this vast basin would have been about 15 feet (4.6 meters) above ground level.<\/p>\n<p>Hiram also constructed ten large lavers, mounted on moveable stands and placed in two groups of five, on the north and south sides of the inner court (1 Kgs 7:27-39). Basically the stands were bronze boxes, six feet (1.8 meters) square and four and a half feet (1.4 meters) high with a nine-inch (22.9-centimeter) rim around the top edge. Each corner was attached to braced posts to which the axles were fixed. The four-spoked wheels were 27 inches (68.6 centimeters) high. Into each stand there fitted a laver containing approximately 220 gallons (832.7 liters) of water, used for washing sacrificial animals (2 Chr 4:6). Probably each was adjacent to one of the ten tables that would be used to flay and otherwise prepare the sacrifices (v 8). Supplementary items, such as pots, shovels, and basins, all made of bronze, were also manufactured (1 Kgs 7:40, 45).<\/p>\n<h5>The Dedication<\/h5>\n<p>Eleven months elapsed between the completion of the temple and its dedication (1 Kgs 6:38; 8:2), during which time the major items of furniture were set in place. The dedication itself took place in the seventh month, presumably in connection with the Feast of Tabernacles and the Day of Atonement (Lv 23:23-36). The ark of the covenant was brought into its final resting place (1 Kgs 8:3-4), but the inner court proved inadequate for the vast numbers of beasts sacrificed (1 Kgs 8:62-64; 2 Chr 7:7).<\/p>\n<p>The temple employed the most sophisticated building techniques of the age, and no expense had been spared in construction, ornamentation, or equipment. Yet Solomon readily confessed its utter inadequacy to house the eternal God (1 Kgs 8:27). His prayer also underlined Israel’s propensity to forsake the Lord, contrasting the nation with God, who, though a just judge, was also merciful and faithful. The climax of the proceedings came when fire from heaven consumed the sacrifices and the shekinah glory filled the temple (2 Chr 7:1-3).<\/p>\n<h5>Later History<\/h5>\n<p>Like most ancient shrines, the temple became a treasury for national wealth and as such was often the target for attack. Shishak of Egypt plundered it within five years of Solomon’s death (1 Kgs 14:25-38). Shortly afterward, King Asa (910–869 <span>BC<\/span>) depleted its gold and silver treasures to buy Syrian help against his oppressor, Baasha (908–886 <span>BC<\/span>), king of Israel (15:16-19). Joash, the king of Judah (835–796 <span>BC<\/span>) who was concealed in the temple from the vicious Athaliah during his youth (2 Kgs 11), made provision for its repair after protesting the priests’ embezzlement of gifts (12:4-16). But after the death of Jehoiada, the high priest, Joash himself was adversely influenced by his nobles (2 Chr 24:15-19). As punishment for his apostasy, the Lord allowed the Syrians to attack, and Joash used the temple treasures to buy them off (2 Kgs 12:17-18). Hardly had provision for replacements been made, when Jehoash of Israel (798–782 <span>BC<\/span>), having shattered the arrogant pride of Amaziah of Judah (796–767 <span>BC<\/span>), again stripped the temple (14:8-14). Later, King Ahaz (735-715 <span>BC<\/span>) used the remaining resources of the temple to enlist support from the Assyrians (16:7-9), though he eventually became completely subservient to them.<\/p>\n<p> Then Hezekiah (715–686 <span>BC<\/span>), one of the great reforming kings, thoroughly renovated the temple and restored worship after it had fallen into disuse during theclosing years of Ahaz (2 Chr 29:1-19; 31:9-21). Manasseh (696–642 <span>BC<\/span>), however, completely reversed his father’s policy, bringing the practices of Canaanite and Mesopotamian worship into the temple (2 Kgs 21:3-7). His conversion experience, which probably occurred late in his reign and resulted in certain reform measures in the temple (2 Chr 33:12-19), was not far-reaching enough to escape the final judgment that his reign was the dark spot of Judah’s history (2 Kgs 21:10-16).<\/p>\n<p>Manasseh’s grandson Josiah (640–609 <span>BC<\/span>), was the second great reforming king. He organized the repair of the temple in 622 <span>BC<\/span>, during which the lost Book of the Law (almost certainly the book of Deuteronomy) was discovered (2 Kgs 22:3-13). As a result, Josiah’s reformation gained a new dimension and sense of urgency (22:14–23:3). The reformation included a thorough purge of all idolatrous elements from the temple (23:4-12) and the restoration of the traditional festivals. Sadly, however, Josiah’s reformation died with him, and Judah’s downward slide continued under the apostate Jehoiakim (609–598 <span>BC<\/span>). It was probably during this time that Jeremiah preached his famous temple sermon foretelling its destruction (Jer 7:1–8:3; 26:1-19), which alienated him from the religious leaders. In Nebuchadnezzar’s reprisal raid following Jehoiakim’s rebellion in 601 <span>BC<\/span> (2 Kgs 24:1-4), Jerusalem was captured (596 <span>BC<\/span>) and many of the temple treasures were transported to Babylon (2 Chr 36:7). The temple itself appears to have escaped damage, but when Judah again rebelled under Zedekiah (597–586 <span>BC<\/span>), the temple was demolished (2 Kgs 25:8-10). The remaining temple treasures were taken away.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"ZerubbabelsTemple\">Zerubbabel’s Temple<\/p>\n<h5>Construction<\/h5>\n<p>Although the temple was devastated, the site still remained as a place of pilgrimage during the exile (Jer 41:4-5). In 538 <span>BC<\/span> the Persian king, Cyrus, in pursuance of a liberal policy diametrically opposed to that of the earlier empires, permitted the Jews to return from exile. And he authorized the rebuilding of the temple, financing it from the Persian treasury.<\/p>\n<p>In the book of Ezra, the decree of authorization has been preserved in two forms: the general proclamation (Ezr 1:2-4) and a more prosaic memorandum in the national archives indicating the main temple specifications and the amount of promised Persian help (6:1-5). Probably only a minority of the Jews opted to leave the relative comforts of Mesopotamia for the dangers of a long journey to their desolated homeland. According to the book of Ezra, 42,360 dedicated individuals and their servants (2:64-65) responded under the leadership of Sheshbazzar (1:8-11; 5:14-16) and Zerubbabel (2:2; 3:2, 8; 4:2). With great enthusiasm, the altar was rebuilt on the temple site and the traditional pattern of worship reestablished (3:1-6). Utilizing the grant from Persia as well as their own freewill gifts (2:68-69; 3:7), the Jews began to plan the second temple and lay its foundations (3:7-13). The initial impetus quickly died as a result of local opposition (4:1-4, 24), selfish preoccupation, and crop failures (Hg 1:2-11). In 520 <span>BC<\/span> (Ezr 4:24; Hg 1:1; Zec 1:1), inspired by the prophets Haggai and Zechariah, the Jews under Zerubbabel and Joshua the high priest commenced rebuilding. Work continued in spite of official suspicion, if not direct opposition, and the temple was completed and dedicated in 515 <span>BC<\/span> (Ezr 5:1–6:22).<\/p>\n<p>Little is known of the physical features of Zerubbabel’s temple. The inference that it was vastly inferior to Solomon’s temple (Hg 2:3) probably relates to an early stage in the building operation. In fact, the second temple stood for over 500 years. The dimensions noted in Ezra 6:3 are incomplete; the new temple was no doubt about the same size as its predecessor and was probably built on the same foundation. The construction technique appears to have followed the method of the original, with layers of timber providing a framework for sections of masonry (v 4). Clearly, there was auxiliary accommodation, probably like the side rooms of Solomon’s temple (Ezr 8:29; Neh 12:44; 13:4-5). If Persian aid was forthcoming as promised (Ezr 6:8-12), the second temple was a more splendid, substantial structure than is generally supposed.<\/p>\n<h5>Later History<\/h5>\n<p>Several references in the Apocrypha, pseudepigrapha, rabbinic writings, and the historian Josephus help to illumine the history of the temple and give more detail on its structure and furnishings. Josephus, quoting from Hecateus of Abdera (fourth century <span>BC<\/span>), states that the temple was a large building in an enclosure about 500 feet by 150 feet (152.4 meters by 45.7 meters), surrounded by a stone wall, with an altar of unhewn stones the same size as Solomon’s bronze altar (cf. 2 Chr 4:1). Within the sanctuary was a golden altar of incense and a lampstand, the flame of which burned continually. Josephus also notes that Antiochus III (223–187 <span>BC<\/span>) financially supported the temple when the Seleucids displaced the Ptolemies as masters of Jerusalem.<\/p>\n<p>Ben Sirach, early in the second century <span>BC<\/span>, commended Simon, the son of Onias the high priest, for his work in fortifying and repairing the temple area. First Maccabees provides valuable evidence of the fate of the temple during the oppression under Antiochus IV Epiphanes (175–164 <span>BC<\/span>). The books of the Maccabees recount the defilement of the altar of burnt offering (1 Macc 1:54) and the plundering of the golden lampstand, altar of incense, table of offering, veil, and other treasures (2 Macc 5:15-16; 6:2-4). When the temple was recaptured and restored, the victorious Maccabees replaced the items taken by the Seleucids, except for the altar of sacrifice, which was considered so polluted that it was dismantled and replaced by a new one constructed of unhewn stone (1 Macc 4:36-61; 2 Macc 10:1-9). Clearly the temple area was used as a fortress, both in opposition to the Seleucid garrison that was maintained in Jerusalem in the Maccabean period and in the conflicts of the later Hasmonean period. When Pompey captured Jerusalem about 63 <span>BC<\/span>, he entered the temple to assert his authority but took no plunder, thus showing respect for it.<\/p>\n<p>The history of Zerubbabel’s temple closed when Herod, having carefully preserved it from any major damage when he gained control of Jerusalem with Roman aid in 37 <span>BC<\/span>, began to dismantle it about 21 <span>BC<\/span> in preparation for the construction of his own grand temple.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"HerodsTemple\">Herod’s Temple<\/p>\n<p>Apart from over 100 references in the NT, our main sources of information about Herod’s temple come from the Jewish historian Josephus and from the Middoth (a section of the Jewish rabbinic writings). There are considerable differences in detail between the two, which rules out any dogmatic interpretation in attempted reconstructions. Since Josephus was contemporary with the temple (he was born about <span>AD<\/span> 37 and died early in the second century), he is probably more reliable than the Middoth, which, dating from about <span>AD<\/span> 150, appears to exaggerate occasionally. Archaeological research has been helpful in determining the positions of the outer walls and gates.<\/p>\n<p>Herod’s motive in building his temple was political rather than religious. As an Idumean, he wished to placate his Jewish subjects by constructing a sanctuary as magnificent as Solomon’s. Possible fears that the site might be profaned, or that the existing temple might be demolished and never rebuilt, were allayed by the training of 1,000 priests as masons and the amassing of materials before the work commenced. Herod’s temple followed the tripartite plan of its predecessors, although its porch was much larger. It was built in the contemporary Greco-Roman architectural style and must therefore be regarded as distinct from Zerubbabel’s temple. Work began in 20 <span>BC<\/span>, and while the main sanctuary was quickly erected (it was in full operation within ten years), the total project was not completed until <span>AD<\/span> 64, only six years before it was destroyed by the Romans.<\/p>\n<p>Herod first prepared the site by clearing and leveling an area approximately 500 yards (457.2 meters) from north to south and about 325 yards (297.2 meters) from east to west. This involved cutting away sections of rock in some areas and building up with rubble in others. Considerable sections of the enclosing wall, constructed on stone blocks averaging about 15 feet (4.6 meters) long by 4 feet (1.2 meters) high, still survive. Some of the stones in the corners of the south wall weigh up to 70 tons (63.5 metric tons).<\/p>\n<p>The sanctuary itself seems to have been based on the same dimensions as Solomon’s temple. It was divided into the Holy Place, which was 60 feet (18.3 meters) long, 30 feet (9.1 meters) wide, and 60 feet high, and the Holy of Holies, which was 30 feet square. There was no furniture within the Holy of Holies, which was separated by a veil from the Holy Place. The Holy Place contained the seven-branch lampstand, the table for the bread of the Presence, and the incense altar. The main divergence from Solomon’s temple was the imposing porch, 150 feet (45.7 meters) in width and height. Outside was a doorway approximately 30 feet (9.1 meters) wide by 40 feet (12.2 meters) high, with an inner doorway about half that size leading into the sanctuary. By allowing empty rooms over the Holy of Holies and the Holy Place, there was a uniform roof height of 150 feet (45.7 meters). Golden spikes on the roof discouraged birds from alighting and defiling the structure. Like its predecessors, the temple was oriented toward the east and was surrounded on the other sides by three stories of rooms rising to a height of 60 feet (18.3 meters). The stone used was the local white stone, cut in huge blocks and highly polished.<\/p>\n<p>Access to the porch was by a flight of 12 steps from the Court of the Priests. Centrally placed before the porch and 33 feet (10.1 meters) away was the altar of sacrifice. Made of unhewn stone, it was a multilevel construction 15 feet (4.6 meters) high and about 48 feet (14.6 meters) square at its base. Male Israelites were allowed into this area once a year, during the Feast of the Tabernacles, to walk around the altar of sacrifice. Otherwise, they were restricted to the Court of Israel. To the east of the Court of Israel, and separated from it by a flight of 15 steps and by the ornate Great Gate, made of Corinthian bronze, was the Court of the Women. Here the offertory chests for temple expenses were located (Mk 12:41-44). The next court was the large, lower, outer Court of the Gentiles, which surrounded the inner courts and was separated from them by a balustrade and a series of warning notices. Two of these have been excavated, written in Latin and Greek and forbidding trespass by Gentiles into the inner areas, on pain of death. This outer court was widely used. Immediately inside its walls was a portico, supported by four rows of columns almost 40 feet (12.2 meters) high on the south side (the Royal Porch), and two rows on the other sides, the eastern portico known as “Solomon’s Porch” or “Solomon’s Colonnade.” Here is the area where the stalls of the money changers and merchants were set up, where the Sanhedrin met, and where Christ and the scribes taught and debated (Mk 11:27; Lk 2:46; 19:47; Jn 10:23). Here, too, the infant church met before it was rejected by a hostile Judaism (Acts 3:11; 5:12). Just to the northwest of the temple enclosure was the Fortress of Antonia, where the Roman governor resided while in Jerusalem, and where a Roman garrison was on hand to deal with disturbances (Acts 21:31-40). Overlooking the temple area, it was separated from it by a wide moat. The high priest’s vestments were stored in the fortress as a symbol of Roman authority. Access to the Court of the Gentiles was by four gates in the west wall; two in the south wall, where the ground fell away steeply into the valley, a site often identified as the pinnacle of the temple (Mt 4:5; Lk 4:9); and one gate in each of the east and north walls.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"SignificanceoftheTempleintheOldTestament\">Significance of the Temple in the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>The temple in Jerusalem functioned as the focal point of the tribal confederation. In spite of the attempt of Jeroboam I, the first king of the northern kingdom, to divert attention from Jerusalem by establishing shrines at Bethel and Dan (1 Kgs 12:26-30), Jerusalem never lost its preeminence. Naturally, both Hezekiah and Josiah sought to extend their reformation into the area of the northern tribes (2 Chr 30:1-12; 34:6-7), and Jerusalem was a pilgrimage center for those areas even after its destruction (Jer 41:5). The prophets foretold its destiny as the focal point of universal worship (Is 2:1-4).<\/p>\n<p>The temple was God’s dwelling place among his people. God’s presence, symbolized in the shekinah glory and the pillar of cloud, was associated with the tent of meeting (Ex 33:9-11), with the tabernacle (40:34-38), and finally with the temple (1 Kgs 8:10-11). The paradox is that while God is completely unrestricted, the temple was considered a place for God to live forever (vv 13, 27). God had chosen Zion, as he had chosen David (Pss 68:15-18; 76:2; 78:67-72), so the temple was regarded as God’s house (27:4; 42:4; 84:1-4).<\/p>\n<h5>Ezekiel’s Temple<\/h5>\n<p>Ezekiel’s detailed description of the ideal temple (Ez 40–48) was not used as the blueprint for Zerubbabel’s temple. In fact, since Ezekiel must have been familiar with Solomon’s temple before his deportation in 597 <span>BC<\/span>, his description is of greater help in determining uncertain details of the first temple. Ezekiel’s concern was to show the nature of pure worship, safeguarded from all contamination. This worship would allow the glory of God, which had departed from corrupted Solomon’s temple (9:3; 10:4, 18-19: 11:22-23), to return so that Jerusalem could again be named “the Lord is there” (43:1-5; 48:35). This thought, linked with Ezekiel’s vital concept of God’s Spirit indwelling his faithful worshipers (36:24-28), anticipated the NT teaching of the believers becoming God’s temple.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"SignificanceoftheTempleintheNewTestament\">Significance of the Temple in the New Testament<\/p>\n<h5>Christ and the Temple<\/h5>\n<p>Christ showed considerable respect for the temple. When he was 12 years old, he entered into the rabbinic discussions in its porticoes and described it as his Father’s house (Lk 2:41-50). To him “the house of God” was indwelt by God (Mt 12:4; 23:21). Although he twice cleansed it in righteous anger (Mt 21:12-13; Jn 2:13-16), he wept over the impending destruction of the city and temple (Lk 19:41-44). He often taught there, but he was “greater than the temple” (Mt 12:6). When his presentation to Jerusalem as the predicted Messiah was rejected, in spite of attendant miracles, he foretold its inevitable destruction (Mt 21:9-15; 24:1-2). For a brief period after Pentecost, the early church used the temple as its meeting place, until mounting opposition drove believers from Jerusalem (Acts 5:12, 21, 42; 8:1).<\/p>\n<h5>The Church as the Temple<\/h5>\n<p>The NT writers used two different Greek words to describe the temple: <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">naos<\/span> and <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">hieron<\/span><em>.<\/em> <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">Naos<\/span> refers to the actual sanctuary of the temple, the place of God’s dwelling. <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">Hieron<\/span> refers to the temple precincts as well as to the sanctuary. Generally speaking, <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">naos<\/span> was used to designate the inner section of the temple known as the Holy Place and the Holy of Holies, whereas <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">hieron<\/span> included the outer court and the temple proper.<\/p>\n<p>In Paul’s epistles the word <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">naos<\/span> appears six times (1 Cor 3:16-17; 6:19; 2 Cor 6:16; Eph 2:21; 2 Thes 2:4) and <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">hieron<\/span> once (1 Cor 9:13). In these verses Paul maintains the distinction of definition noted above. When speaking of the actual physical temple, he used the word <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">hieron<\/span> to indicate the place where the priests offered up animal sacrifices on the altar (1 Cor 9:13), which was situated in the outer court (see Ex 27–29, 40). And when Paul referred to the abominable act of the lawless one in usurping God’s place in the temple, he used the word <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">naos<\/span>—the word that designates the place of deity’s presence (2 Thes 2:4).<\/p>\n<p>In all the other Pauline passages, <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">naos<\/span> is used metaphorically—to depict a human habitation for the divine Spirit. In one instance the sanctuary image is used to describe the individual believer’s body (1 Cor 6:19); in every other instance the sanctuary depicts Christ’s body, the church (1 Cor 3:16-17; 2 Cor 6:16; Eph 2:21). Mistakenly, many readers think 1 Corinthians 3:16-17 speaks of the individual, but according to the Greek text, it is unquestionably clear that Paul was speaking about the collective church (specifically, the church in Corinth).<\/p>\n<p>When Paul told the church in Corinth that it was God’s sanctuary, they would have understood the image from their knowledge of pagan temples. But Paul probably had in mind the one temple in Jerusalem. The Gentiles had many gods with many temples in one city; the Jews had one God with only one temple in all of Israel. This helped to preserve unity among the Israelites. The Corinthians needed spiritual unity; they were fragmented due to their individual preferences (see 1 Cor 1:10-13).<\/p>\n<p>In Ephesians, Paul’s masterpiece on the church, he speaks of the local churches as living, organic entities that are all (compositely speaking) growing into a holy sanctuary in the Lord (Eph 2:21). Paul pictured each local church as providing God with a spiritual habitation in that locality (v 22) and as growing together with all the other churches into one holy, universal sanctuary for the Lord’s indwelling.<\/p>\n<h5>The Temple in John’s Revelation<\/h5>\n<p>In John’s revelation there is no material temple, even though he continues to use the imagery of Jerusalem and Mt Zion (Rv 3:12; 14:1; 21:2, 10, 22). Three interrelated ideas dominate. First is the concept of the church made up of martyrs, whose faithful members are God’s temple (3:12; 14:1). This temple grows gradually as the number of martyrs increases (6:11). Another aspect is the temple as the place of judgment (11:19; 14:15; 15:5–16:1). Finally, any temple in the new age is unnecessary, “for its temple is the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb” (21:22). The ultimate state will be God’s dwelling with his people—the eternal, spritual temple.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Altar; Ark of the Covenant; Bread of the Presence; David; Feasts and Festivals of Israel; First Jewish Revolt; Judaism; Mercy Seat; Offerings and Sacrifices; Priests and Levites; Sanctuary; Singers in the Temple; Solomon (Person).<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>TEMPLE<\/h3>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Background<\/p>\n<p>• Solomon’s Temple<\/p>\n<p>• Zerubbabel’s Temple<\/p>\n<p>• Herod’s Temple<\/p>\n<p>• Significance of the Temple in the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>• Significance of the Temple in the New Testament<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Background\">Background<\/p>\n<p>David’s capture of Jerusalem (2 Sm 5:6-9) and his designation of it as the nation’s capital is one of the great masterstrokes of history. Occupied by the Jebusites, it was a pocket of neutral territory between the northern and southern sections of David’s united kingdom and was politically acceptable to both. Jerusalem was then established as the national religious center by the return of the ark, which had been largely neglected since its capture by the Philistines (2 Sm 6:1-17). Henceforth, God’s choices of both David and Jerusalem (“Mount Zion”) were indissolubly linked (Ps 78:67-72).<\/p>\n<p>David’s great impulse was to build an adequate dwelling place for Israel’s God. The idea was initially approved by Nathan the prophet (2 Sm 7:1-3), but God revealed otherwise to him, and he conveyed the divine purpose to David (vv 4-17). In a significant wordplay, David was informed that, while he was not to build a house (temple) for God, God would build a house (dynasty) for him. David was not the one to build a temple because of the numerous wars during his reign; the temple would instead be built by his son (1 Kgs 5:3; 1 Chr 22:7-8; 28:3). Nevertheless, David enthusiastically amassed most of the necessary finances and materials and drew up the blueprints for the temple (1 Chr 22:3-5, 14; 28:2, 11-19). He also purchased the temple site (21:25).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"SolomonsTemple\">Solomon’s Temple<\/p>\n\n<h5>Date<\/h5>\n<p>Construction commenced in Solomon’s fourth year, about 966 <span>BC<\/span>, and took seven years to complete (1 Kgs 6:1, 38). Everything necessary for the temple, including the workers, had been prepared by David (1 Chr 28:21). The temple evidently had first priority among Solomon’s building schemes, as he built his own palace later (1 Kgs 7:1).<\/p>\n<h5>Superintendents and Workforce<\/h5>\n<p>The principal architect for the bronze furnishings was Huram (Hebrew “Hiram”), whose father was a metal craftsman from Tyre and whose mother was an Israelite (1 Kgs 7:13-14). Cedar for the temple came from Lebanon and was felled and transported by the skilled woodsmen of another Hiram—the king of Tyre, Solomon’s ally (5:5-9). Thirty thousand Israelites, divided into three groups, were drafted to assist at Lebanon. Each group was on duty for one month in three. For the stonework, Solomon conscripted 153,600 foreigners resident in Israel to provide a self-contained group of carriers, stone cutters, and supervisors (vv 15-17; 2 Chr 2:17-18). Possibly the “men of Gebal,” with their specialized skills, formed yet another group (1 Kgs 5:18). Building the temple was obviously a national project of immense size and effort. In order to preserve the sanctity of the site and to eliminate noise, the masonry and carpentry were not done at the temple site (6:7).<\/p>\n<h5>Description<\/h5>\n<p>The details given in the Bible are sufficiently clear for us to make a reasonably accurate description of the temple. The accounts in Kings and Chronicles are supplemented by Ezekiel’s depiction of the temple (see below), which was broadly based on his knowledge of the Jerusalem temple (Ez 40–48).<\/p>\n<p>The side rooms probably rested on a foundation or platform that was separate from the temple itself (1 Kgs 6:5, 10; cf. Ez 41:8-9) and were arranged in three stories, each seven and a half feet (2.3 meters) high, extending around the whole building except for the porch side. Each successive story was one and a half feet (.5 meter) wider than the one below, these dimensions coinciding with the thickness of the side wall of the Holy Place. The ground floor rooms were seven and a half feet (2.3 meters) wide; the first story was nine feet (2.7 meters), and the second was ten and a half feet (3.2 meters). Access to the upper stories was possibly by winding staircases (1 Kgs 6:8). There is some uncertainty concerning the location of the entrances; there may have been one on either side, but only one is mentioned (v 8). As in Ezekiel’s temple (Ez 40:17, 28), there were two adjacent courts, an inner and an outer (1 Kgs 6:36; 7:12), but no dimensions are given for these. The inner court, or “court of the priests,” being next to the temple itself, was also called “the upper court” (2 Chr 4:9; Jer 36:10). The wall of the inner court was made of three layers of hewn stone held together by a layer of cedar beams (1 Kgs 6:36), and the doors of both courts were sheathed in bronze (2 Chr 4:9). The palace buildings were within the outer court area, probably with a private passageway between the palace and the temple that was later closed during the reign of Ahaz (2 Chr 4:9, 12; 2 Kgs 16:18).<\/p>\n<p>The temple itself was 90 feet (27.4 meters) long, 30 feet (9.1 meters) wide, and 45 feet (13.7 meters) high (1 Kgs 6:2), with a porch or vestibule 15 feet (4.6 meters) deep stretching across the width. Probably the vestibule was on the east end of the temple, thus corresponding with the orientation of Ezekiel’s temple (Ez 43:1; 44:1). The larger part of the main sanctuary, next to the porch, formed the Holy Place, which was 60 feet (18.3 meters) long (1 Kgs 6:17). Beyond this was the innermost sanctuary, the Holy of Holies (or the “Most Holy Place“), which was a perfect cube of 30 feet (9.1 meters). All the interior walls were paneled with cedar decorated with flower patterns, cherubim, and palm trees, so that no masonry was visible. The walls of both inner and outer sanctuaries were “overlaid” (v 22) with pure gold. Actually the gold decoration may have been inlaid, on the basis that a solid sheath of gold would spoil the natural beauty of the wood carving. The floor was made of cypress planks (v 15). Narrow windows set high in the walls above the level of the three-storied outer chambers provided light in the Holy Place (v 4). The ceiling was paneled with beams and planks of cedar. No detail is given about the exterior roofing, but probably the contemporary technique was employed, using a wooden, latticelike framework into which a waterproof, limestone plaster was packed and rolled.<\/p>\n<p>The outer porch was apparently an open space, since no doors are mentioned. Access into the Holy Place was by double doors, both hinged to fold back on themselves, made of cypress and decorated in exactly the same way as the interior walls (vv 34-35). The doorposts were made of olive wood. Within the Holy Place was the altar of incense made of cedar overlaid with gold; it was placed centrally before the Holy of Holies. Also in the Holy Place were a table for the bread of the Presence of God, ten lampstands arranged in two groups of five on either side, and various utensils required for maintaining the priestly duties (1 Kgs 7:48-50). All these were made or overlaid with gold. The ten tables, arranged five on each side, were presumably for the utensils and accessories (2 Chr 4:8).<\/p>\n<p>Between the Holy Place and the Holy of Holies was a double door made of olive wood, carved with cherubim, palm trees, and flower patterns and overlaid with gold. Inside these doors, veiling still further the Holy of Holies, was a blue, purple, and crimson curtain, made of the finest fabrics and ornamented with cherubim (2 Chr 3:14).<\/p>\n<p>In the Holy of Holies were two cherubim, each 15 feet (4.6 meters) high and made of olive wood covered with gold (1 Kgs 6:23-28). Each wing measured seven and a half feet (2.3 meters). A wing of each touched the side walls; the other wings met at the center of the room. The divine throne had been considerably less impressive in the tabernacle, where a wing of each cherubim fused into the mercy seat above the ark (Ex 25:17-22). In Solomon’s temple, the ark of the covenant was placed below the forward-facing cherubim, the symbolic protectors. The ark, the only major item surviving from the Mosaic tabernacle, still contained the tablets of the law, but the pot of manna and Aaron’s rod were missing (1 Kgs 8:9).<\/p>\n<p>Immediately outside the temple and on either side of the vestibule were two hollow bronze pillars (1 Kgs 7:15-20; 2 Chr 3:15-17). According to the book of Kings, these pillars were 27 feet (8.2 meters) high, with a circumference of 18 feet (5.5 meters). The metal itself was about four inches (10.2 centimeters) thick. The pillars were surmounted by bronze, lily-shaped capitals seven and a half feet (2.3 meters) high and six feet (1.8 meters) wide, intricately adorned with a chain latticework that supported two rows of pomegranates. The total weight must have been enormous, and their size is attested to by Jeremiah, who notes that the Babylonians had to break them in pieces before transporting them to Babylon (Jer 52:17, 21-23).<\/p>\n<p>The bronze altar of sacrifice in front of the vestibule is not listed in the specifications of 1 Kings 7. However, it is mentioned in the temple dedication and subsequently (1 Kgs 8:22, 54, 64; 9:25) and clearly stood in the inner court. Its dimensions were 30 feet (9.1 meters) square and 15 feet (4.6 meters) high (2 Chr 4:1). In view of its weight, it was probably cast in sections at Solomon’s foundry in the Jordan Rift valley (vv 17-18) and then transported to the temple site for assembly.<\/p>\n<p>Probably the most striking article in the inner court was the “molten (bronze) sea,” a huge, round tank made of bronze 3 inches (8 centimeters) thick, 7½ feet (2.3 meters) high, and 15 feet (4.6 meters) in diameter (1 Kgs 7:23-26). Its rim flared out like a lily (2 Chr 4:2-5). The tank was supported on 12 bronze oxen, four on each side, and had two rows of decoration, possibly gourds or pomegranates, under the brim. Its capacity was between 10,000 and 12,000 gallons (37,850–45,420 liters). The bronze sea was used for priestly ablutions (v 6). Presumably this involved a platform of sorts, for the brim of this vast basin would have been about 15 feet (4.6 meters) above ground level.<\/p>\n<p>Hiram also constructed ten large lavers, mounted on moveable stands and placed in two groups of five, on the north and south sides of the inner court (1 Kgs 7:27-39). Basically the stands were bronze boxes, six feet (1.8 meters) square and four and a half feet (1.4 meters) high with a nine-inch (22.9-centimeter) rim around the top edge. Each corner was attached to braced posts to which the axles were fixed. The four-spoked wheels were 27 inches (68.6 centimeters) high. Into each stand there fitted a laver containing approximately 220 gallons (832.7 liters) of water, used for washing sacrificial animals (2 Chr 4:6). Probably each was adjacent to one of the ten tables that would be used to flay and otherwise prepare the sacrifices (v 8). Supplementary items, such as pots, shovels, and basins, all made of bronze, were also manufactured (1 Kgs 7:40, 45).<\/p>\n<h5>The Dedication<\/h5>\n<p>Eleven months elapsed between the completion of the temple and its dedication (1 Kgs 6:38; 8:2), during which time the major items of furniture were set in place. The dedication itself took place in the seventh month, presumably in connection with the Feast of Tabernacles and the Day of Atonement (Lv 23:23-36). The ark of the covenant was brought into its final resting place (1 Kgs 8:3-4), but the inner court proved inadequate for the vast numbers of beasts sacrificed (1 Kgs 8:62-64; 2 Chr 7:7).<\/p>\n<p>The temple employed the most sophisticated building techniques of the age, and no expense had been spared in construction, ornamentation, or equipment. Yet Solomon readily confessed its utter inadequacy to house the eternal God (1 Kgs 8:27). His prayer also underlined Israel’s propensity to forsake the Lord, contrasting the nation with God, who, though a just judge, was also merciful and faithful. The climax of the proceedings came when fire from heaven consumed the sacrifices and the shekinah glory filled the temple (2 Chr 7:1-3).<\/p>\n<h5>Later History<\/h5>\n<p>Like most ancient shrines, the temple became a treasury for national wealth and as such was often the target for attack. Shishak of Egypt plundered it within five years of Solomon’s death (1 Kgs 14:25-38). Shortly afterward, King Asa (910–869 <span>BC<\/span>) depleted its gold and silver treasures to buy Syrian help against his oppressor, Baasha (908–886 <span>BC<\/span>), king of Israel (15:16-19). Joash, the king of Judah (835–796 <span>BC<\/span>) who was concealed in the temple from the vicious Athaliah during his youth (2 Kgs 11), made provision for its repair after protesting the priests’ embezzlement of gifts (12:4-16). But after the death of Jehoiada, the high priest, Joash himself was adversely influenced by his nobles (2 Chr 24:15-19). As punishment for his apostasy, the Lord allowed the Syrians to attack, and Joash used the temple treasures to buy them off (2 Kgs 12:17-18). Hardly had provision for replacements been made, when Jehoash of Israel (798–782 <span>BC<\/span>), having shattered the arrogant pride of Amaziah of Judah (796–767 <span>BC<\/span>), again stripped the temple (14:8-14). Later, King Ahaz (735-715 <span>BC<\/span>) used the remaining resources of the temple to enlist support from the Assyrians (16:7-9), though he eventually became completely subservient to them.<\/p>\n<p> Then Hezekiah (715–686 <span>BC<\/span>), one of the great reforming kings, thoroughly renovated the temple and restored worship after it had fallen into disuse during theclosing years of Ahaz (2 Chr 29:1-19; 31:9-21). Manasseh (696–642 <span>BC<\/span>), however, completely reversed his father’s policy, bringing the practices of Canaanite and Mesopotamian worship into the temple (2 Kgs 21:3-7). His conversion experience, which probably occurred late in his reign and resulted in certain reform measures in the temple (2 Chr 33:12-19), was not far-reaching enough to escape the final judgment that his reign was the dark spot of Judah’s history (2 Kgs 21:10-16).<\/p>\n<p>Manasseh’s grandson Josiah (640–609 <span>BC<\/span>), was the second great reforming king. He organized the repair of the temple in 622 <span>BC<\/span>, during which the lost Book of the Law (almost certainly the book of Deuteronomy) was discovered (2 Kgs 22:3-13). As a result, Josiah’s reformation gained a new dimension and sense of urgency (22:14–23:3). The reformation included a thorough purge of all idolatrous elements from the temple (23:4-12) and the restoration of the traditional festivals. Sadly, however, Josiah’s reformation died with him, and Judah’s downward slide continued under the apostate Jehoiakim (609–598 <span>BC<\/span>). It was probably during this time that Jeremiah preached his famous temple sermon foretelling its destruction (Jer 7:1–8:3; 26:1-19), which alienated him from the religious leaders. In Nebuchadnezzar’s reprisal raid following Jehoiakim’s rebellion in 601 <span>BC<\/span> (2 Kgs 24:1-4), Jerusalem was captured (596 <span>BC<\/span>) and many of the temple treasures were transported to Babylon (2 Chr 36:7). The temple itself appears to have escaped damage, but when Judah again rebelled under Zedekiah (597–586 <span>BC<\/span>), the temple was demolished (2 Kgs 25:8-10). The remaining temple treasures were taken away.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"ZerubbabelsTemple\">Zerubbabel’s Temple<\/p>\n<h5>Construction<\/h5>\n<p>Although the temple was devastated, the site still remained as a place of pilgrimage during the exile (Jer 41:4-5). In 538 <span>BC<\/span> the Persian king, Cyrus, in pursuance of a liberal policy diametrically opposed to that of the earlier empires, permitted the Jews to return from exile. And he authorized the rebuilding of the temple, financing it from the Persian treasury.<\/p>\n<p>In the book of Ezra, the decree of authorization has been preserved in two forms: the general proclamation (Ezr 1:2-4) and a more prosaic memorandum in the national archives indicating the main temple specifications and the amount of promised Persian help (6:1-5). Probably only a minority of the Jews opted to leave the relative comforts of Mesopotamia for the dangers of a long journey to their desolated homeland. According to the book of Ezra, 42,360 dedicated individuals and their servants (2:64-65) responded under the leadership of Sheshbazzar (1:8-11; 5:14-16) and Zerubbabel (2:2; 3:2, 8; 4:2). With great enthusiasm, the altar was rebuilt on the temple site and the traditional pattern of worship reestablished (3:1-6). Utilizing the grant from Persia as well as their own freewill gifts (2:68-69; 3:7), the Jews began to plan the second temple and lay its foundations (3:7-13). The initial impetus quickly died as a result of local opposition (4:1-4, 24), selfish preoccupation, and crop failures (Hg 1:2-11). In 520 <span>BC<\/span> (Ezr 4:24; Hg 1:1; Zec 1:1), inspired by the prophets Haggai and Zechariah, the Jews under Zerubbabel and Joshua the high priest commenced rebuilding. Work continued in spite of official suspicion, if not direct opposition, and the temple was completed and dedicated in 515 <span>BC<\/span> (Ezr 5:1–6:22).<\/p>\n<p>Little is known of the physical features of Zerubbabel’s temple. The inference that it was vastly inferior to Solomon’s temple (Hg 2:3) probably relates to an early stage in the building operation. In fact, the second temple stood for over 500 years. The dimensions noted in Ezra 6:3 are incomplete; the new temple was no doubt about the same size as its predecessor and was probably built on the same foundation. The construction technique appears to have followed the method of the original, with layers of timber providing a framework for sections of masonry (v 4). Clearly, there was auxiliary accommodation, probably like the side rooms of Solomon’s temple (Ezr 8:29; Neh 12:44; 13:4-5). If Persian aid was forthcoming as promised (Ezr 6:8-12), the second temple was a more splendid, substantial structure than is generally supposed.<\/p>\n<h5>Later History<\/h5>\n<p>Several references in the Apocrypha, pseudepigrapha, rabbinic writings, and the historian Josephus help to illumine the history of the temple and give more detail on its structure and furnishings. Josephus, quoting from Hecateus of Abdera (fourth century <span>BC<\/span>), states that the temple was a large building in an enclosure about 500 feet by 150 feet (152.4 meters by 45.7 meters), surrounded by a stone wall, with an altar of unhewn stones the same size as Solomon’s bronze altar (cf. 2 Chr 4:1). Within the sanctuary was a golden altar of incense and a lampstand, the flame of which burned continually. Josephus also notes that Antiochus III (223–187 <span>BC<\/span>) financially supported the temple when the Seleucids displaced the Ptolemies as masters of Jerusalem.<\/p>\n<p>Ben Sirach, early in the second century <span>BC<\/span>, commended Simon, the son of Onias the high priest, for his work in fortifying and repairing the temple area. First Maccabees provides valuable evidence of the fate of the temple during the oppression under Antiochus IV Epiphanes (175–164 <span>BC<\/span>). The books of the Maccabees recount the defilement of the altar of burnt offering (1 Macc 1:54) and the plundering of the golden lampstand, altar of incense, table of offering, veil, and other treasures (2 Macc 5:15-16; 6:2-4). When the temple was recaptured and restored, the victorious Maccabees replaced the items taken by the Seleucids, except for the altar of sacrifice, which was considered so polluted that it was dismantled and replaced by a new one constructed of unhewn stone (1 Macc 4:36-61; 2 Macc 10:1-9). Clearly the temple area was used as a fortress, both in opposition to the Seleucid garrison that was maintained in Jerusalem in the Maccabean period and in the conflicts of the later Hasmonean period. When Pompey captured Jerusalem about 63 <span>BC<\/span>, he entered the temple to assert his authority but took no plunder, thus showing respect for it.<\/p>\n<p>The history of Zerubbabel’s temple closed when Herod, having carefully preserved it from any major damage when he gained control of Jerusalem with Roman aid in 37 <span>BC<\/span>, began to dismantle it about 21 <span>BC<\/span> in preparation for the construction of his own grand temple.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"HerodsTemple\">Herod’s Temple<\/p>\n<p>Apart from over 100 references in the NT, our main sources of information about Herod’s temple come from the Jewish historian Josephus and from the Middoth (a section of the Jewish rabbinic writings). There are considerable differences in detail between the two, which rules out any dogmatic interpretation in attempted reconstructions. Since Josephus was contemporary with the temple (he was born about <span>AD<\/span> 37 and died early in the second century), he is probably more reliable than the Middoth, which, dating from about <span>AD<\/span> 150, appears to exaggerate occasionally. Archaeological research has been helpful in determining the positions of the outer walls and gates.<\/p>\n<p>Herod’s motive in building his temple was political rather than religious. As an Idumean, he wished to placate his Jewish subjects by constructing a sanctuary as magnificent as Solomon’s. Possible fears that the site might be profaned, or that the existing temple might be demolished and never rebuilt, were allayed by the training of 1,000 priests as masons and the amassing of materials before the work commenced. Herod’s temple followed the tripartite plan of its predecessors, although its porch was much larger. It was built in the contemporary Greco-Roman architectural style and must therefore be regarded as distinct from Zerubbabel’s temple. Work began in 20 <span>BC<\/span>, and while the main sanctuary was quickly erected (it was in full operation within ten years), the total project was not completed until <span>AD<\/span> 64, only six years before it was destroyed by the Romans.<\/p>\n<p>Herod first prepared the site by clearing and leveling an area approximately 500 yards (457.2 meters) from north to south and about 325 yards (297.2 meters) from east to west. This involved cutting away sections of rock in some areas and building up with rubble in others. Considerable sections of the enclosing wall, constructed on stone blocks averaging about 15 feet (4.6 meters) long by 4 feet (1.2 meters) high, still survive. Some of the stones in the corners of the south wall weigh up to 70 tons (63.5 metric tons).<\/p>\n<p>The sanctuary itself seems to have been based on the same dimensions as Solomon’s temple. It was divided into the Holy Place, which was 60 feet (18.3 meters) long, 30 feet (9.1 meters) wide, and 60 feet high, and the Holy of Holies, which was 30 feet square. There was no furniture within the Holy of Holies, which was separated by a veil from the Holy Place. The Holy Place contained the seven-branch lampstand, the table for the bread of the Presence, and the incense altar. The main divergence from Solomon’s temple was the imposing porch, 150 feet (45.7 meters) in width and height. Outside was a doorway approximately 30 feet (9.1 meters) wide by 40 feet (12.2 meters) high, with an inner doorway about half that size leading into the sanctuary. By allowing empty rooms over the Holy of Holies and the Holy Place, there was a uniform roof height of 150 feet (45.7 meters). Golden spikes on the roof discouraged birds from alighting and defiling the structure. Like its predecessors, the temple was oriented toward the east and was surrounded on the other sides by three stories of rooms rising to a height of 60 feet (18.3 meters). The stone used was the local white stone, cut in huge blocks and highly polished.<\/p>\n<p>Access to the porch was by a flight of 12 steps from the Court of the Priests. Centrally placed before the porch and 33 feet (10.1 meters) away was the altar of sacrifice. Made of unhewn stone, it was a multilevel construction 15 feet (4.6 meters) high and about 48 feet (14.6 meters) square at its base. Male Israelites were allowed into this area once a year, during the Feast of the Tabernacles, to walk around the altar of sacrifice. Otherwise, they were restricted to the Court of Israel. To the east of the Court of Israel, and separated from it by a flight of 15 steps and by the ornate Great Gate, made of Corinthian bronze, was the Court of the Women. Here the offertory chests for temple expenses were located (Mk 12:41-44). The next court was the large, lower, outer Court of the Gentiles, which surrounded the inner courts and was separated from them by a balustrade and a series of warning notices. Two of these have been excavated, written in Latin and Greek and forbidding trespass by Gentiles into the inner areas, on pain of death. This outer court was widely used. Immediately inside its walls was a portico, supported by four rows of columns almost 40 feet (12.2 meters) high on the south side (the Royal Porch), and two rows on the other sides, the eastern portico known as “Solomon’s Porch” or “Solomon’s Colonnade.” Here is the area where the stalls of the money changers and merchants were set up, where the Sanhedrin met, and where Christ and the scribes taught and debated (Mk 11:27; Lk 2:46; 19:47; Jn 10:23). Here, too, the infant church met before it was rejected by a hostile Judaism (Acts 3:11; 5:12). Just to the northwest of the temple enclosure was the Fortress of Antonia, where the Roman governor resided while in Jerusalem, and where a Roman garrison was on hand to deal with disturbances (Acts 21:31-40). Overlooking the temple area, it was separated from it by a wide moat. The high priest’s vestments were stored in the fortress as a symbol of Roman authority. Access to the Court of the Gentiles was by four gates in the west wall; two in the south wall, where the ground fell away steeply into the valley, a site often identified as the pinnacle of the temple (Mt 4:5; Lk 4:9); and one gate in each of the east and north walls.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"SignificanceoftheTempleintheOldTestament\">Significance of the Temple in the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>The temple in Jerusalem functioned as the focal point of the tribal confederation. In spite of the attempt of Jeroboam I, the first king of the northern kingdom, to divert attention from Jerusalem by establishing shrines at Bethel and Dan (1 Kgs 12:26-30), Jerusalem never lost its preeminence. Naturally, both Hezekiah and Josiah sought to extend their reformation into the area of the northern tribes (2 Chr 30:1-12; 34:6-7), and Jerusalem was a pilgrimage center for those areas even after its destruction (Jer 41:5). The prophets foretold its destiny as the focal point of universal worship (Is 2:1-4).<\/p>\n<p>The temple was God’s dwelling place among his people. God’s presence, symbolized in the shekinah glory and the pillar of cloud, was associated with the tent of meeting (Ex 33:9-11), with the tabernacle (40:34-38), and finally with the temple (1 Kgs 8:10-11). The paradox is that while God is completely unrestricted, the temple was considered a place for God to live forever (vv 13, 27). God had chosen Zion, as he had chosen David (Pss 68:15-18; 76:2; 78:67-72), so the temple was regarded as God’s house (27:4; 42:4; 84:1-4).<\/p>\n<h5>Ezekiel’s Temple<\/h5>\n<p>Ezekiel’s detailed description of the ideal temple (Ez 40–48) was not used as the blueprint for Zerubbabel’s temple. In fact, since Ezekiel must have been familiar with Solomon’s temple before his deportation in 597 <span>BC<\/span>, his description is of greater help in determining uncertain details of the first temple. Ezekiel’s concern was to show the nature of pure worship, safeguarded from all contamination. This worship would allow the glory of God, which had departed from corrupted Solomon’s temple (9:3; 10:4, 18-19: 11:22-23), to return so that Jerusalem could again be named “the Lord is there” (43:1-5; 48:35). This thought, linked with Ezekiel’s vital concept of God’s Spirit indwelling his faithful worshipers (36:24-28), anticipated the NT teaching of the believers becoming God’s temple.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"SignificanceoftheTempleintheNewTestament\">Significance of the Temple in the New Testament<\/p>\n<h5>Christ and the Temple<\/h5>\n<p>Christ showed considerable respect for the temple. When he was 12 years old, he entered into the rabbinic discussions in its porticoes and described it as his Father’s house (Lk 2:41-50). To him “the house of God” was indwelt by God (Mt 12:4; 23:21). Although he twice cleansed it in righteous anger (Mt 21:12-13; Jn 2:13-16), he wept over the impending destruction of the city and temple (Lk 19:41-44). He often taught there, but he was “greater than the temple” (Mt 12:6). When his presentation to Jerusalem as the predicted Messiah was rejected, in spite of attendant miracles, he foretold its inevitable destruction (Mt 21:9-15; 24:1-2). For a brief period after Pentecost, the early church used the temple as its meeting place, until mounting opposition drove believers from Jerusalem (Acts 5:12, 21, 42; 8:1).<\/p>\n<h5>The Church as the Temple<\/h5>\n<p>The NT writers used two different Greek words to describe the temple: <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">naos<\/span> and <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">hieron<\/span><em>.<\/em> <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">Naos<\/span> refers to the actual sanctuary of the temple, the place of God’s dwelling. <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">Hieron<\/span> refers to the temple precincts as well as to the sanctuary. Generally speaking, <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">naos<\/span> was used to designate the inner section of the temple known as the Holy Place and the Holy of Holies, whereas <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">hieron<\/span> included the outer court and the temple proper.<\/p>\n<p>In Paul’s epistles the word <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">naos<\/span> appears six times (1 Cor 3:16-17; 6:19; 2 Cor 6:16; Eph 2:21; 2 Thes 2:4) and <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">hieron<\/span> once (1 Cor 9:13). In these verses Paul maintains the distinction of definition noted above. When speaking of the actual physical temple, he used the word <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">hieron<\/span> to indicate the place where the priests offered up animal sacrifices on the altar (1 Cor 9:13), which was situated in the outer court (see Ex 27–29, 40). And when Paul referred to the abominable act of the lawless one in usurping God’s place in the temple, he used the word <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">naos<\/span>—the word that designates the place of deity’s presence (2 Thes 2:4).<\/p>\n<p>In all the other Pauline passages, <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">naos<\/span> is used metaphorically—to depict a human habitation for the divine Spirit. In one instance the sanctuary image is used to describe the individual believer’s body (1 Cor 6:19); in every other instance the sanctuary depicts Christ’s body, the church (1 Cor 3:16-17; 2 Cor 6:16; Eph 2:21). Mistakenly, many readers think 1 Corinthians 3:16-17 speaks of the individual, but according to the Greek text, it is unquestionably clear that Paul was speaking about the collective church (specifically, the church in Corinth).<\/p>\n<p>When Paul told the church in Corinth that it was God’s sanctuary, they would have understood the image from their knowledge of pagan temples. But Paul probably had in mind the one temple in Jerusalem. The Gentiles had many gods with many temples in one city; the Jews had one God with only one temple in all of Israel. This helped to preserve unity among the Israelites. The Corinthians needed spiritual unity; they were fragmented due to their individual preferences (see 1 Cor 1:10-13).<\/p>\n<p>In Ephesians, Paul’s masterpiece on the church, he speaks of the local churches as living, organic entities that are all (compositely speaking) growing into a holy sanctuary in the Lord (Eph 2:21). Paul pictured each local church as providing God with a spiritual habitation in that locality (v 22) and as growing together with all the other churches into one holy, universal sanctuary for the Lord’s indwelling.<\/p>\n<h5>The Temple in John’s Revelation<\/h5>\n<p>In John’s revelation there is no material temple, even though he continues to use the imagery of Jerusalem and Mt Zion (Rv 3:12; 14:1; 21:2, 10, 22). Three interrelated ideas dominate. First is the concept of the church made up of martyrs, whose faithful members are God’s temple (3:12; 14:1). This temple grows gradually as the number of martyrs increases (6:11). Another aspect is the temple as the place of judgment (11:19; 14:15; 15:5–16:1). Finally, any temple in the new age is unnecessary, “for its temple is the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb” (21:22). The ultimate state will be God’s dwelling with his people—the eternal, spritual temple.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Altar; Ark of the Covenant; Bread of the Presence; David; Feasts and Festivals of Israel; First Jewish Revolt; Judaism; Mercy Seat; Offerings and Sacrifices; Priests and Levites; Sanctuary; Singers in the Temple; Solomon (Person).<\/p>","summary_ro":"TEMPLE Preview • Background • Solomon’s Temple • Zerubbabel’s Temple • Herod’s Temple • Significance of the Temple in the Old Testament • Significance of the Temple in the New Testament Background David’s capture of Jerusalem (2 Sm 5:6-9) and his designation of it as the nation’s capital is one of the great masterstrokes of history. Occupied by the Jebusites, it was a pocket of neutral territory between the northern and southern sections of David’s united kingdom and was politically acceptabl...","summary_en":"TEMPLE Preview • Background • Solomon’s Temple • Zerubbabel’s Temple • Herod’s Temple • Significance of the Temple in the Old Testament • Significance of the Temple in the New Testament Background David’s capture of Jerusalem (2 Sm 5:6-9) and his designation of it as the nation’s capital is one of the great masterstrokes of history. Occupied by the Jebusites, it was a pocket of neutral territory between the northern and southern sections of David’s united kingdom and was politically acceptabl...","source":"Articles\/T.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":47389,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: 2 Împărați 16:7","title_en":"Study Note: 2 Împărați 16:7","content_ro":"<p><strong>16:7-9<\/strong> Rather than trusting in God’s provision (Isa 7:7-16), <em>Ahaz<\/em> petitioned <em>Tiglath-pileser<\/em> III of Assyria to <em>rescue<\/em> him from his enemies. Tiglath-pileser was successful, and his victory brought about the death of Rezin, the capture of Damascus, and the deportation of its citizens (732 <span>BC<\/span>). It also contributed to unseating Pekah as king of Israel in the same year (2 Kgs 15:29-30). The cost of the rescue was great, however; Ahaz paid a heavy tribute to Tiglath-pileser, and the Assyrian intervention reduced Judah to vassal status.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>16:7-9<\/strong> Rather than trusting in God’s provision (Isa 7:7-16), <em>Ahaz<\/em> petitioned <em>Tiglath-pileser<\/em> III of Assyria to <em>rescue<\/em> him from his enemies. Tiglath-pileser was successful, and his victory brought about the death of Rezin, the capture of Damascus, and the deportation of its citizens (732 <span>BC<\/span>). It also contributed to unseating Pekah as king of Israel in the same year (2 Kgs 15:29-30). The cost of the rescue was great, however; Ahaz paid a heavy tribute to Tiglath-pileser, and the Assyrian intervention reduced Judah to vassal status.<\/p>","summary_ro":"16:7-9 Rather than trusting in God’s provision (Isa 7:7-16), Ahaz petitioned Tiglath-pileser III of Assyria to rescue him from his enemies. Tiglath-pileser was successful, and his victory brought about the death of Rezin, the capture of Damascus, and the deportation of its citizens (732 BC). It also contributed to unseating Pekah as king of Israel in the same year (2 Kgs 15:29-30). The cost of the rescue was great, however; Ahaz paid a heavy tribute to Tiglath-pileser, and the Assyrian interv...","summary_en":"16:7-9 Rather than trusting in God’s provision (Isa 7:7-16), Ahaz petitioned Tiglath-pileser III of Assyria to rescue him from his enemies. Tiglath-pileser was successful, and his victory brought about the death of Rezin, the capture of Damascus, and the deportation of its citizens (732 BC). It also contributed to unseating Pekah as king of Israel in the same year (2 Kgs 15:29-30). The cost of the rescue was great, however; Ahaz paid a heavy tribute to Tiglath-pileser, and the Assyrian interv...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":75015,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: 2 Împărați 16:7","title_en":"Study Note: 2 Împărați 16:7","content_ro":"<p><strong>16:7-9<\/strong> Rather than trusting in God’s provision (Isa 7:7-16), <em>Ahaz<\/em> petitioned <em>Tiglath-pileser<\/em> III of Assyria to <em>rescue<\/em> him from his enemies. Tiglath-pileser was successful, and his victory brought about the death of Rezin, the capture of Damascus, and the deportation of its citizens (732 <span>BC<\/span>). It also contributed to unseating Pekah as king of Israel in the same year (2 Kgs 15:29-30). The cost of the rescue was great, however; Ahaz paid a heavy tribute to Tiglath-pileser, and the Assyrian intervention reduced Judah to vassal status.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>16:7-9<\/strong> Rather than trusting in God’s provision (Isa 7:7-16), <em>Ahaz<\/em> petitioned <em>Tiglath-pileser<\/em> III of Assyria to <em>rescue<\/em> him from his enemies. Tiglath-pileser was successful, and his victory brought about the death of Rezin, the capture of Damascus, and the deportation of its citizens (732 <span>BC<\/span>). It also contributed to unseating Pekah as king of Israel in the same year (2 Kgs 15:29-30). The cost of the rescue was great, however; Ahaz paid a heavy tribute to Tiglath-pileser, and the Assyrian intervention reduced Judah to vassal status.<\/p>","summary_ro":"16:7-9 Rather than trusting in God’s provision (Isa 7:7-16), Ahaz petitioned Tiglath-pileser III of Assyria to rescue him from his enemies. Tiglath-pileser was successful, and his victory brought about the death of Rezin, the capture of Damascus, and the deportation of its citizens (732 BC). It also contributed to unseating Pekah as king of Israel in the same year (2 Kgs 15:29-30). The cost of the rescue was great, however; Ahaz paid a heavy tribute to Tiglath-pileser, and the Assyrian interv...","summary_en":"16:7-9 Rather than trusting in God’s provision (Isa 7:7-16), Ahaz petitioned Tiglath-pileser III of Assyria to rescue him from his enemies. Tiglath-pileser was successful, and his victory brought about the death of Rezin, the capture of Damascus, and the deportation of its citizens (732 BC). It also contributed to unseating Pekah as king of Israel in the same year (2 Kgs 15:29-30). The cost of the rescue was great, however; Ahaz paid a heavy tribute to Tiglath-pileser, and the Assyrian interv...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":102641,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: 2 Împărați 16:7","title_en":"Study Note: 2 Împărați 16:7","content_ro":"<p><strong>16:7-9<\/strong> Rather than trusting in God’s provision (Isa 7:7-16), <em>Ahaz<\/em> petitioned <em>Tiglath-pileser<\/em> III of Assyria to <em>rescue<\/em> him from his enemies. Tiglath-pileser was successful, and his victory brought about the death of Rezin, the capture of Damascus, and the deportation of its citizens (732 <span>BC<\/span>). It also contributed to unseating Pekah as king of Israel in the same year (2 Kgs 15:29-30). The cost of the rescue was great, however; Ahaz paid a heavy tribute to Tiglath-pileser, and the Assyrian intervention reduced Judah to vassal status.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>16:7-9<\/strong> Rather than trusting in God’s provision (Isa 7:7-16), <em>Ahaz<\/em> petitioned <em>Tiglath-pileser<\/em> III of Assyria to <em>rescue<\/em> him from his enemies. Tiglath-pileser was successful, and his victory brought about the death of Rezin, the capture of Damascus, and the deportation of its citizens (732 <span>BC<\/span>). It also contributed to unseating Pekah as king of Israel in the same year (2 Kgs 15:29-30). The cost of the rescue was great, however; Ahaz paid a heavy tribute to Tiglath-pileser, and the Assyrian intervention reduced Judah to vassal status.<\/p>","summary_ro":"16:7-9 Rather than trusting in God’s provision (Isa 7:7-16), Ahaz petitioned Tiglath-pileser III of Assyria to rescue him from his enemies. Tiglath-pileser was successful, and his victory brought about the death of Rezin, the capture of Damascus, and the deportation of its citizens (732 BC). It also contributed to unseating Pekah as king of Israel in the same year (2 Kgs 15:29-30). The cost of the rescue was great, however; Ahaz paid a heavy tribute to Tiglath-pileser, and the Assyrian interv...","summary_en":"16:7-9 Rather than trusting in God’s provision (Isa 7:7-16), Ahaz petitioned Tiglath-pileser III of Assyria to rescue him from his enemies. Tiglath-pileser was successful, and his victory brought about the death of Rezin, the capture of Damascus, and the deportation of its citizens (732 BC). It also contributed to unseating Pekah as king of Israel in the same year (2 Kgs 15:29-30). The cost of the rescue was great, however; Ahaz paid a heavy tribute to Tiglath-pileser, and the Assyrian interv...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":130267,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: 2 Împărați 16:7","title_en":"Study Note: 2 Împărați 16:7","content_ro":"<p><strong>16:7-9<\/strong> Rather than trusting in God’s provision (Isa 7:7-16), <em>Ahaz<\/em> petitioned <em>Tiglath-pileser<\/em> III of Assyria to <em>rescue<\/em> him from his enemies. Tiglath-pileser was successful, and his victory brought about the death of Rezin, the capture of Damascus, and the deportation of its citizens (732 <span>BC<\/span>). It also contributed to unseating Pekah as king of Israel in the same year (2 Kgs 15:29-30). The cost of the rescue was great, however; Ahaz paid a heavy tribute to Tiglath-pileser, and the Assyrian intervention reduced Judah to vassal status.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>16:7-9<\/strong> Rather than trusting in God’s provision (Isa 7:7-16), <em>Ahaz<\/em> petitioned <em>Tiglath-pileser<\/em> III of Assyria to <em>rescue<\/em> him from his enemies. Tiglath-pileser was successful, and his victory brought about the death of Rezin, the capture of Damascus, and the deportation of its citizens (732 <span>BC<\/span>). It also contributed to unseating Pekah as king of Israel in the same year (2 Kgs 15:29-30). The cost of the rescue was great, however; Ahaz paid a heavy tribute to Tiglath-pileser, and the Assyrian intervention reduced Judah to vassal status.<\/p>","summary_ro":"16:7-9 Rather than trusting in God’s provision (Isa 7:7-16), Ahaz petitioned Tiglath-pileser III of Assyria to rescue him from his enemies. Tiglath-pileser was successful, and his victory brought about the death of Rezin, the capture of Damascus, and the deportation of its citizens (732 BC). It also contributed to unseating Pekah as king of Israel in the same year (2 Kgs 15:29-30). The cost of the rescue was great, however; Ahaz paid a heavy tribute to Tiglath-pileser, and the Assyrian interv...","summary_en":"16:7-9 Rather than trusting in God’s provision (Isa 7:7-16), Ahaz petitioned Tiglath-pileser III of Assyria to rescue him from his enemies. Tiglath-pileser was successful, and his victory brought about the death of Rezin, the capture of Damascus, and the deportation of its citizens (732 BC). It also contributed to unseating Pekah as king of Israel in the same year (2 Kgs 15:29-30). The cost of the rescue was great, however; Ahaz paid a heavy tribute to Tiglath-pileser, and the Assyrian interv...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"8":[{"id":25837,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Minerals* and Metals","title_en":"Minerals* and Metals","content_ro":"<h3>MINERALS* AND METALS<\/h3>\n<p>A “mineral” is a naturally occurring substance, normally an ore that must be mined and treated before the metal can be extracted. A “metal” is a chemical element such as iron or copper, which is free from contamination by other materials. Metals in a pure form generally do not occur in nature, though there are exceptions.<\/p>\n<p>In Palestine, mining and smelting are ancient arts, practiced long before the Israelites arrived. The quarrying of suitable stones, such as flint, for toolmaking goes back to the Stone Age; the quarrying of stone for building is also an ancient craft. In particular, metals, native gold, copper, and meteoric iron were known and used in the Middle East before 4000 <span>BC<\/span>. From 4000 to 3000 <span>BC<\/span>, native silver became known as well as copper and lead ores. The art of smelting was discovered probably almost by accident, resulting in the production of alloys like bronze. Then the reduction of oxidized iron was discovered. From 3000 to 2000 <span>BC<\/span>, important advances were made. Copper sulfides and tin oxides were reduced to metal, and metallic tin and copper became important items of trade.<\/p>\n<p>In the years 2000 to 1000 <span>BC<\/span>, bellows came into use for furnaces, and iron was reduced from its ores and forged. The art of making brass from copper and zinc was discovered about 1500 <span>BC<\/span> but did not become significant till somewhat later. Bronze, known for many centuries, was made sometimes with a high tin content to form speculum for mirrors. By this time the Israelites were settled in the land and the kingdom was established. From 1000 <span>BC<\/span> to the start of the Christian era, the production of metals, especially iron, greatly expanded. A form of steel was made and used for weapons and tools.<\/p>\n<p>By the time of David and Solomon, the Israelites had learned many skills in the preparation and working of metals. Under David, Edom, with its rich copper and iron deposits, was conquered (2 Sm 8:13-14) and there was a lot of activity in the casting of metals in the Jordan Valley (1 Kgs 7:13-14, 45-46). In this activity Solomon had the assistance of Hiram, a Phoenician artisan. Israelite tradition associated the origins of metallurgy with Tubal-cain (Gn 4:22), who is said to have forged all kinds of tools out of bronze and iron. Deuteronomy 8:9 refers to the presence of iron and copper in the land to which Israel was going.<\/p>\n<p>While the Israelites eventually undertook their own metalworking processes, it is evident from 1 Samuel 13:19-22 that on at least one occasion, in the days of Philistine domination, they were obliged to have their agricultural tools made by their enemies. Similarly, the manufacture of cult vessels for Solomon’s temple was supervised by Phoenician artisans (1 Kgs 7:13-50).<\/p>\n<p>Minerals, metals, and precious stones were also important items of trade. Israel was never a land rich in these commodities and was obliged to import a wide variety of them. The visit of the queen of Sheba was partly diplomatic and partly for trade (1 Kgs 10:2, 10-11).<\/p>\n<p>Metals and precious stones featured also among the booty carried off by invaders, notably—but not only—by the Egyptians and Assyrians. These items were in constant demand as they were needed for agriculture and making weapons of war, and for the manufacture of jewelry and items of personal adornment.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Minerals\">Minerals<\/p>\n<p>A mineral is an inorganic substance with a definite chemical composition and structure, sometimes occurring alone or sometimes combined with others. “Ore” refers to any mineral or mineral aggregate containing chemical compounds of metals in sufficient quantity and grade to make the extraction of the metal commercially profitable. The essential element, the metal, occurs in nature as a chemical compound, such as a sulfide, an oxide, a carbonate, or some other compound, though the sulfides and oxides are the most common. Minerals exhibit a variety of properties, such as color, luster, crystal form, cleavage, fracture, hardness, and density, which help in their identification and exercise control on the commercial and industrial uses of the particular mineral.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Metals\">Metals<\/p>\n<p>A metal in its pure form is a chemically pure element with its own fixed physical properties, such as density, tensile strength, crystalline structure, melting point, ductility, conductivity, and the like. Metals form alloys with other metals, but this process destroys their purity. In both the ancient world and the modern world the alloy is extremely important.<\/p>\n<p>In order to obtain a pure metal, the ore in which the metal is contained must be smelted—a process known as metallurgy. In ancient Israel pure metals were widely used—among them were gold, silver, iron, and lead. Yet alloys such as bronze and brass were even more widely used.<\/p>\n<h5>Metallurgy and Metal Extraction<\/h5>\n<p>The method of producing hard wrought iron was discovered by the Hittites of Asia Minor about 1300 <span>BC<\/span>, and was taken up by the Philistines (1 Sm 13:19-20). At first, the iron obtained from simple furnaces was drawn off and hammered to drive out slag (Dt 4:20; 1 Kgs 8:51; Jer 11:4). Later, the addition of carbon produced an early form of steel.<\/p>\n<p>The lead sulfide ore is heated with lime in a flow of air. A slag with rock particles forms. The air is then cut off and the temperature is raised. Finally, the lead flows free.<\/p>\n<p>The OT refers to the mining of silver (Jb 28:1), the refining of the metal (Zec 13:9; Mal 3:3), the melting of scrap metals or jeweler’s remnants (Ez 22:20-22), and of multiple refinings in a crucible (Prv 17:3; 27:21) to produce refined silver (1 Chr 29:4; Ps 12:6; Prv 10:20).<\/p>\n<h5>Specific Metals<\/h5>\n<p>Although several OT passages suggest that the science of metallurgy was known in biblical times, comparatively little archaeological evidence is available. The processing plants were small and were used for the treatment of copper and iron. The archaeological record is far from complete, but the general impression is that metallic ores were comparatively rare in Palestine; imports must have been considerable. However, numerous molds for casting agricultural and military tools have come to light in excavations. Evidently, some refined metal was available locally, but perhaps most of it was imported. The metal was then heated and poured into the appropriate earthenware or pottery mold.<\/p>\n<p>There are many references to metals in the Bible, but especially to gold, silver, iron, and lead. While copper was widely used, it was normally in the form of its alloys, bronze and brass. There are comparatively few references to tin as such, though it was used in manufacturing bronze. Similarly zinc, though used in the manufacture of brass, is not mentioned in the Bible.<\/p>\n<p>Gold is referred to hundreds of times in the OT and NT, more frequently than any other metal. It is often mentioned together with silver, and in the majority of cases silver is mentioned first, reflecting a time when gold was less valued.<\/p>\n<p>Gold was used in the manufacture of ornaments for personal use (Gn 24:53; 41:42; Ex 3:22; 11:2; 12:35). Gold was important in worship both in Israel and among the non-Israelites. References to pagan gods occur in several passages (Ex 20:23; 32:2-4; Ps 115:4; Is 2:20; 30:22; 31:7; 40:19; 46:6; Hos 8:4). It seems that the gold was melted down and later engraved so that the replicas could be called both molten images (Ex 32:24) and graven images. The tabernacle and the temple used a great deal of gold. The wooden ark was covered inside and outside with gold (25:11). Other timber pieces were overlaid with gold (25:11; 1 Kgs 6:20-22, 30).<\/p>\n<p>The vessels and utensils used in the tabernacle and temple were made of “pure gold”: the cherubim (Ex 25:18; 37:7), the mercy seat (25:17; 37:6), the candlestick (Ex 25:31; Zec 4:2), various vessels (Ex 25:38; 2 Kgs 24:13), chains to carry the ephod (Ex 28:14), and the bells on the high priest’s robe. The high priest’s crown, ephod, and breastplate were also of gold (39:2-30). The offerings collected for the manufacture of such articles in the wilderness include golden dishes weighing 120 shekels (Nm 7:86). The more lavishly adorned temple apparently used more gold than the tabernacle (1 Kgs 6:20-28; 1 Chr 29:2-7; 2 Chr 3:4–4:22). The number of specific references to gold in the tabernacle and temple is far too great to mention all of them here. The large amount of gold used in the temple was attractive to invaders, who would strip the temple of its gold and carry it off as booty (1 Kgs 14:26; 2 Kgs 16:8; 18:14; 24:13; 25:15; 2 Chr 12:9).<\/p>\n<p>Gold had commercial value. It was imported in Solomon’s day, and up to 666 talents were brought to Israel annually (1 Kgs 10:14). Hiram of Tyre gave Solomon 120 talents of gold (9:14), possibly as a loan. Certainly Solomon used a lot of gold in the temple (10:16-17). Gold was useful, too, for buying off an enemy (2 Kgs 16:8) or simply as tribute (18:14). Evidence of this comes also from the Assyrian annals, where the tribute taken from various lands often included gold.<\/p>\n<p>The possession of gold was not in itself an evil thing, but preoccupation with its accumulation was condemned (Jb 28:15-17; Prv 3:14; 8:10, 19; 16:16). The possession of wisdom and the knowledge of God was of greater value than the possession of much gold (Pss 19:10; 119:72, 127; Prv 20:15). Job rejected trust in gold (Jb 31:24). Gold would not save a man in the day of judgment (Zep 1:18).<\/p>\n<p>In the NT gold was regarded as perishable (Jas 5:3; 1 Pt 1:18) and as an unnecessary burden to carry (Mt 10:9; Acts 3:6). The wearing of a gold ring was certainly no measure of a man’s worth (Jas 2:2); indeed, both Paul and Peter forbade it (1 Tm 2:9; 1 Pt 3:3).<\/p>\n<p>The use of gold in itself was no measure of piety. The elders of Revelation 4:4 wore golden crowns, but the great harlot was “bedecked with gold” (Rv 17:4), as was the harlot city Babylon (18:16). By contrast, there are some positive statements in the NT about the value of gold (3:18). The wise men brought gold to the infant Jesus as a symbol of his kingly character (Mt 2:11), and the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, was a city of gold, clear as glass (Rv 21:18).<\/p>\n<p>In the OT, silver is mentioned in several connections. Being a precious metal, once considered more precious than gold, it was regularly used in commerce for the payments of debts. Small pieces of silver were weighed into a balance against a standard weight. Abraham bought the cave at Machpelah as a burial place for Sarah for 400 shekels of silver and weighed out the “money” according to the weight’s current value with the merchant (Gn 23:15-16). Joseph’s brothers received 20 pieces of silver in payment for Joseph (37:28), and Benjamin was given a money gift by Joseph in pieces of silver (45:22).<\/p>\n<p>There are other examples of payment in silver for commodities or services (Gn 20:16; Ex 21:32; Lv 27:16; Jos 24:32; Jgs 17:10; 2 Sm 24:24; Neh 7:72; Jb 28:15; Is 7:23; 46:6; Am 2:6; 8:6). Silver was a measure of a man’s wealth (Gn 13:2; 24:35; Ex 25:3; Nm 22:18; Dt 7:25; Zep 1:18; Hg 2:8; Zec 6:11). An unusual comment in 1 Kings 10:21 notes that in Solomon’s day “it was not considered as anything,” apparently because it was so plentiful. It was regularly taken as booty (Jos 6:19; 7:21; 1 Kgs 15:18). Sometimes the drinking cup of an important man was made of silver (Gn 44:2). Sometimes, too, a royal crown was made of gold and silver (Zec 6:11). It was important in the manufacture of personal ornaments (Gn 24:53; Ex 3:22; 12:35), and one example is given of ornaments of gold studded with silver (Sg 1:11).<\/p>\n<p>The process of refining silver was used as a metaphor for the trying of people’s hearts (Ps 66:10; Is 48:10), and the tarnishing and deterioration of silver was a picture of the disintegration of one’s character (Is 1:22; Jer 6:30). God’s Word is pictured as “pure” silver refined and purified in a furnace. Despite silver’s great value, wisdom excels it (Job 28:15; Prv 3:14; 8:19; 10:20; 16:16; 22:1; 25:11).<\/p>\n<p>Native copper is mentioned in Deuteronomy 8:9, though the reference may be to one of its ores. More commonly, biblical references are to brass, the alloy of copper and zinc. However, the chemical analysis of copper-based tools and implements during the middle and late Bronze Ages (c. 2000–1200 <span>BC<\/span>) shows that the material was bronze. References to brass in the <span>kjv<\/span> are therefore to bronze.<\/p>\n<p>By NT times, copper in the form of alloys (bronze and brass) was widely used. Bronze coinage was well known and this may be the sense of Matthew 10:9. The widow’s mite was a tiny bronze coin, the lepton. Bronze utensils and vessels were well known (Rv 9:20; 18:12). The reference to “sounding brass” (<span>kjv<\/span>) in 1 Corinthians 13:1 may actually be to brass, which was a bright, shining alloy, and was used in musical instruments. In the vision of John in Revelation (Rv 1:15; 2:18), the Son of Man had feet of fine brass (<span>nlt<\/span> “bronze”).<\/p>\n<p>The Iron Age began in Palestine about 1200 <span>BC<\/span>, that is, in the days of the judges, though native iron had been known in Egypt in the predynastic period. Archaeological evidence suggests that the smelting of iron ore was discovered by the Hittites about 1400 <span>BC<\/span>. The Philistines seem to have introduced iron to Palestine about 1300 <span>BC<\/span>. In the days of Moses an encounter with the Midianites produced much tribute, among which iron is mentioned (Nm 31:22). When Israel captured Jericho, the spoils included iron (Jos 6:24). Manasseh’s half-tribe also took booty including iron (22:8). In the days of the judges the Canaanites were equipped with chariots of iron (Jos 17:16-18; Jgs 1:19; 4:3).<\/p>\n<p>These early references point to the arrival of iron at the start of the Iron Age. The Philistines enjoyed a local monopoly in its use (1 Sm 13:19-21), and their mighty warrior Goliath was armed with an iron spear (17:7). It was not long, however, before Israel learned the use of iron (2 Sm 12:31; 23:7). Evidently, by Solomon’s time, iron was widely used, because builders of the temple were forbidden to use iron tools (1 Kgs 6:7). The false prophet Zedekiah in Ahab’s day used the horns of iron to thrust toward Syria as he spoke of their defeat (22:11).<\/p>\n<p>The prophet Isaiah in the eighth century <span>BC<\/span> referred to iron (Is 10:34), and Jeremiah later spoke of the metal in several places (Jer 1:18; 6:28; 11:4; 15:12; 17:1; 28:13-14). Ezekiel made use of an iron plate in one of his symbolic actions (Ez 4:3), referred to iron in his description of smelting (22:18, 20), and listed it as a commodity for trade (27:12, 19). The prophet Amos spoke of threshing instruments of iron (Am 1:3). Micah used iron as a symbol for military might (Mi 4:13). The book of Daniel makes several references to it (Dn 2:33-35, 40-45; 4:15, 23; 7:7, 19).<\/p>\n<p>By Roman times, iron weapons were the regular implements of war. Gates of iron were used to close prisons (Acts 12:10), and in a symbolic usage powerful rulers were said to rule with a rod of iron (Rv 2:27; 9:9; 12:5; 19:15). The term “iron” was used also in some metaphorical expressions. The smelting of iron was a symbol of testing and suffering (Dt 4:20; 1 Kgs 8:51; Jer 11:4; Ez 22:18), a pillar of iron was symbolic of strength (Jer 1:18), and an iron rod of harsh rule (Ps 2:9; Rv 2:27; 12:5; 19:15).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Coppersmith; Goldsmith; Ironsmith; Mason, Masonry; Silversmith; Stones, Precious.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>MINERALS* AND METALS<\/h3>\n<p>A “mineral” is a naturally occurring substance, normally an ore that must be mined and treated before the metal can be extracted. A “metal” is a chemical element such as iron or copper, which is free from contamination by other materials. Metals in a pure form generally do not occur in nature, though there are exceptions.<\/p>\n<p>In Palestine, mining and smelting are ancient arts, practiced long before the Israelites arrived. The quarrying of suitable stones, such as flint, for toolmaking goes back to the Stone Age; the quarrying of stone for building is also an ancient craft. In particular, metals, native gold, copper, and meteoric iron were known and used in the Middle East before 4000 <span>BC<\/span>. From 4000 to 3000 <span>BC<\/span>, native silver became known as well as copper and lead ores. The art of smelting was discovered probably almost by accident, resulting in the production of alloys like bronze. Then the reduction of oxidized iron was discovered. From 3000 to 2000 <span>BC<\/span>, important advances were made. Copper sulfides and tin oxides were reduced to metal, and metallic tin and copper became important items of trade.<\/p>\n<p>In the years 2000 to 1000 <span>BC<\/span>, bellows came into use for furnaces, and iron was reduced from its ores and forged. The art of making brass from copper and zinc was discovered about 1500 <span>BC<\/span> but did not become significant till somewhat later. Bronze, known for many centuries, was made sometimes with a high tin content to form speculum for mirrors. By this time the Israelites were settled in the land and the kingdom was established. From 1000 <span>BC<\/span> to the start of the Christian era, the production of metals, especially iron, greatly expanded. A form of steel was made and used for weapons and tools.<\/p>\n<p>By the time of David and Solomon, the Israelites had learned many skills in the preparation and working of metals. Under David, Edom, with its rich copper and iron deposits, was conquered (2 Sm 8:13-14) and there was a lot of activity in the casting of metals in the Jordan Valley (1 Kgs 7:13-14, 45-46). In this activity Solomon had the assistance of Hiram, a Phoenician artisan. Israelite tradition associated the origins of metallurgy with Tubal-cain (Gn 4:22), who is said to have forged all kinds of tools out of bronze and iron. Deuteronomy 8:9 refers to the presence of iron and copper in the land to which Israel was going.<\/p>\n<p>While the Israelites eventually undertook their own metalworking processes, it is evident from 1 Samuel 13:19-22 that on at least one occasion, in the days of Philistine domination, they were obliged to have their agricultural tools made by their enemies. Similarly, the manufacture of cult vessels for Solomon’s temple was supervised by Phoenician artisans (1 Kgs 7:13-50).<\/p>\n<p>Minerals, metals, and precious stones were also important items of trade. Israel was never a land rich in these commodities and was obliged to import a wide variety of them. The visit of the queen of Sheba was partly diplomatic and partly for trade (1 Kgs 10:2, 10-11).<\/p>\n<p>Metals and precious stones featured also among the booty carried off by invaders, notably—but not only—by the Egyptians and Assyrians. These items were in constant demand as they were needed for agriculture and making weapons of war, and for the manufacture of jewelry and items of personal adornment.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Minerals\">Minerals<\/p>\n<p>A mineral is an inorganic substance with a definite chemical composition and structure, sometimes occurring alone or sometimes combined with others. “Ore” refers to any mineral or mineral aggregate containing chemical compounds of metals in sufficient quantity and grade to make the extraction of the metal commercially profitable. The essential element, the metal, occurs in nature as a chemical compound, such as a sulfide, an oxide, a carbonate, or some other compound, though the sulfides and oxides are the most common. Minerals exhibit a variety of properties, such as color, luster, crystal form, cleavage, fracture, hardness, and density, which help in their identification and exercise control on the commercial and industrial uses of the particular mineral.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Metals\">Metals<\/p>\n<p>A metal in its pure form is a chemically pure element with its own fixed physical properties, such as density, tensile strength, crystalline structure, melting point, ductility, conductivity, and the like. Metals form alloys with other metals, but this process destroys their purity. In both the ancient world and the modern world the alloy is extremely important.<\/p>\n<p>In order to obtain a pure metal, the ore in which the metal is contained must be smelted—a process known as metallurgy. In ancient Israel pure metals were widely used—among them were gold, silver, iron, and lead. Yet alloys such as bronze and brass were even more widely used.<\/p>\n<h5>Metallurgy and Metal Extraction<\/h5>\n<p>The method of producing hard wrought iron was discovered by the Hittites of Asia Minor about 1300 <span>BC<\/span>, and was taken up by the Philistines (1 Sm 13:19-20). At first, the iron obtained from simple furnaces was drawn off and hammered to drive out slag (Dt 4:20; 1 Kgs 8:51; Jer 11:4). Later, the addition of carbon produced an early form of steel.<\/p>\n<p>The lead sulfide ore is heated with lime in a flow of air. A slag with rock particles forms. The air is then cut off and the temperature is raised. Finally, the lead flows free.<\/p>\n<p>The OT refers to the mining of silver (Jb 28:1), the refining of the metal (Zec 13:9; Mal 3:3), the melting of scrap metals or jeweler’s remnants (Ez 22:20-22), and of multiple refinings in a crucible (Prv 17:3; 27:21) to produce refined silver (1 Chr 29:4; Ps 12:6; Prv 10:20).<\/p>\n<h5>Specific Metals<\/h5>\n<p>Although several OT passages suggest that the science of metallurgy was known in biblical times, comparatively little archaeological evidence is available. The processing plants were small and were used for the treatment of copper and iron. The archaeological record is far from complete, but the general impression is that metallic ores were comparatively rare in Palestine; imports must have been considerable. However, numerous molds for casting agricultural and military tools have come to light in excavations. Evidently, some refined metal was available locally, but perhaps most of it was imported. The metal was then heated and poured into the appropriate earthenware or pottery mold.<\/p>\n<p>There are many references to metals in the Bible, but especially to gold, silver, iron, and lead. While copper was widely used, it was normally in the form of its alloys, bronze and brass. There are comparatively few references to tin as such, though it was used in manufacturing bronze. Similarly zinc, though used in the manufacture of brass, is not mentioned in the Bible.<\/p>\n<p>Gold is referred to hundreds of times in the OT and NT, more frequently than any other metal. It is often mentioned together with silver, and in the majority of cases silver is mentioned first, reflecting a time when gold was less valued.<\/p>\n<p>Gold was used in the manufacture of ornaments for personal use (Gn 24:53; 41:42; Ex 3:22; 11:2; 12:35). Gold was important in worship both in Israel and among the non-Israelites. References to pagan gods occur in several passages (Ex 20:23; 32:2-4; Ps 115:4; Is 2:20; 30:22; 31:7; 40:19; 46:6; Hos 8:4). It seems that the gold was melted down and later engraved so that the replicas could be called both molten images (Ex 32:24) and graven images. The tabernacle and the temple used a great deal of gold. The wooden ark was covered inside and outside with gold (25:11). Other timber pieces were overlaid with gold (25:11; 1 Kgs 6:20-22, 30).<\/p>\n<p>The vessels and utensils used in the tabernacle and temple were made of “pure gold”: the cherubim (Ex 25:18; 37:7), the mercy seat (25:17; 37:6), the candlestick (Ex 25:31; Zec 4:2), various vessels (Ex 25:38; 2 Kgs 24:13), chains to carry the ephod (Ex 28:14), and the bells on the high priest’s robe. The high priest’s crown, ephod, and breastplate were also of gold (39:2-30). The offerings collected for the manufacture of such articles in the wilderness include golden dishes weighing 120 shekels (Nm 7:86). The more lavishly adorned temple apparently used more gold than the tabernacle (1 Kgs 6:20-28; 1 Chr 29:2-7; 2 Chr 3:4–4:22). The number of specific references to gold in the tabernacle and temple is far too great to mention all of them here. The large amount of gold used in the temple was attractive to invaders, who would strip the temple of its gold and carry it off as booty (1 Kgs 14:26; 2 Kgs 16:8; 18:14; 24:13; 25:15; 2 Chr 12:9).<\/p>\n<p>Gold had commercial value. It was imported in Solomon’s day, and up to 666 talents were brought to Israel annually (1 Kgs 10:14). Hiram of Tyre gave Solomon 120 talents of gold (9:14), possibly as a loan. Certainly Solomon used a lot of gold in the temple (10:16-17). Gold was useful, too, for buying off an enemy (2 Kgs 16:8) or simply as tribute (18:14). Evidence of this comes also from the Assyrian annals, where the tribute taken from various lands often included gold.<\/p>\n<p>The possession of gold was not in itself an evil thing, but preoccupation with its accumulation was condemned (Jb 28:15-17; Prv 3:14; 8:10, 19; 16:16). The possession of wisdom and the knowledge of God was of greater value than the possession of much gold (Pss 19:10; 119:72, 127; Prv 20:15). Job rejected trust in gold (Jb 31:24). Gold would not save a man in the day of judgment (Zep 1:18).<\/p>\n<p>In the NT gold was regarded as perishable (Jas 5:3; 1 Pt 1:18) and as an unnecessary burden to carry (Mt 10:9; Acts 3:6). The wearing of a gold ring was certainly no measure of a man’s worth (Jas 2:2); indeed, both Paul and Peter forbade it (1 Tm 2:9; 1 Pt 3:3).<\/p>\n<p>The use of gold in itself was no measure of piety. The elders of Revelation 4:4 wore golden crowns, but the great harlot was “bedecked with gold” (Rv 17:4), as was the harlot city Babylon (18:16). By contrast, there are some positive statements in the NT about the value of gold (3:18). The wise men brought gold to the infant Jesus as a symbol of his kingly character (Mt 2:11), and the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, was a city of gold, clear as glass (Rv 21:18).<\/p>\n<p>In the OT, silver is mentioned in several connections. Being a precious metal, once considered more precious than gold, it was regularly used in commerce for the payments of debts. Small pieces of silver were weighed into a balance against a standard weight. Abraham bought the cave at Machpelah as a burial place for Sarah for 400 shekels of silver and weighed out the “money” according to the weight’s current value with the merchant (Gn 23:15-16). Joseph’s brothers received 20 pieces of silver in payment for Joseph (37:28), and Benjamin was given a money gift by Joseph in pieces of silver (45:22).<\/p>\n<p>There are other examples of payment in silver for commodities or services (Gn 20:16; Ex 21:32; Lv 27:16; Jos 24:32; Jgs 17:10; 2 Sm 24:24; Neh 7:72; Jb 28:15; Is 7:23; 46:6; Am 2:6; 8:6). Silver was a measure of a man’s wealth (Gn 13:2; 24:35; Ex 25:3; Nm 22:18; Dt 7:25; Zep 1:18; Hg 2:8; Zec 6:11). An unusual comment in 1 Kings 10:21 notes that in Solomon’s day “it was not considered as anything,” apparently because it was so plentiful. It was regularly taken as booty (Jos 6:19; 7:21; 1 Kgs 15:18). Sometimes the drinking cup of an important man was made of silver (Gn 44:2). Sometimes, too, a royal crown was made of gold and silver (Zec 6:11). It was important in the manufacture of personal ornaments (Gn 24:53; Ex 3:22; 12:35), and one example is given of ornaments of gold studded with silver (Sg 1:11).<\/p>\n<p>The process of refining silver was used as a metaphor for the trying of people’s hearts (Ps 66:10; Is 48:10), and the tarnishing and deterioration of silver was a picture of the disintegration of one’s character (Is 1:22; Jer 6:30). God’s Word is pictured as “pure” silver refined and purified in a furnace. Despite silver’s great value, wisdom excels it (Job 28:15; Prv 3:14; 8:19; 10:20; 16:16; 22:1; 25:11).<\/p>\n<p>Native copper is mentioned in Deuteronomy 8:9, though the reference may be to one of its ores. More commonly, biblical references are to brass, the alloy of copper and zinc. However, the chemical analysis of copper-based tools and implements during the middle and late Bronze Ages (c. 2000–1200 <span>BC<\/span>) shows that the material was bronze. References to brass in the <span>kjv<\/span> are therefore to bronze.<\/p>\n<p>By NT times, copper in the form of alloys (bronze and brass) was widely used. Bronze coinage was well known and this may be the sense of Matthew 10:9. The widow’s mite was a tiny bronze coin, the lepton. Bronze utensils and vessels were well known (Rv 9:20; 18:12). The reference to “sounding brass” (<span>kjv<\/span>) in 1 Corinthians 13:1 may actually be to brass, which was a bright, shining alloy, and was used in musical instruments. In the vision of John in Revelation (Rv 1:15; 2:18), the Son of Man had feet of fine brass (<span>nlt<\/span> “bronze”).<\/p>\n<p>The Iron Age began in Palestine about 1200 <span>BC<\/span>, that is, in the days of the judges, though native iron had been known in Egypt in the predynastic period. Archaeological evidence suggests that the smelting of iron ore was discovered by the Hittites about 1400 <span>BC<\/span>. The Philistines seem to have introduced iron to Palestine about 1300 <span>BC<\/span>. In the days of Moses an encounter with the Midianites produced much tribute, among which iron is mentioned (Nm 31:22). When Israel captured Jericho, the spoils included iron (Jos 6:24). Manasseh’s half-tribe also took booty including iron (22:8). In the days of the judges the Canaanites were equipped with chariots of iron (Jos 17:16-18; Jgs 1:19; 4:3).<\/p>\n<p>These early references point to the arrival of iron at the start of the Iron Age. The Philistines enjoyed a local monopoly in its use (1 Sm 13:19-21), and their mighty warrior Goliath was armed with an iron spear (17:7). It was not long, however, before Israel learned the use of iron (2 Sm 12:31; 23:7). Evidently, by Solomon’s time, iron was widely used, because builders of the temple were forbidden to use iron tools (1 Kgs 6:7). The false prophet Zedekiah in Ahab’s day used the horns of iron to thrust toward Syria as he spoke of their defeat (22:11).<\/p>\n<p>The prophet Isaiah in the eighth century <span>BC<\/span> referred to iron (Is 10:34), and Jeremiah later spoke of the metal in several places (Jer 1:18; 6:28; 11:4; 15:12; 17:1; 28:13-14). Ezekiel made use of an iron plate in one of his symbolic actions (Ez 4:3), referred to iron in his description of smelting (22:18, 20), and listed it as a commodity for trade (27:12, 19). The prophet Amos spoke of threshing instruments of iron (Am 1:3). Micah used iron as a symbol for military might (Mi 4:13). The book of Daniel makes several references to it (Dn 2:33-35, 40-45; 4:15, 23; 7:7, 19).<\/p>\n<p>By Roman times, iron weapons were the regular implements of war. Gates of iron were used to close prisons (Acts 12:10), and in a symbolic usage powerful rulers were said to rule with a rod of iron (Rv 2:27; 9:9; 12:5; 19:15). The term “iron” was used also in some metaphorical expressions. The smelting of iron was a symbol of testing and suffering (Dt 4:20; 1 Kgs 8:51; Jer 11:4; Ez 22:18), a pillar of iron was symbolic of strength (Jer 1:18), and an iron rod of harsh rule (Ps 2:9; Rv 2:27; 12:5; 19:15).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Coppersmith; Goldsmith; Ironsmith; Mason, Masonry; Silversmith; Stones, Precious.<\/p>","summary_ro":"MINERALS* AND METALS A “mineral” is a naturally occurring substance, normally an ore that must be mined and treated before the metal can be extracted. A “metal” is a chemical element such as iron or copper, which is free from contamination by other materials. Metals in a pure form generally do not occur in nature, though there are exceptions. In Palestine, mining and smelting are ancient arts, practiced long before the Israelites arrived. The quarrying of suitable stones, such as flint, for t...","summary_en":"MINERALS* AND METALS A “mineral” is a naturally occurring substance, normally an ore that must be mined and treated before the metal can be extracted. A “metal” is a chemical element such as iron or copper, which is free from contamination by other materials. Metals in a pure form generally do not occur in nature, though there are exceptions. In Palestine, mining and smelting are ancient arts, practiced long before the Israelites arrived. The quarrying of suitable stones, such as flint, for t...","source":"Articles\/M.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"9":[{"id":41612,"type":"profile","type_label":"Profil","type_icon":"👤","type_color":"#f59e0b","title_ro":"Arameans","title_en":"Arameans","content_ro":"<h3>Arameans<\/h3>\n<p>The Arameans were a Semitic group, descendants of Shem (Gen 10:22-23; cp. Gen 22:20-21). Bethuel and Laban were known as Arameans (Gen 25:20; 28:1-7). Jacob lived for some twenty years with them in Aramean territory (Gen 28–31; Hos 12:12), and the people of Israel remembered that their forefathers were (at least culturally) Arameans (Deut 26:5).<\/p>\n<p>When the Arameans emerged into history around the time of Abraham, they were settled around the central Euphrates, from which they spread out to the east, west, and north. By around 1100 <span>BC<\/span>, Aramean tribes had spread throughout Syria and had expanded into northern Transjordan. They set up a number of powerful Aramean city-states, including Zobah and Damascus, that came into conflict with the Israelites beginning in the time of David (see 2 Sam 8:3-8; 10:6-25).<\/p>\n<p>After Solomon’s death and the division of Israel into northern and southern kingdoms, Aramean Damascus became a powerful and opportunistic player in the political struggles between the two states. When war broke out between Israel and Judah in the years 890–880 <span>BC<\/span>, King Asa of Israel sought aid from Ben-hadad I of Damascus (1 Kgs 15:18-19). Roughly thirty years later, in the early 850s <span>BC<\/span>, Ben-hadad invaded Israel, but Ahab defeated him both at Samaria (20:1-21) and at Aphek the following year (20:22-34). After three years of peace between Israel and Damascus, hostilities broke out again in 853 <span>BC<\/span>, resulting in the battle in which Ahab was killed (22:29-37). Aramean Damascus continued to inflict losses on the kingdom of Israel for the next several decades (see 2 Kgs 8:28-29; 12:17-18; 13:1-7).<\/p>\n<p>During this period, the Aramean city-states began feeling pressure from Assyria. Damascus was first defeated by Assyria around 838 <span>BC<\/span> and was forced to become a tribute-paying vassal of Assyria in 803 <span>BC<\/span>. The resulting weakness of Damascus helped enable Jehoash (798–782 <span>BC<\/span>) to defeat the Arameans and expel them from Israel’s territory around 795 <span>BC<\/span> (2 Kgs 13:14-25). Later, Jeroboam II (793–753 <span>BC<\/span>) was able to force Damascus to pay tribute to him (see 2 Kgs 14:28).<\/p>\n<p>Around 738 <span>BC<\/span> the Arameans of Damascus joined forces with Israel to subjugate Judah. They captured much land, but their siege of Jerusalem was unsuccessful (2 Kgs 16:5; see also 2 Chr 28:5). At this time of seeming success for Damascus, the prophets Isaiah and Amos predicted the city’s doom (Isa 8:4; 17:1; Amos 1:3-5). But rather than trust in God, King Ahaz of Judah turned to the Assyrians for protection, who responded to his gifts by sacking Damascus and exiling its population in 733\/732 <span>BC<\/span> (2 Kgs 16:7-11). Damascus was no longer an independent city-state.<\/p>\n<p>The language of the Arameans, Aramaic, eventually became the language for diplomacy and administration all over the Near East (see, e.g., 2 Kgs 18:26). During the Exile, the Jews adopted the Aramaic language; portions of Ezra and Daniel are written in Aramaic. Aramaic was the <em>lingua franca<\/em> from Egypt to India during the Persian period and was widely spoken in Palestine in Jesus’ day (see Mark 5:41; 1 Cor 16:22).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 10:22-23; 22:20-21; 25:20; 28:1-7; Deut 26:5; 2 Sam 8:3-4; 10:17-19; 1 Kgs 15:18; 1 Kgs 20:1-34; 22:29-37; 2 Kgs 13:25; 16:9-13; 17:24-34; Hos 12:12; Amos 1:5<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Arameans<\/h3>\n<p>The Arameans were a Semitic group, descendants of Shem (Gen 10:22-23; cp. Gen 22:20-21). Bethuel and Laban were known as Arameans (Gen 25:20; 28:1-7). Jacob lived for some twenty years with them in Aramean territory (Gen 28–31; Hos 12:12), and the people of Israel remembered that their forefathers were (at least culturally) Arameans (Deut 26:5).<\/p>\n<p>When the Arameans emerged into history around the time of Abraham, they were settled around the central Euphrates, from which they spread out to the east, west, and north. By around 1100 <span>BC<\/span>, Aramean tribes had spread throughout Syria and had expanded into northern Transjordan. They set up a number of powerful Aramean city-states, including Zobah and Damascus, that came into conflict with the Israelites beginning in the time of David (see 2 Sam 8:3-8; 10:6-25).<\/p>\n<p>After Solomon’s death and the division of Israel into northern and southern kingdoms, Aramean Damascus became a powerful and opportunistic player in the political struggles between the two states. When war broke out between Israel and Judah in the years 890–880 <span>BC<\/span>, King Asa of Israel sought aid from Ben-hadad I of Damascus (1 Kgs 15:18-19). Roughly thirty years later, in the early 850s <span>BC<\/span>, Ben-hadad invaded Israel, but Ahab defeated him both at Samaria (20:1-21) and at Aphek the following year (20:22-34). After three years of peace between Israel and Damascus, hostilities broke out again in 853 <span>BC<\/span>, resulting in the battle in which Ahab was killed (22:29-37). Aramean Damascus continued to inflict losses on the kingdom of Israel for the next several decades (see 2 Kgs 8:28-29; 12:17-18; 13:1-7).<\/p>\n<p>During this period, the Aramean city-states began feeling pressure from Assyria. Damascus was first defeated by Assyria around 838 <span>BC<\/span> and was forced to become a tribute-paying vassal of Assyria in 803 <span>BC<\/span>. The resulting weakness of Damascus helped enable Jehoash (798–782 <span>BC<\/span>) to defeat the Arameans and expel them from Israel’s territory around 795 <span>BC<\/span> (2 Kgs 13:14-25). Later, Jeroboam II (793–753 <span>BC<\/span>) was able to force Damascus to pay tribute to him (see 2 Kgs 14:28).<\/p>\n<p>Around 738 <span>BC<\/span> the Arameans of Damascus joined forces with Israel to subjugate Judah. They captured much land, but their siege of Jerusalem was unsuccessful (2 Kgs 16:5; see also 2 Chr 28:5). At this time of seeming success for Damascus, the prophets Isaiah and Amos predicted the city’s doom (Isa 8:4; 17:1; Amos 1:3-5). But rather than trust in God, King Ahaz of Judah turned to the Assyrians for protection, who responded to his gifts by sacking Damascus and exiling its population in 733\/732 <span>BC<\/span> (2 Kgs 16:7-11). Damascus was no longer an independent city-state.<\/p>\n<p>The language of the Arameans, Aramaic, eventually became the language for diplomacy and administration all over the Near East (see, e.g., 2 Kgs 18:26). During the Exile, the Jews adopted the Aramaic language; portions of Ezra and Daniel are written in Aramaic. Aramaic was the <em>lingua franca<\/em> from Egypt to India during the Persian period and was widely spoken in Palestine in Jesus’ day (see Mark 5:41; 1 Cor 16:22).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 10:22-23; 22:20-21; 25:20; 28:1-7; Deut 26:5; 2 Sam 8:3-4; 10:17-19; 1 Kgs 15:18; 1 Kgs 20:1-34; 22:29-37; 2 Kgs 13:25; 16:9-13; 17:24-34; Hos 12:12; Amos 1:5<\/p>","summary_ro":"Arameans The Arameans were a Semitic group, descendants of Shem (Gen 10:22-23; cp. Gen 22:20-21). Bethuel and Laban were known as Arameans (Gen 25:20; 28:1-7). Jacob lived for some twenty years with them in Aramean territory (Gen 28–31; Hos 12:12), and the people of Israel remembered that their forefathers were (at least culturally) Arameans (Deut 26:5). When the Arameans emerged into history around the time of Abraham, they were settled around the central Euphrates, from which they spread ou...","summary_en":"Arameans The Arameans were a Semitic group, descendants of Shem (Gen 10:22-23; cp. Gen 22:20-21). Bethuel and Laban were known as Arameans (Gen 25:20; 28:1-7). Jacob lived for some twenty years with them in Aramean territory (Gen 28–31; Hos 12:12), and the people of Israel remembered that their forefathers were (at least culturally) Arameans (Deut 26:5). When the Arameans emerged into history around the time of Abraham, they were settled around the central Euphrates, from which they spread ou...","source":"Profiles.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":69238,"type":"profile","type_label":"Profil","type_icon":"👤","type_color":"#f59e0b","title_ro":"Arameans","title_en":"Arameans","content_ro":"<h3>Arameans<\/h3>\n<p>The Arameans were a Semitic group, descendants of Shem (Gen 10:22-23; cp. Gen 22:20-21). Bethuel and Laban were known as Arameans (Gen 25:20; 28:1-7). Jacob lived for some twenty years with them in Aramean territory (Gen 28–31; Hos 12:12), and the people of Israel remembered that their forefathers were (at least culturally) Arameans (Deut 26:5).<\/p>\n<p>When the Arameans emerged into history around the time of Abraham, they were settled around the central Euphrates, from which they spread out to the east, west, and north. By around 1100 <span>BC<\/span>, Aramean tribes had spread throughout Syria and had expanded into northern Transjordan. They set up a number of powerful Aramean city-states, including Zobah and Damascus, that came into conflict with the Israelites beginning in the time of David (see 2 Sam 8:3-8; 10:6-25).<\/p>\n<p>After Solomon’s death and the division of Israel into northern and southern kingdoms, Aramean Damascus became a powerful and opportunistic player in the political struggles between the two states. When war broke out between Israel and Judah in the years 890–880 <span>BC<\/span>, King Asa of Israel sought aid from Ben-hadad I of Damascus (1 Kgs 15:18-19). Roughly thirty years later, in the early 850s <span>BC<\/span>, Ben-hadad invaded Israel, but Ahab defeated him both at Samaria (20:1-21) and at Aphek the following year (20:22-34). After three years of peace between Israel and Damascus, hostilities broke out again in 853 <span>BC<\/span>, resulting in the battle in which Ahab was killed (22:29-37). Aramean Damascus continued to inflict losses on the kingdom of Israel for the next several decades (see 2 Kgs 8:28-29; 12:17-18; 13:1-7).<\/p>\n<p>During this period, the Aramean city-states began feeling pressure from Assyria. Damascus was first defeated by Assyria around 838 <span>BC<\/span> and was forced to become a tribute-paying vassal of Assyria in 803 <span>BC<\/span>. The resulting weakness of Damascus helped enable Jehoash (798–782 <span>BC<\/span>) to defeat the Arameans and expel them from Israel’s territory around 795 <span>BC<\/span> (2 Kgs 13:14-25). Later, Jeroboam II (793–753 <span>BC<\/span>) was able to force Damascus to pay tribute to him (see 2 Kgs 14:28).<\/p>\n<p>Around 738 <span>BC<\/span> the Arameans of Damascus joined forces with Israel to subjugate Judah. They captured much land, but their siege of Jerusalem was unsuccessful (2 Kgs 16:5; see also 2 Chr 28:5). At this time of seeming success for Damascus, the prophets Isaiah and Amos predicted the city’s doom (Isa 8:4; 17:1; Amos 1:3-5). But rather than trust in God, King Ahaz of Judah turned to the Assyrians for protection, who responded to his gifts by sacking Damascus and exiling its population in 733\/732 <span>BC<\/span> (2 Kgs 16:7-11). Damascus was no longer an independent city-state.<\/p>\n<p>The language of the Arameans, Aramaic, eventually became the language for diplomacy and administration all over the Near East (see, e.g., 2 Kgs 18:26). During the Exile, the Jews adopted the Aramaic language; portions of Ezra and Daniel are written in Aramaic. Aramaic was the <em>lingua franca<\/em> from Egypt to India during the Persian period and was widely spoken in Palestine in Jesus’ day (see Mark 5:41; 1 Cor 16:22).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 10:22-23; 22:20-21; 25:20; 28:1-7; Deut 26:5; 2 Sam 8:3-4; 10:17-19; 1 Kgs 15:18; 1 Kgs 20:1-34; 22:29-37; 2 Kgs 13:25; 16:9-13; 17:24-34; Hos 12:12; Amos 1:5<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Arameans<\/h3>\n<p>The Arameans were a Semitic group, descendants of Shem (Gen 10:22-23; cp. Gen 22:20-21). Bethuel and Laban were known as Arameans (Gen 25:20; 28:1-7). Jacob lived for some twenty years with them in Aramean territory (Gen 28–31; Hos 12:12), and the people of Israel remembered that their forefathers were (at least culturally) Arameans (Deut 26:5).<\/p>\n<p>When the Arameans emerged into history around the time of Abraham, they were settled around the central Euphrates, from which they spread out to the east, west, and north. By around 1100 <span>BC<\/span>, Aramean tribes had spread throughout Syria and had expanded into northern Transjordan. They set up a number of powerful Aramean city-states, including Zobah and Damascus, that came into conflict with the Israelites beginning in the time of David (see 2 Sam 8:3-8; 10:6-25).<\/p>\n<p>After Solomon’s death and the division of Israel into northern and southern kingdoms, Aramean Damascus became a powerful and opportunistic player in the political struggles between the two states. When war broke out between Israel and Judah in the years 890–880 <span>BC<\/span>, King Asa of Israel sought aid from Ben-hadad I of Damascus (1 Kgs 15:18-19). Roughly thirty years later, in the early 850s <span>BC<\/span>, Ben-hadad invaded Israel, but Ahab defeated him both at Samaria (20:1-21) and at Aphek the following year (20:22-34). After three years of peace between Israel and Damascus, hostilities broke out again in 853 <span>BC<\/span>, resulting in the battle in which Ahab was killed (22:29-37). Aramean Damascus continued to inflict losses on the kingdom of Israel for the next several decades (see 2 Kgs 8:28-29; 12:17-18; 13:1-7).<\/p>\n<p>During this period, the Aramean city-states began feeling pressure from Assyria. Damascus was first defeated by Assyria around 838 <span>BC<\/span> and was forced to become a tribute-paying vassal of Assyria in 803 <span>BC<\/span>. The resulting weakness of Damascus helped enable Jehoash (798–782 <span>BC<\/span>) to defeat the Arameans and expel them from Israel’s territory around 795 <span>BC<\/span> (2 Kgs 13:14-25). Later, Jeroboam II (793–753 <span>BC<\/span>) was able to force Damascus to pay tribute to him (see 2 Kgs 14:28).<\/p>\n<p>Around 738 <span>BC<\/span> the Arameans of Damascus joined forces with Israel to subjugate Judah. They captured much land, but their siege of Jerusalem was unsuccessful (2 Kgs 16:5; see also 2 Chr 28:5). At this time of seeming success for Damascus, the prophets Isaiah and Amos predicted the city’s doom (Isa 8:4; 17:1; Amos 1:3-5). But rather than trust in God, King Ahaz of Judah turned to the Assyrians for protection, who responded to his gifts by sacking Damascus and exiling its population in 733\/732 <span>BC<\/span> (2 Kgs 16:7-11). Damascus was no longer an independent city-state.<\/p>\n<p>The language of the Arameans, Aramaic, eventually became the language for diplomacy and administration all over the Near East (see, e.g., 2 Kgs 18:26). During the Exile, the Jews adopted the Aramaic language; portions of Ezra and Daniel are written in Aramaic. Aramaic was the <em>lingua franca<\/em> from Egypt to India during the Persian period and was widely spoken in Palestine in Jesus’ day (see Mark 5:41; 1 Cor 16:22).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 10:22-23; 22:20-21; 25:20; 28:1-7; Deut 26:5; 2 Sam 8:3-4; 10:17-19; 1 Kgs 15:18; 1 Kgs 20:1-34; 22:29-37; 2 Kgs 13:25; 16:9-13; 17:24-34; Hos 12:12; Amos 1:5<\/p>","summary_ro":"Arameans The Arameans were a Semitic group, descendants of Shem (Gen 10:22-23; cp. Gen 22:20-21). Bethuel and Laban were known as Arameans (Gen 25:20; 28:1-7). Jacob lived for some twenty years with them in Aramean territory (Gen 28–31; Hos 12:12), and the people of Israel remembered that their forefathers were (at least culturally) Arameans (Deut 26:5). When the Arameans emerged into history around the time of Abraham, they were settled around the central Euphrates, from which they spread ou...","summary_en":"Arameans The Arameans were a Semitic group, descendants of Shem (Gen 10:22-23; cp. Gen 22:20-21). Bethuel and Laban were known as Arameans (Gen 25:20; 28:1-7). Jacob lived for some twenty years with them in Aramean territory (Gen 28–31; Hos 12:12), and the people of Israel remembered that their forefathers were (at least culturally) Arameans (Deut 26:5). When the Arameans emerged into history around the time of Abraham, they were settled around the central Euphrates, from which they spread ou...","source":"Profiles.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":96864,"type":"profile","type_label":"Profil","type_icon":"👤","type_color":"#f59e0b","title_ro":"Arameans","title_en":"Arameans","content_ro":"<h3>Arameans<\/h3>\n<p>The Arameans were a Semitic group, descendants of Shem (Gen 10:22-23; cp. Gen 22:20-21). Bethuel and Laban were known as Arameans (Gen 25:20; 28:1-7). Jacob lived for some twenty years with them in Aramean territory (Gen 28–31; Hos 12:12), and the people of Israel remembered that their forefathers were (at least culturally) Arameans (Deut 26:5).<\/p>\n<p>When the Arameans emerged into history around the time of Abraham, they were settled around the central Euphrates, from which they spread out to the east, west, and north. By around 1100 <span>BC<\/span>, Aramean tribes had spread throughout Syria and had expanded into northern Transjordan. They set up a number of powerful Aramean city-states, including Zobah and Damascus, that came into conflict with the Israelites beginning in the time of David (see 2 Sam 8:3-8; 10:6-25).<\/p>\n<p>After Solomon’s death and the division of Israel into northern and southern kingdoms, Aramean Damascus became a powerful and opportunistic player in the political struggles between the two states. When war broke out between Israel and Judah in the years 890–880 <span>BC<\/span>, King Asa of Israel sought aid from Ben-hadad I of Damascus (1 Kgs 15:18-19). Roughly thirty years later, in the early 850s <span>BC<\/span>, Ben-hadad invaded Israel, but Ahab defeated him both at Samaria (20:1-21) and at Aphek the following year (20:22-34). After three years of peace between Israel and Damascus, hostilities broke out again in 853 <span>BC<\/span>, resulting in the battle in which Ahab was killed (22:29-37). Aramean Damascus continued to inflict losses on the kingdom of Israel for the next several decades (see 2 Kgs 8:28-29; 12:17-18; 13:1-7).<\/p>\n<p>During this period, the Aramean city-states began feeling pressure from Assyria. Damascus was first defeated by Assyria around 838 <span>BC<\/span> and was forced to become a tribute-paying vassal of Assyria in 803 <span>BC<\/span>. The resulting weakness of Damascus helped enable Jehoash (798–782 <span>BC<\/span>) to defeat the Arameans and expel them from Israel’s territory around 795 <span>BC<\/span> (2 Kgs 13:14-25). Later, Jeroboam II (793–753 <span>BC<\/span>) was able to force Damascus to pay tribute to him (see 2 Kgs 14:28).<\/p>\n<p>Around 738 <span>BC<\/span> the Arameans of Damascus joined forces with Israel to subjugate Judah. They captured much land, but their siege of Jerusalem was unsuccessful (2 Kgs 16:5; see also 2 Chr 28:5). At this time of seeming success for Damascus, the prophets Isaiah and Amos predicted the city’s doom (Isa 8:4; 17:1; Amos 1:3-5). But rather than trust in God, King Ahaz of Judah turned to the Assyrians for protection, who responded to his gifts by sacking Damascus and exiling its population in 733\/732 <span>BC<\/span> (2 Kgs 16:7-11). Damascus was no longer an independent city-state.<\/p>\n<p>The language of the Arameans, Aramaic, eventually became the language for diplomacy and administration all over the Near East (see, e.g., 2 Kgs 18:26). During the Exile, the Jews adopted the Aramaic language; portions of Ezra and Daniel are written in Aramaic. Aramaic was the <em>lingua franca<\/em> from Egypt to India during the Persian period and was widely spoken in Palestine in Jesus’ day (see Mark 5:41; 1 Cor 16:22).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 10:22-23; 22:20-21; 25:20; 28:1-7; Deut 26:5; 2 Sam 8:3-4; 10:17-19; 1 Kgs 15:18; 1 Kgs 20:1-34; 22:29-37; 2 Kgs 13:25; 16:9-13; 17:24-34; Hos 12:12; Amos 1:5<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Arameans<\/h3>\n<p>The Arameans were a Semitic group, descendants of Shem (Gen 10:22-23; cp. Gen 22:20-21). Bethuel and Laban were known as Arameans (Gen 25:20; 28:1-7). Jacob lived for some twenty years with them in Aramean territory (Gen 28–31; Hos 12:12), and the people of Israel remembered that their forefathers were (at least culturally) Arameans (Deut 26:5).<\/p>\n<p>When the Arameans emerged into history around the time of Abraham, they were settled around the central Euphrates, from which they spread out to the east, west, and north. By around 1100 <span>BC<\/span>, Aramean tribes had spread throughout Syria and had expanded into northern Transjordan. They set up a number of powerful Aramean city-states, including Zobah and Damascus, that came into conflict with the Israelites beginning in the time of David (see 2 Sam 8:3-8; 10:6-25).<\/p>\n<p>After Solomon’s death and the division of Israel into northern and southern kingdoms, Aramean Damascus became a powerful and opportunistic player in the political struggles between the two states. When war broke out between Israel and Judah in the years 890–880 <span>BC<\/span>, King Asa of Israel sought aid from Ben-hadad I of Damascus (1 Kgs 15:18-19). Roughly thirty years later, in the early 850s <span>BC<\/span>, Ben-hadad invaded Israel, but Ahab defeated him both at Samaria (20:1-21) and at Aphek the following year (20:22-34). After three years of peace between Israel and Damascus, hostilities broke out again in 853 <span>BC<\/span>, resulting in the battle in which Ahab was killed (22:29-37). Aramean Damascus continued to inflict losses on the kingdom of Israel for the next several decades (see 2 Kgs 8:28-29; 12:17-18; 13:1-7).<\/p>\n<p>During this period, the Aramean city-states began feeling pressure from Assyria. Damascus was first defeated by Assyria around 838 <span>BC<\/span> and was forced to become a tribute-paying vassal of Assyria in 803 <span>BC<\/span>. The resulting weakness of Damascus helped enable Jehoash (798–782 <span>BC<\/span>) to defeat the Arameans and expel them from Israel’s territory around 795 <span>BC<\/span> (2 Kgs 13:14-25). Later, Jeroboam II (793–753 <span>BC<\/span>) was able to force Damascus to pay tribute to him (see 2 Kgs 14:28).<\/p>\n<p>Around 738 <span>BC<\/span> the Arameans of Damascus joined forces with Israel to subjugate Judah. They captured much land, but their siege of Jerusalem was unsuccessful (2 Kgs 16:5; see also 2 Chr 28:5). At this time of seeming success for Damascus, the prophets Isaiah and Amos predicted the city’s doom (Isa 8:4; 17:1; Amos 1:3-5). But rather than trust in God, King Ahaz of Judah turned to the Assyrians for protection, who responded to his gifts by sacking Damascus and exiling its population in 733\/732 <span>BC<\/span> (2 Kgs 16:7-11). Damascus was no longer an independent city-state.<\/p>\n<p>The language of the Arameans, Aramaic, eventually became the language for diplomacy and administration all over the Near East (see, e.g., 2 Kgs 18:26). During the Exile, the Jews adopted the Aramaic language; portions of Ezra and Daniel are written in Aramaic. Aramaic was the <em>lingua franca<\/em> from Egypt to India during the Persian period and was widely spoken in Palestine in Jesus’ day (see Mark 5:41; 1 Cor 16:22).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 10:22-23; 22:20-21; 25:20; 28:1-7; Deut 26:5; 2 Sam 8:3-4; 10:17-19; 1 Kgs 15:18; 1 Kgs 20:1-34; 22:29-37; 2 Kgs 13:25; 16:9-13; 17:24-34; Hos 12:12; Amos 1:5<\/p>","summary_ro":"Arameans The Arameans were a Semitic group, descendants of Shem (Gen 10:22-23; cp. Gen 22:20-21). Bethuel and Laban were known as Arameans (Gen 25:20; 28:1-7). Jacob lived for some twenty years with them in Aramean territory (Gen 28–31; Hos 12:12), and the people of Israel remembered that their forefathers were (at least culturally) Arameans (Deut 26:5). When the Arameans emerged into history around the time of Abraham, they were settled around the central Euphrates, from which they spread ou...","summary_en":"Arameans The Arameans were a Semitic group, descendants of Shem (Gen 10:22-23; cp. Gen 22:20-21). Bethuel and Laban were known as Arameans (Gen 25:20; 28:1-7). Jacob lived for some twenty years with them in Aramean territory (Gen 28–31; Hos 12:12), and the people of Israel remembered that their forefathers were (at least culturally) Arameans (Deut 26:5). When the Arameans emerged into history around the time of Abraham, they were settled around the central Euphrates, from which they spread ou...","source":"Profiles.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":124490,"type":"profile","type_label":"Profil","type_icon":"👤","type_color":"#f59e0b","title_ro":"Arameans","title_en":"Arameans","content_ro":"<h3>Arameans<\/h3>\n<p>The Arameans were a Semitic group, descendants of Shem (Gen 10:22-23; cp. Gen 22:20-21). Bethuel and Laban were known as Arameans (Gen 25:20; 28:1-7). Jacob lived for some twenty years with them in Aramean territory (Gen 28–31; Hos 12:12), and the people of Israel remembered that their forefathers were (at least culturally) Arameans (Deut 26:5).<\/p>\n<p>When the Arameans emerged into history around the time of Abraham, they were settled around the central Euphrates, from which they spread out to the east, west, and north. By around 1100 <span>BC<\/span>, Aramean tribes had spread throughout Syria and had expanded into northern Transjordan. They set up a number of powerful Aramean city-states, including Zobah and Damascus, that came into conflict with the Israelites beginning in the time of David (see 2 Sam 8:3-8; 10:6-25).<\/p>\n<p>After Solomon’s death and the division of Israel into northern and southern kingdoms, Aramean Damascus became a powerful and opportunistic player in the political struggles between the two states. When war broke out between Israel and Judah in the years 890–880 <span>BC<\/span>, King Asa of Israel sought aid from Ben-hadad I of Damascus (1 Kgs 15:18-19). Roughly thirty years later, in the early 850s <span>BC<\/span>, Ben-hadad invaded Israel, but Ahab defeated him both at Samaria (20:1-21) and at Aphek the following year (20:22-34). After three years of peace between Israel and Damascus, hostilities broke out again in 853 <span>BC<\/span>, resulting in the battle in which Ahab was killed (22:29-37). Aramean Damascus continued to inflict losses on the kingdom of Israel for the next several decades (see 2 Kgs 8:28-29; 12:17-18; 13:1-7).<\/p>\n<p>During this period, the Aramean city-states began feeling pressure from Assyria. Damascus was first defeated by Assyria around 838 <span>BC<\/span> and was forced to become a tribute-paying vassal of Assyria in 803 <span>BC<\/span>. The resulting weakness of Damascus helped enable Jehoash (798–782 <span>BC<\/span>) to defeat the Arameans and expel them from Israel’s territory around 795 <span>BC<\/span> (2 Kgs 13:14-25). Later, Jeroboam II (793–753 <span>BC<\/span>) was able to force Damascus to pay tribute to him (see 2 Kgs 14:28).<\/p>\n<p>Around 738 <span>BC<\/span> the Arameans of Damascus joined forces with Israel to subjugate Judah. They captured much land, but their siege of Jerusalem was unsuccessful (2 Kgs 16:5; see also 2 Chr 28:5). At this time of seeming success for Damascus, the prophets Isaiah and Amos predicted the city’s doom (Isa 8:4; 17:1; Amos 1:3-5). But rather than trust in God, King Ahaz of Judah turned to the Assyrians for protection, who responded to his gifts by sacking Damascus and exiling its population in 733\/732 <span>BC<\/span> (2 Kgs 16:7-11). Damascus was no longer an independent city-state.<\/p>\n<p>The language of the Arameans, Aramaic, eventually became the language for diplomacy and administration all over the Near East (see, e.g., 2 Kgs 18:26). During the Exile, the Jews adopted the Aramaic language; portions of Ezra and Daniel are written in Aramaic. Aramaic was the <em>lingua franca<\/em> from Egypt to India during the Persian period and was widely spoken in Palestine in Jesus’ day (see Mark 5:41; 1 Cor 16:22).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 10:22-23; 22:20-21; 25:20; 28:1-7; Deut 26:5; 2 Sam 8:3-4; 10:17-19; 1 Kgs 15:18; 1 Kgs 20:1-34; 22:29-37; 2 Kgs 13:25; 16:9-13; 17:24-34; Hos 12:12; Amos 1:5<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Arameans<\/h3>\n<p>The Arameans were a Semitic group, descendants of Shem (Gen 10:22-23; cp. Gen 22:20-21). Bethuel and Laban were known as Arameans (Gen 25:20; 28:1-7). Jacob lived for some twenty years with them in Aramean territory (Gen 28–31; Hos 12:12), and the people of Israel remembered that their forefathers were (at least culturally) Arameans (Deut 26:5).<\/p>\n<p>When the Arameans emerged into history around the time of Abraham, they were settled around the central Euphrates, from which they spread out to the east, west, and north. By around 1100 <span>BC<\/span>, Aramean tribes had spread throughout Syria and had expanded into northern Transjordan. They set up a number of powerful Aramean city-states, including Zobah and Damascus, that came into conflict with the Israelites beginning in the time of David (see 2 Sam 8:3-8; 10:6-25).<\/p>\n<p>After Solomon’s death and the division of Israel into northern and southern kingdoms, Aramean Damascus became a powerful and opportunistic player in the political struggles between the two states. When war broke out between Israel and Judah in the years 890–880 <span>BC<\/span>, King Asa of Israel sought aid from Ben-hadad I of Damascus (1 Kgs 15:18-19). Roughly thirty years later, in the early 850s <span>BC<\/span>, Ben-hadad invaded Israel, but Ahab defeated him both at Samaria (20:1-21) and at Aphek the following year (20:22-34). After three years of peace between Israel and Damascus, hostilities broke out again in 853 <span>BC<\/span>, resulting in the battle in which Ahab was killed (22:29-37). Aramean Damascus continued to inflict losses on the kingdom of Israel for the next several decades (see 2 Kgs 8:28-29; 12:17-18; 13:1-7).<\/p>\n<p>During this period, the Aramean city-states began feeling pressure from Assyria. Damascus was first defeated by Assyria around 838 <span>BC<\/span> and was forced to become a tribute-paying vassal of Assyria in 803 <span>BC<\/span>. The resulting weakness of Damascus helped enable Jehoash (798–782 <span>BC<\/span>) to defeat the Arameans and expel them from Israel’s territory around 795 <span>BC<\/span> (2 Kgs 13:14-25). Later, Jeroboam II (793–753 <span>BC<\/span>) was able to force Damascus to pay tribute to him (see 2 Kgs 14:28).<\/p>\n<p>Around 738 <span>BC<\/span> the Arameans of Damascus joined forces with Israel to subjugate Judah. They captured much land, but their siege of Jerusalem was unsuccessful (2 Kgs 16:5; see also 2 Chr 28:5). At this time of seeming success for Damascus, the prophets Isaiah and Amos predicted the city’s doom (Isa 8:4; 17:1; Amos 1:3-5). But rather than trust in God, King Ahaz of Judah turned to the Assyrians for protection, who responded to his gifts by sacking Damascus and exiling its population in 733\/732 <span>BC<\/span> (2 Kgs 16:7-11). Damascus was no longer an independent city-state.<\/p>\n<p>The language of the Arameans, Aramaic, eventually became the language for diplomacy and administration all over the Near East (see, e.g., 2 Kgs 18:26). During the Exile, the Jews adopted the Aramaic language; portions of Ezra and Daniel are written in Aramaic. Aramaic was the <em>lingua franca<\/em> from Egypt to India during the Persian period and was widely spoken in Palestine in Jesus’ day (see Mark 5:41; 1 Cor 16:22).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 10:22-23; 22:20-21; 25:20; 28:1-7; Deut 26:5; 2 Sam 8:3-4; 10:17-19; 1 Kgs 15:18; 1 Kgs 20:1-34; 22:29-37; 2 Kgs 13:25; 16:9-13; 17:24-34; Hos 12:12; Amos 1:5<\/p>","summary_ro":"Arameans The Arameans were a Semitic group, descendants of Shem (Gen 10:22-23; cp. Gen 22:20-21). Bethuel and Laban were known as Arameans (Gen 25:20; 28:1-7). Jacob lived for some twenty years with them in Aramean territory (Gen 28–31; Hos 12:12), and the people of Israel remembered that their forefathers were (at least culturally) Arameans (Deut 26:5). When the Arameans emerged into history around the time of Abraham, they were settled around the central Euphrates, from which they spread ou...","summary_en":"Arameans The Arameans were a Semitic group, descendants of Shem (Gen 10:22-23; cp. Gen 22:20-21). Bethuel and Laban were known as Arameans (Gen 25:20; 28:1-7). Jacob lived for some twenty years with them in Aramean territory (Gen 28–31; Hos 12:12), and the people of Israel remembered that their forefathers were (at least culturally) Arameans (Deut 26:5). When the Arameans emerged into history around the time of Abraham, they were settled around the central Euphrates, from which they spread ou...","source":"Profiles.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":1463,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Book of Amos","title_en":"Book of Amos","content_ro":"<h3>AMOS, B<span>ook of<\/span><\/h3>\n<p>Writings of the prophet Amos, one of the 12 minor prophets of the Hebrew OT. The book of Amos is called minor only because it is relatively short. Its message is as important as that of any of the major prophets. Indeed, Amos has one of the most powerful statements in the Bible of God’s judgment against injustice, oppression, and hypocrisy. The book consists primarily of prophetic sermons preached by Amos at Bethel, royal sanctuary of the northern kingdom of Israel in the eighth century <span>BC<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Author<\/p>\n<p>• Date, Origin, and Destination<\/p>\n<p>• Background<\/p>\n<p>• Content<\/p>\n<p>• Significance<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Author\">Author<\/p>\n<p>The preacher of the sermons (or oracles) in the book was undoubtedly Amos, a herdsman and a dresser (farmer) of fig trees, from the village of Tekoa, south of Jerusalem. He received from God a vision of judgment on Israel and went north to Bethel, just across the border between Judah and Israel, to deliver his sermons. All we know about the prophet is contained in the superscription (1:1-2) and a biographical section (7:10-14) of the book of Amos, plus what can be learned about him from the style and content of the rest of the book.<\/p>\n<p>Did Amos write down his prophecies himself? Although scholars have raised many questions about the authorship of Amos, there is no convincing reason to regard the book as the work of anyone else. Some have suggested that the sermons were passed on by word of mouth for a long time before they were written down in final form. The Hebrew text, however, is in much better shape than would be expected (had it come through prolonged oral transmission). The many first-person references and vigor of expression imply strongly that Amos himself put much of his prophecy into writing soon after delivering it at Bethel.<\/p>\n<p>Another speculative proposal is that the visions described in the book (7:1-9; 8:1-3; 9:1-4) were compiled by Amos before he began his ministry to the northern kingdom, and the oracles (chs 1–6) were composed after that time. The two sections could have been joined into one book much later, during or after the Babylonian exile, with some sections inserted at that time. Other prophecies, however, such as Ezekiel and Jeremiah, contain both oracle and vision sections that scholars have not attempted to divide, and the internal evidence does not make such a division necessary with Amos. Both sections contain similar concerns; in both the visions (7:1-3) and the oracles (5:1-7), Amos appears in the role of intercessor on behalf of Israel.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"DateOriginandDestination\">Date, Origin, and Destination<\/p>\n<p>According to the superscription, Amos prophesied during the reigns of Uzziah, king of Judah, and Jeroboam II, king of Israel (1:1), or between 792 and 740 <span>BC<\/span>. The content of his message fits what is known about the situation in Israel in that period. It is difficult to be more exact about the beginning and ending of Amos’s prophetic ministry within that time span. The vision came to him “two years before the earthquake” (1:1), but another biblical reference to presumably the same earthquake places it during the days of King Uzziah of Judah (Zec 14:5). Archaeological excavations at Hazor seem to have yielded evidence for an earthquake, which has been dated at approximately 760 <span>BC<\/span>. Amos also contains a prophetic reference to a solar eclipse (8:9); such an eclipse has been calculated to have occurred about 763 <span>BC<\/span>. After King Uzziah was stricken with leprosy, he lived in isolation while Judah was under a co-regency (2 Chr 26:21). Therefore, Amos’s mention of Uzziah as king (1:1) probably sets 760 <span>BC<\/span> as the latest possible date for Amos’s ministry.<\/p>\n<p>The doom that came upon Israel after Amos’s prophecy was the conquest by the Assyrian king Tiglath-pileser III (745–727 <span>BC<\/span>). Although Amos referred to impending captivity, he never mentioned Assyria as the captor, although he did say that captivity would take Israel to a land east of Damascus (5:27). Probably Amos was not thinking specifically of the rising power of Assyria but only of the inevitable consequences of Israel’s idolatry and hypocrisy. When all the evidence is taken into consideration, it seems reasonable to date the beginning of Amos’s prophecies at Bethel to about 760 <span>BC<\/span>, or approximately the middle of the period during which both Uzziah and Jeroboam II were on their thrones. We do not know how long his ministry lasted; it may have been only a few months.<\/p>\n<p>Amos had been caring for his flocks in the Judean hills south of Jerusalem when God told him, “Go and prophesy to my people in Israel” (7:15, <span>nlt<\/span>). He may have been familiar with the more urban north from earlier trips there to sell wool or fruit, or the pagan worship and social wrongs there may have made a sudden impact on him after his call to prophesy. At any rate, his writings reveal not only his rural Judean background but also a firsthand knowledge of conditions in the northern kingdom of Israel. Although his prophecies were directed primarily to Israel, he also denounced the sin of Judah, predicting that its capital, Jerusalem, would be burned (2:4-5). Several passages are directed at inhabitants of Samaria, capital of Israel (4:1, 11; 6:1), with which Amos was obviously familiar. He could have traveled on to Samaria from Bethel, or he could have learned of its splendors from the boasts of its citizens. He could have addressed them directly as they came from the capital city to worship at Bethel.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Background\">Background<\/p>\n<p>The eighth century <span>BC<\/span> was a critical time in Jewish history. Both kingdoms of the divided nation had risen to heights of economic affluence that had not been experienced since the days of Solomon. Yet internal religious decay was sapping the strength of both kingdoms, and their social fabric was being destroyed. A new wealthy class was benefiting from the affluence of the time, growing ever richer while poor people became poorer than ever.<\/p>\n<p>In 803 <span>BC<\/span>, the conquest of Syrian Damascus by the Assyrian king Adad-nirari III had silenced one of Israel’s major enemies. With the Syrians out of the picture, the kingdom of Israel was able to expand its borders under King Joash (2 Kgs 13:25), and for a time even the thrust of Assyrian power westward was diminished. Israel and Judah entered a period of rest from constant warfare and turned their attention to internal affairs.<\/p>\n<p>Joash’s son, Jeroboam II, became king of Israel in 793 and reigned until 753 <span>BC<\/span>. Uzziah was on the throne of Judah from 792 to 740 <span>BC<\/span>. Under these two kings, Judah and Israel controlled a territory that was almost as large as Solomon’s empire had been. Their wealth had grown both from expansion of trade and from the booty of conquered territories.<\/p>\n<p>Archaeology has yielded information about industrial activity within the nations, such as an impressive dyeing industry at Debir. Excavations at Samaria have produced large numbers of ivory inlays that confirm Amos’s description of the wealthy in the capital city (6:4). The city of Samaria was protected by a huge double wall of unusual thickness. A palace, probably Jeroboam’s, dominated the city with a massive tower.<\/p>\n<p>The splendor and prosperity of the time, however, was masking the spread of internal decay. Oppression of the poor by many in the wealthy classes not only threatened the unity of the nation but also meant that God’s laws were being violated. In his denunciations of the cruel treatment of the poor (5:11-13; 8:4-10), Amos warned of the inevitable punishment for disobeying God’s laws.<\/p>\n<p>The nation of Israel was guilty of more than social sins against the covenant. It was also adopting pagan religious practices. Canaanite religious influence intruded into the fabric of the nation of Israel. Excavation of a palace storehouse in Samaria uncovered many <em>ostraca<\/em> (pieces of broken pottery used for writing short messages such as letters, receipts, etc.) containing Hebrew names compounded with “Baal,” a chief god of the Canaanite religion.<\/p>\n<p>In spite of the gradual deterioration, false optimism seems to have prevailed. Amos found people desiring the Day of the Lord (5:18) and sought to correct their misunderstanding: the Day of the Lord prophesied in the Scriptures would be a time of judgment on all sinners. A more immediate judgment was to come, however. Assyria began to strengthen its position in the world and to resume its expansionist policies. Under the leadership of Tiglath-pileser III (745–727 <span>BC<\/span>), Assyria regained a position of world dominance. Eventually, Israel was attacked by Shalmaneser V of Assyria. Soon afterward, in 722 <span>BC<\/span>, Samaria was occupied. No doubt when the Assyrians were sweeping into Israel, many of the people who had ignored the message of Amos then realized that a prophet of God had been among them.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Content\">Content<\/p>\n<h5>Superscription (1:1)<\/h5>\n<p>The prophet introduces himself as a shepherd, perhaps implying that it is more than sheep he wants to keep from straying.<\/p>\n<h5>Prophetic Oracles (1:2–6:14)<\/h5>\n<p>This section begins with a picture of the great power of God, who acts in history to judge the nations (1:2).<\/p>\n<h6>Judgment on Surrounding Nations (1:3–2:3)<\/h6>\n<p>The prophet first speaks against Damascus, then moves on, pronouncing doom on various peoples in ever closer concentric circles, “homing in” on Israel. One may imagine the citizens of Israel applauding God’s judgment on other nations until, with shocking effect, Amos accuses Israel of similar sins.<\/p>\n<p>Damascus was the capital of Syria, northeast of Israel, and the center of Syrian influence. Syria had mistreated Israel during Hazael’s reign in Damascus (842–806 <span>BC<\/span>). Hazael “whittled down” Israel in a number of campaigns (2 Kgs 10:32-33; 13:3-5, 22-24). In their campaign into the territory of Gilead, the Syrians destroyed most of Israel’s army as though they were dust on a threshing floor (2 Kgs 13:7). Hence, Amos denounces Syria for threshing Gilead as grain is threshed with iron rods (Am 1:3). He predicts that Syria will be destroyed and its people deported to Kir, which Amos understood to be their place of origin (9:7). (For the fulfillment of this prophecy, see 2 Kgs 16:9.)<\/p>\n<p>Amos next turned to Gaza, a Philistine city in southwest Palestine. Gaza probably represents the Philistines as a whole, since three other of their five major cities are also mentioned (1:8). The fifth, Gath, had already been conquered by Hazael (2 Kgs 12:17). Amos denounced the Philistines for what must have been a border raid on Israel in which many were carried off into slavery (1:6).<\/p>\n<p>The Phoenician city of Tyre is cited next. Tyre was on the Mediterranean, north of Israel and southwest of Damascus. Destruction of Tyre, like that of the Philistine cities, is predicted as punishment for making slaves of conquered Israelites.<\/p>\n<p>Edom is next, south of the Dead Sea. Edom had perennially harassed the Israelites and is referred to in a negative light many times in the OT. Edom is said to have been pitiless toward Israel, his brother (1:11).<\/p>\n<p>Ammon, just to the southeast of Israel, is also judged. The particularly violent incident referred to (1:13) evidently occurred in one of their many attempts to push northward into the Israelite territory of Gilead.<\/p>\n<p>Moab is the last of the surrounding nations to be denounced, with reference to what may have been a well-known incident of desecration of the dead (2:1-3).<\/p>\n<h6>Oracles against Israel and Judah (2:4-16)<\/h6>\n<p>Although Judah and Israel were at peace at the time, their enmity had continued after dissolution of the united kingdom. Amos accuses Judah of rejecting “the law of the Lord” and predicts the burning of Jerusalem.<\/p>\n<p>The oracle against Israel is longer than the others. Amos carefully specifies the social nature of Israel’s sin, making the point that Israel is no better than the surrounding nations. Israel deserves the same punishment. Just as some of the nations were guilty of taking people into slavery, Israel is selling her own poor who cannot repay their debts (2:6). Under Mosaic law it was illegal to keep overnight a garment pledged as security for a loan, since it might be the only source of warmth the debtor had (Ex 22:26-27). Rich people in Israel were attending religious feasts in such clothing “stolen” from the poor (2:8).<\/p>\n<p>Amos reminds Israel of all the good things God has done for them (2:9-11). But because Israel has chosen to continue in disobedience, the nation will not escape impending judgment (2:12-16).<\/p>\n<h6>Denunciation of and Warning against Israel (3:1–6:14)<\/h6>\n<p>Amos substantiates his prophetic authority with a lesson on cause and effect (3:1-8). A lion roars when it has prey, and people fear when a trumpet sounds an alarm. If calamity comes to a city, God has allowed it. God, who reveals his secrets to his prophets, has spoken Israel’s doom, and Amos must proclaim it.<\/p>\n<p>In a dramatic statement, Amos calls on Egypt and Assyria, great centers of oppression and cruelty, to witness Israel’s crimes, as though even they will be amazed at what they see (3:9-10). Only a ragged remnant will survive the punishment to come (3:11-12). Judgment will fall on objects that symbolize Israel’s religious disobedience (3:14) as well as on symbols of the wealth that led Israel away from the Lord (3:15).<\/p>\n<p>Amos uses strong language to denounce luxurious and indolent living bought at the expense of the poor (4:1-3). Rich women whose love for luxuries drives their husbands to squeeze the needy still more are called “fat cows” who will someday be treated like cattle. Then Amos mocks those who worship at Bethel for going through the motions in the wrong spirit (4:4-5).<\/p>\n<p>In the rest of the fourth chapter, Amos recalls incidents from Israel’s history that were meant to call the people back to God: famine, drought, plagues, the destruction of some of their cities. Still they do not repent. “Prepare to meet your God!” warns the prophet, following his warning with a hymn to the mighty power of God (4:6-13).<\/p>\n<p>The fifth chapter begins in the form of a funeral dirge, as though Israel were as good as dead already (5:1-2). There is no one to help Israel, whose own armies will be decimated when the disaster strikes (5:3). Of course, God is there to help: “Seek me and live” (5:4-6). The possibility of rescue, of “life,” stands in sharp contrast to the nation’s “death” pictured just before. Idols, as always, are a false hope (5:5). The call to seek the Lord is again followed by a hymn to his power (5:8-9).<\/p>\n<p>In spite of the hope offered to Israel, Amos has to present a gloomy picture of what he sees (5:10-13). The judicial system is corrupt; taxes and high interest charges (usury) grind down the poor. Those injustices could be corrected if the people would “hate evil and love good” (5:15), but judgment is already on the way (5:16-17).<\/p>\n<p>The people are full of hypocrisy, claiming to look forward to the Day of the Lord. That day will be a day of judgment on their sins, Amos says. Instead of empty gestures of offerings and praise, God wants to let justice roll down like waters, and righteousness like an everflowing stream (5:18-24). Their disobedient spirit goes back to the time of the exodus from Egypt, when God’s own people were attracted to pagan gods. The Lord God of Hosts will send those false gods into captivity with the people who looked to them (5:25-27).<\/p>\n<p>The self-satisfaction felt by the upper classes in Israel had evidently spread to Judah, since Jerusalem as well as Samaria receives some harsh words (6:1). Amos tells those who are lounging in luxury to take a look at three neighboring kingdoms on which judgment has already fallen: Calneh, Hamath, and Gath. Does Israel think it will escape, since they did not? When the Day of Judgment comes, the rich, who have gone “first-class,” will be the first to go (6:2-7). The destruction will leave few survivors, but they will know that punishment came from God (6:8-11). Israel is behaving stupidly to be proud of themselves when they are actually so utterly self-deceived (6:12-14).<\/p>\n<h5>Prophetic Visions (7:1–9:10)<\/h5>\n<p>By describing three visions God gave him, Amos then dramatically communicates God’s revelation.<\/p>\n<h6>Israel’s Destruction (7:1-9)<\/h6>\n<p>The first vision is in three parts. In the first, Amos pictures the threat of a locust plague in which his prayer of intercession causes God to relent and withdraw the threat (7:1-3). Then he sees an all-consuming fire, and again his prayer averts a catastrophe (7:4-6). In the third part of the vision, Amos sees the Lord standing by a wall and holding a plumb line, implying that he has a standard for his people to live up to, an element missing from the two earlier images. This time, because the people have failed to measure up, the catastrophe cannot be averted (7:7-9).<\/p>\n<h6>Historical Interlude (7:10-17)<\/h6>\n<p>At this point, Amos encounters Amaziah, priest of Bethel, because he has said that the vision of the plumb line means destruction of the idol altars and temples of Israel and of the house of Jeroboam with the sword. Amaziah sends word to Jeroboam that Amos is a traitor and tells Amos to go back to Judah. Amos disclaims any relationship with professional prophets, then specifically includes Amaziah’s family in another prediction of Israel’s disaster.<\/p>\n<h6>The Ripe Fruit (8:1-14)<\/h6>\n<p>In the second vision, Amos is shown a basket of ripe (or summer) fruit. The Hebrew word for summer fruit is almost the same as the word for “end,” so the play on words communicates that the nation is “ripe for punishment.” Their ripeness is really moral rottenness. Greedy merchants can hardly wait for religious holidays to end so they can cheat the poor some more by using false weights, selling inferior goods, and foreclosing on debtors. When the captivity comes, their festivities will turn into funerals. A famine, not just of bread and water but of the words of the Lord, is coming upon them, causing even the strongest young people to drop to the ground.<\/p>\n<h6>Destruction of the Temple (9:1-10)<\/h6>\n<p>The third vision is of the Lord destroying the shrine at Bethel when it is thronged with people engaging in their empty worship. The place where they hoped to find security is where they find destruction. Those who are not inside will be destroyed, too, no matter where they try to flee. They won’t be able to hide from God in Sheol or on the heights of Carmel or in the depths of the sea (9:1-4). Another hymn to God’s power follows the vision (9:5-6).<\/p>\n<p>The final words of denunciation in the book of Amos are found in 9:7-10, but they are a prelude to a message of hope. Amos shows that Israel is no better than any other nation in the eyes of God. Did he not bring Israel out of Egypt? Yes, but he also brought the Philistines from Caphtor and the Syrians from Kir. The religious significance of the exodus has been lost because of Israel’s sin, so all but a faithful remnant will be lost.<\/p>\n<p>The concept of the remnant was important in the prophetic preaching of the eighth century <span>BC<\/span> (cf. Is 6:12-13; Mi 6:7-9). It recalled God’s promise to maintain the nation of Israel for the sake of the covenant given to the patriarchs (Lv 26:44-45). In Amos’s prophecy, Israel is to be sifted by other nations like grain in a sieve; the ungodly “chaff” will be scattered across the world, but the true “grain” will be preserved.<\/p>\n<h5>Israel’s Hope (9:11-15)<\/h5>\n<p>The expression of hope is expanded in the last section of the book in a series of startling and beautiful metaphors.<\/p>\n<h6>Restoration of the City of David (9:11-12)<\/h6>\n<p>The first metaphor is of the city (literally “house”) of David, a house fallen into disrepair. The monarchy, which had crumbled from internal decay and external threats, is envisioned as being restored to its former glory. Further, an expansion of the Davidic kingdom will include all nations that belong to the Lord.<\/p>\n<p>In the NT, this passage was quoted by James to support the inclusion of Gentiles in the promise (Acts 15:16-18). The wording in Acts is slightly different from that of Amos because it was based on an early Greek translation of the OT (called the Septuagint). Those called by God’s name or belonging to God include not only geographical entities such as nations but also individuals in any nation who have a close relationship to God. James saw that Amos was predicting inclusion of Gentiles in the kingdom of God, a kingdom far greater than the early monarchy. This prophecy has been fulfilled in part in the Christian church.<\/p>\n<h6>Restoration of Israel’s Fortunes (9:13-15)<\/h6>\n<p>A series of pastoral metaphors closes the book of Amos. They depict the abundance of blessing in the coming kingdom. Israel’s fortunes are to be restored, far beyond the dismal events of the century in which Amos is speaking. Theologians differ in their understanding of the application of this prophecy. If it refers to the present age of the Christian church, it pictures the blessings of the church now as “spiritual Israel.” If it refers to the future, to the millennial reign of Christ, it depicts what will happen on earth at that time.<\/p>\n<p>The concept of a rejuvenated earth is found elsewhere in the Bible (Rom 8:20-22). Micah uses language somewhat similar to that of Amos to describe restoration of what seems to be the literal city of Jerusalem (Mi 3:12–4:4). It may be best to apply the prophetic finale of Amos to the restoration to be effected at the ultimate return of Christ. Whatever the correct application, the remnant must include the followers of Jesus Christ, and the blessings should be seen as intended for all who belong to the kingdom of God.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Significance\">Significance<\/p>\n<p>The major purpose of Amos in his prophecies was to denounce Israel’s disobedience to the covenant. Although the covenant promise given to Abraham (Gn 22:15-18) and reiterated throughout the OT is not mentioned explicitly in Amos, it is implicit in the total message of the book. Amos upheld the spiritual nature of the covenant and emphasized that its blessing was mediated through obedience.<\/p>\n<p>Looking around him, Amos saw not only disobedience but hypocrisy. A basic aspect of his ethical teaching was insistence that outward adherence to religious ceremonies without a heart response to the will of God (as expressed in the law) was wrong. The law contained many injunctions that sought to engender love of God and fellow human beings (Ex 23:1-13). In Amos’s time, those social aspects of the law were being willfully disobeyed by the rich, who nevertheless clung to religious ritual. Amos saw what was in their hearts and condemned it. To him, religious obligations not observed in the proper spirit of responsibility to God could actually become sin (4:4). Religion could degenerate to the place where it becomes a curse, a mockery of the will of a holy God.<\/p>\n<p>Amos saw the disobedience and hypocrisy of Israel as culminating in national disaster. Thus his prophecy served as a warning of impending doom to the nation. He saw that other nations besides Israel and Judah were held accountable to God because of their mistreatment of others (1:3–2:3). Their social sins were punished by God in history. Amos thus saw an aspect of the law extending beyond Israel and Judah to other nations. They were responsible to God under what might be called a universal moral law, and they were judged for their crimes against humanity.<\/p>\n<p>The prophetic concept of the Day of the Lord, regarded by the people of Amos’s day as a time of vindication for their nation, was seen by Amos as a time of punishment for all sinners. Such punishment would not exclude the nation of Israel.<\/p>\n<p>Yet denunciation was not the sole purpose of Amos’s prophetic activity. He proclaimed a future of hope for Israel in the reestablishment of the Davidic monarchy, evidently under Messiah, in a time that would be characterized by peace (9:8-15). The relationship of the Davidic kingdom to the messianic kingdom goes back to the promise given to David (2 Sm 7:8-16). Just as those in other nations participated by extension in the demands of the law and in judgment, so would those in other nations who belonged to God participate in the blessings of the promise (9:12).<\/p>\n<p>The concepts of God drawn most sharply in the book of Amos are God’s sovereignty and God’s righteousness. He is sovereign over all the nations of the world, typified by those surrounding Israel, and he brings them to judgment (1:3–2:3). He is also sovereign over nature, as recognized in his control of the universe (4:13; 5:8; 9:13-14). His righteousness demands that he cannot allow his law to continue to be violated without retribution. But his righteousness is also the guarantee of hope for the believing remnant of Israel. It binds him to keep his promise to preserve Israel as a nation (Lv 26:44-45).<\/p>\n<p>Amos held out the possibility of averting the national catastrophe looming on the horizon of world events. However, from his gloomy description of social conditions and of the hardness of people’s hearts at the time, it seems likely that he did not foresee any escape.<\/p>\n<p>His message was presented in bold metaphors and vivid pictures that stick in the mind. That message is still relevant, for many of the sins that characterized the people of the prophet’s day are still prevalent in modern society and in the lives of individuals. Mistreatment of fellow human beings is as much a feature of the 21st century <span>AD<\/span> as it was of the 8th century <span>BC<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p>Today’s reader of the book of Amos should note the prophet’s insistence on the consequences of sin; his emphasis on the responsibility that always accompanies privilege; his presentation of God’s faithfulness; and his message of hope, expressed in part today through the church.<\/p>\n<p>If the book seems to be gloomy in its outlook, it should be remembered that the prophet faced a gloomy picture. He was watching a nation crumble because of its unfaithfulness to God. But beyond the dismal prospect that faced Israel, Amos saw a new kingdom emerging. It was a kingdom of peace in which the people of God would realize the fulfillment of God’s promises. <em>See<\/em> Prophecy; Prophet, Prophetess; Israel, History of.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>AMOS, B<span>ook of<\/span><\/h3>\n<p>Writings of the prophet Amos, one of the 12 minor prophets of the Hebrew OT. The book of Amos is called minor only because it is relatively short. Its message is as important as that of any of the major prophets. Indeed, Amos has one of the most powerful statements in the Bible of God’s judgment against injustice, oppression, and hypocrisy. The book consists primarily of prophetic sermons preached by Amos at Bethel, royal sanctuary of the northern kingdom of Israel in the eighth century <span>BC<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Author<\/p>\n<p>• Date, Origin, and Destination<\/p>\n<p>• Background<\/p>\n<p>• Content<\/p>\n<p>• Significance<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Author\">Author<\/p>\n<p>The preacher of the sermons (or oracles) in the book was undoubtedly Amos, a herdsman and a dresser (farmer) of fig trees, from the village of Tekoa, south of Jerusalem. He received from God a vision of judgment on Israel and went north to Bethel, just across the border between Judah and Israel, to deliver his sermons. All we know about the prophet is contained in the superscription (1:1-2) and a biographical section (7:10-14) of the book of Amos, plus what can be learned about him from the style and content of the rest of the book.<\/p>\n<p>Did Amos write down his prophecies himself? Although scholars have raised many questions about the authorship of Amos, there is no convincing reason to regard the book as the work of anyone else. Some have suggested that the sermons were passed on by word of mouth for a long time before they were written down in final form. The Hebrew text, however, is in much better shape than would be expected (had it come through prolonged oral transmission). The many first-person references and vigor of expression imply strongly that Amos himself put much of his prophecy into writing soon after delivering it at Bethel.<\/p>\n<p>Another speculative proposal is that the visions described in the book (7:1-9; 8:1-3; 9:1-4) were compiled by Amos before he began his ministry to the northern kingdom, and the oracles (chs 1–6) were composed after that time. The two sections could have been joined into one book much later, during or after the Babylonian exile, with some sections inserted at that time. Other prophecies, however, such as Ezekiel and Jeremiah, contain both oracle and vision sections that scholars have not attempted to divide, and the internal evidence does not make such a division necessary with Amos. Both sections contain similar concerns; in both the visions (7:1-3) and the oracles (5:1-7), Amos appears in the role of intercessor on behalf of Israel.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"DateOriginandDestination\">Date, Origin, and Destination<\/p>\n<p>According to the superscription, Amos prophesied during the reigns of Uzziah, king of Judah, and Jeroboam II, king of Israel (1:1), or between 792 and 740 <span>BC<\/span>. The content of his message fits what is known about the situation in Israel in that period. It is difficult to be more exact about the beginning and ending of Amos’s prophetic ministry within that time span. The vision came to him “two years before the earthquake” (1:1), but another biblical reference to presumably the same earthquake places it during the days of King Uzziah of Judah (Zec 14:5). Archaeological excavations at Hazor seem to have yielded evidence for an earthquake, which has been dated at approximately 760 <span>BC<\/span>. Amos also contains a prophetic reference to a solar eclipse (8:9); such an eclipse has been calculated to have occurred about 763 <span>BC<\/span>. After King Uzziah was stricken with leprosy, he lived in isolation while Judah was under a co-regency (2 Chr 26:21). Therefore, Amos’s mention of Uzziah as king (1:1) probably sets 760 <span>BC<\/span> as the latest possible date for Amos’s ministry.<\/p>\n<p>The doom that came upon Israel after Amos’s prophecy was the conquest by the Assyrian king Tiglath-pileser III (745–727 <span>BC<\/span>). Although Amos referred to impending captivity, he never mentioned Assyria as the captor, although he did say that captivity would take Israel to a land east of Damascus (5:27). Probably Amos was not thinking specifically of the rising power of Assyria but only of the inevitable consequences of Israel’s idolatry and hypocrisy. When all the evidence is taken into consideration, it seems reasonable to date the beginning of Amos’s prophecies at Bethel to about 760 <span>BC<\/span>, or approximately the middle of the period during which both Uzziah and Jeroboam II were on their thrones. We do not know how long his ministry lasted; it may have been only a few months.<\/p>\n<p>Amos had been caring for his flocks in the Judean hills south of Jerusalem when God told him, “Go and prophesy to my people in Israel” (7:15, <span>nlt<\/span>). He may have been familiar with the more urban north from earlier trips there to sell wool or fruit, or the pagan worship and social wrongs there may have made a sudden impact on him after his call to prophesy. At any rate, his writings reveal not only his rural Judean background but also a firsthand knowledge of conditions in the northern kingdom of Israel. Although his prophecies were directed primarily to Israel, he also denounced the sin of Judah, predicting that its capital, Jerusalem, would be burned (2:4-5). Several passages are directed at inhabitants of Samaria, capital of Israel (4:1, 11; 6:1), with which Amos was obviously familiar. He could have traveled on to Samaria from Bethel, or he could have learned of its splendors from the boasts of its citizens. He could have addressed them directly as they came from the capital city to worship at Bethel.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Background\">Background<\/p>\n<p>The eighth century <span>BC<\/span> was a critical time in Jewish history. Both kingdoms of the divided nation had risen to heights of economic affluence that had not been experienced since the days of Solomon. Yet internal religious decay was sapping the strength of both kingdoms, and their social fabric was being destroyed. A new wealthy class was benefiting from the affluence of the time, growing ever richer while poor people became poorer than ever.<\/p>\n<p>In 803 <span>BC<\/span>, the conquest of Syrian Damascus by the Assyrian king Adad-nirari III had silenced one of Israel’s major enemies. With the Syrians out of the picture, the kingdom of Israel was able to expand its borders under King Joash (2 Kgs 13:25), and for a time even the thrust of Assyrian power westward was diminished. Israel and Judah entered a period of rest from constant warfare and turned their attention to internal affairs.<\/p>\n<p>Joash’s son, Jeroboam II, became king of Israel in 793 and reigned until 753 <span>BC<\/span>. Uzziah was on the throne of Judah from 792 to 740 <span>BC<\/span>. Under these two kings, Judah and Israel controlled a territory that was almost as large as Solomon’s empire had been. Their wealth had grown both from expansion of trade and from the booty of conquered territories.<\/p>\n<p>Archaeology has yielded information about industrial activity within the nations, such as an impressive dyeing industry at Debir. Excavations at Samaria have produced large numbers of ivory inlays that confirm Amos’s description of the wealthy in the capital city (6:4). The city of Samaria was protected by a huge double wall of unusual thickness. A palace, probably Jeroboam’s, dominated the city with a massive tower.<\/p>\n<p>The splendor and prosperity of the time, however, was masking the spread of internal decay. Oppression of the poor by many in the wealthy classes not only threatened the unity of the nation but also meant that God’s laws were being violated. In his denunciations of the cruel treatment of the poor (5:11-13; 8:4-10), Amos warned of the inevitable punishment for disobeying God’s laws.<\/p>\n<p>The nation of Israel was guilty of more than social sins against the covenant. It was also adopting pagan religious practices. Canaanite religious influence intruded into the fabric of the nation of Israel. Excavation of a palace storehouse in Samaria uncovered many <em>ostraca<\/em> (pieces of broken pottery used for writing short messages such as letters, receipts, etc.) containing Hebrew names compounded with “Baal,” a chief god of the Canaanite religion.<\/p>\n<p>In spite of the gradual deterioration, false optimism seems to have prevailed. Amos found people desiring the Day of the Lord (5:18) and sought to correct their misunderstanding: the Day of the Lord prophesied in the Scriptures would be a time of judgment on all sinners. A more immediate judgment was to come, however. Assyria began to strengthen its position in the world and to resume its expansionist policies. Under the leadership of Tiglath-pileser III (745–727 <span>BC<\/span>), Assyria regained a position of world dominance. Eventually, Israel was attacked by Shalmaneser V of Assyria. Soon afterward, in 722 <span>BC<\/span>, Samaria was occupied. No doubt when the Assyrians were sweeping into Israel, many of the people who had ignored the message of Amos then realized that a prophet of God had been among them.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Content\">Content<\/p>\n<h5>Superscription (1:1)<\/h5>\n<p>The prophet introduces himself as a shepherd, perhaps implying that it is more than sheep he wants to keep from straying.<\/p>\n<h5>Prophetic Oracles (1:2–6:14)<\/h5>\n<p>This section begins with a picture of the great power of God, who acts in history to judge the nations (1:2).<\/p>\n<h6>Judgment on Surrounding Nations (1:3–2:3)<\/h6>\n<p>The prophet first speaks against Damascus, then moves on, pronouncing doom on various peoples in ever closer concentric circles, “homing in” on Israel. One may imagine the citizens of Israel applauding God’s judgment on other nations until, with shocking effect, Amos accuses Israel of similar sins.<\/p>\n<p>Damascus was the capital of Syria, northeast of Israel, and the center of Syrian influence. Syria had mistreated Israel during Hazael’s reign in Damascus (842–806 <span>BC<\/span>). Hazael “whittled down” Israel in a number of campaigns (2 Kgs 10:32-33; 13:3-5, 22-24). In their campaign into the territory of Gilead, the Syrians destroyed most of Israel’s army as though they were dust on a threshing floor (2 Kgs 13:7). Hence, Amos denounces Syria for threshing Gilead as grain is threshed with iron rods (Am 1:3). He predicts that Syria will be destroyed and its people deported to Kir, which Amos understood to be their place of origin (9:7). (For the fulfillment of this prophecy, see 2 Kgs 16:9.)<\/p>\n<p>Amos next turned to Gaza, a Philistine city in southwest Palestine. Gaza probably represents the Philistines as a whole, since three other of their five major cities are also mentioned (1:8). The fifth, Gath, had already been conquered by Hazael (2 Kgs 12:17). Amos denounced the Philistines for what must have been a border raid on Israel in which many were carried off into slavery (1:6).<\/p>\n<p>The Phoenician city of Tyre is cited next. Tyre was on the Mediterranean, north of Israel and southwest of Damascus. Destruction of Tyre, like that of the Philistine cities, is predicted as punishment for making slaves of conquered Israelites.<\/p>\n<p>Edom is next, south of the Dead Sea. Edom had perennially harassed the Israelites and is referred to in a negative light many times in the OT. Edom is said to have been pitiless toward Israel, his brother (1:11).<\/p>\n<p>Ammon, just to the southeast of Israel, is also judged. The particularly violent incident referred to (1:13) evidently occurred in one of their many attempts to push northward into the Israelite territory of Gilead.<\/p>\n<p>Moab is the last of the surrounding nations to be denounced, with reference to what may have been a well-known incident of desecration of the dead (2:1-3).<\/p>\n<h6>Oracles against Israel and Judah (2:4-16)<\/h6>\n<p>Although Judah and Israel were at peace at the time, their enmity had continued after dissolution of the united kingdom. Amos accuses Judah of rejecting “the law of the Lord” and predicts the burning of Jerusalem.<\/p>\n<p>The oracle against Israel is longer than the others. Amos carefully specifies the social nature of Israel’s sin, making the point that Israel is no better than the surrounding nations. Israel deserves the same punishment. Just as some of the nations were guilty of taking people into slavery, Israel is selling her own poor who cannot repay their debts (2:6). Under Mosaic law it was illegal to keep overnight a garment pledged as security for a loan, since it might be the only source of warmth the debtor had (Ex 22:26-27). Rich people in Israel were attending religious feasts in such clothing “stolen” from the poor (2:8).<\/p>\n<p>Amos reminds Israel of all the good things God has done for them (2:9-11). But because Israel has chosen to continue in disobedience, the nation will not escape impending judgment (2:12-16).<\/p>\n<h6>Denunciation of and Warning against Israel (3:1–6:14)<\/h6>\n<p>Amos substantiates his prophetic authority with a lesson on cause and effect (3:1-8). A lion roars when it has prey, and people fear when a trumpet sounds an alarm. If calamity comes to a city, God has allowed it. God, who reveals his secrets to his prophets, has spoken Israel’s doom, and Amos must proclaim it.<\/p>\n<p>In a dramatic statement, Amos calls on Egypt and Assyria, great centers of oppression and cruelty, to witness Israel’s crimes, as though even they will be amazed at what they see (3:9-10). Only a ragged remnant will survive the punishment to come (3:11-12). Judgment will fall on objects that symbolize Israel’s religious disobedience (3:14) as well as on symbols of the wealth that led Israel away from the Lord (3:15).<\/p>\n<p>Amos uses strong language to denounce luxurious and indolent living bought at the expense of the poor (4:1-3). Rich women whose love for luxuries drives their husbands to squeeze the needy still more are called “fat cows” who will someday be treated like cattle. Then Amos mocks those who worship at Bethel for going through the motions in the wrong spirit (4:4-5).<\/p>\n<p>In the rest of the fourth chapter, Amos recalls incidents from Israel’s history that were meant to call the people back to God: famine, drought, plagues, the destruction of some of their cities. Still they do not repent. “Prepare to meet your God!” warns the prophet, following his warning with a hymn to the mighty power of God (4:6-13).<\/p>\n<p>The fifth chapter begins in the form of a funeral dirge, as though Israel were as good as dead already (5:1-2). There is no one to help Israel, whose own armies will be decimated when the disaster strikes (5:3). Of course, God is there to help: “Seek me and live” (5:4-6). The possibility of rescue, of “life,” stands in sharp contrast to the nation’s “death” pictured just before. Idols, as always, are a false hope (5:5). The call to seek the Lord is again followed by a hymn to his power (5:8-9).<\/p>\n<p>In spite of the hope offered to Israel, Amos has to present a gloomy picture of what he sees (5:10-13). The judicial system is corrupt; taxes and high interest charges (usury) grind down the poor. Those injustices could be corrected if the people would “hate evil and love good” (5:15), but judgment is already on the way (5:16-17).<\/p>\n<p>The people are full of hypocrisy, claiming to look forward to the Day of the Lord. That day will be a day of judgment on their sins, Amos says. Instead of empty gestures of offerings and praise, God wants to let justice roll down like waters, and righteousness like an everflowing stream (5:18-24). Their disobedient spirit goes back to the time of the exodus from Egypt, when God’s own people were attracted to pagan gods. The Lord God of Hosts will send those false gods into captivity with the people who looked to them (5:25-27).<\/p>\n<p>The self-satisfaction felt by the upper classes in Israel had evidently spread to Judah, since Jerusalem as well as Samaria receives some harsh words (6:1). Amos tells those who are lounging in luxury to take a look at three neighboring kingdoms on which judgment has already fallen: Calneh, Hamath, and Gath. Does Israel think it will escape, since they did not? When the Day of Judgment comes, the rich, who have gone “first-class,” will be the first to go (6:2-7). The destruction will leave few survivors, but they will know that punishment came from God (6:8-11). Israel is behaving stupidly to be proud of themselves when they are actually so utterly self-deceived (6:12-14).<\/p>\n<h5>Prophetic Visions (7:1–9:10)<\/h5>\n<p>By describing three visions God gave him, Amos then dramatically communicates God’s revelation.<\/p>\n<h6>Israel’s Destruction (7:1-9)<\/h6>\n<p>The first vision is in three parts. In the first, Amos pictures the threat of a locust plague in which his prayer of intercession causes God to relent and withdraw the threat (7:1-3). Then he sees an all-consuming fire, and again his prayer averts a catastrophe (7:4-6). In the third part of the vision, Amos sees the Lord standing by a wall and holding a plumb line, implying that he has a standard for his people to live up to, an element missing from the two earlier images. This time, because the people have failed to measure up, the catastrophe cannot be averted (7:7-9).<\/p>\n<h6>Historical Interlude (7:10-17)<\/h6>\n<p>At this point, Amos encounters Amaziah, priest of Bethel, because he has said that the vision of the plumb line means destruction of the idol altars and temples of Israel and of the house of Jeroboam with the sword. Amaziah sends word to Jeroboam that Amos is a traitor and tells Amos to go back to Judah. Amos disclaims any relationship with professional prophets, then specifically includes Amaziah’s family in another prediction of Israel’s disaster.<\/p>\n<h6>The Ripe Fruit (8:1-14)<\/h6>\n<p>In the second vision, Amos is shown a basket of ripe (or summer) fruit. The Hebrew word for summer fruit is almost the same as the word for “end,” so the play on words communicates that the nation is “ripe for punishment.” Their ripeness is really moral rottenness. Greedy merchants can hardly wait for religious holidays to end so they can cheat the poor some more by using false weights, selling inferior goods, and foreclosing on debtors. When the captivity comes, their festivities will turn into funerals. A famine, not just of bread and water but of the words of the Lord, is coming upon them, causing even the strongest young people to drop to the ground.<\/p>\n<h6>Destruction of the Temple (9:1-10)<\/h6>\n<p>The third vision is of the Lord destroying the shrine at Bethel when it is thronged with people engaging in their empty worship. The place where they hoped to find security is where they find destruction. Those who are not inside will be destroyed, too, no matter where they try to flee. They won’t be able to hide from God in Sheol or on the heights of Carmel or in the depths of the sea (9:1-4). Another hymn to God’s power follows the vision (9:5-6).<\/p>\n<p>The final words of denunciation in the book of Amos are found in 9:7-10, but they are a prelude to a message of hope. Amos shows that Israel is no better than any other nation in the eyes of God. Did he not bring Israel out of Egypt? Yes, but he also brought the Philistines from Caphtor and the Syrians from Kir. The religious significance of the exodus has been lost because of Israel’s sin, so all but a faithful remnant will be lost.<\/p>\n<p>The concept of the remnant was important in the prophetic preaching of the eighth century <span>BC<\/span> (cf. Is 6:12-13; Mi 6:7-9). It recalled God’s promise to maintain the nation of Israel for the sake of the covenant given to the patriarchs (Lv 26:44-45). In Amos’s prophecy, Israel is to be sifted by other nations like grain in a sieve; the ungodly “chaff” will be scattered across the world, but the true “grain” will be preserved.<\/p>\n<h5>Israel’s Hope (9:11-15)<\/h5>\n<p>The expression of hope is expanded in the last section of the book in a series of startling and beautiful metaphors.<\/p>\n<h6>Restoration of the City of David (9:11-12)<\/h6>\n<p>The first metaphor is of the city (literally “house”) of David, a house fallen into disrepair. The monarchy, which had crumbled from internal decay and external threats, is envisioned as being restored to its former glory. Further, an expansion of the Davidic kingdom will include all nations that belong to the Lord.<\/p>\n<p>In the NT, this passage was quoted by James to support the inclusion of Gentiles in the promise (Acts 15:16-18). The wording in Acts is slightly different from that of Amos because it was based on an early Greek translation of the OT (called the Septuagint). Those called by God’s name or belonging to God include not only geographical entities such as nations but also individuals in any nation who have a close relationship to God. James saw that Amos was predicting inclusion of Gentiles in the kingdom of God, a kingdom far greater than the early monarchy. This prophecy has been fulfilled in part in the Christian church.<\/p>\n<h6>Restoration of Israel’s Fortunes (9:13-15)<\/h6>\n<p>A series of pastoral metaphors closes the book of Amos. They depict the abundance of blessing in the coming kingdom. Israel’s fortunes are to be restored, far beyond the dismal events of the century in which Amos is speaking. Theologians differ in their understanding of the application of this prophecy. If it refers to the present age of the Christian church, it pictures the blessings of the church now as “spiritual Israel.” If it refers to the future, to the millennial reign of Christ, it depicts what will happen on earth at that time.<\/p>\n<p>The concept of a rejuvenated earth is found elsewhere in the Bible (Rom 8:20-22). Micah uses language somewhat similar to that of Amos to describe restoration of what seems to be the literal city of Jerusalem (Mi 3:12–4:4). It may be best to apply the prophetic finale of Amos to the restoration to be effected at the ultimate return of Christ. Whatever the correct application, the remnant must include the followers of Jesus Christ, and the blessings should be seen as intended for all who belong to the kingdom of God.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Significance\">Significance<\/p>\n<p>The major purpose of Amos in his prophecies was to denounce Israel’s disobedience to the covenant. Although the covenant promise given to Abraham (Gn 22:15-18) and reiterated throughout the OT is not mentioned explicitly in Amos, it is implicit in the total message of the book. Amos upheld the spiritual nature of the covenant and emphasized that its blessing was mediated through obedience.<\/p>\n<p>Looking around him, Amos saw not only disobedience but hypocrisy. A basic aspect of his ethical teaching was insistence that outward adherence to religious ceremonies without a heart response to the will of God (as expressed in the law) was wrong. The law contained many injunctions that sought to engender love of God and fellow human beings (Ex 23:1-13). In Amos’s time, those social aspects of the law were being willfully disobeyed by the rich, who nevertheless clung to religious ritual. Amos saw what was in their hearts and condemned it. To him, religious obligations not observed in the proper spirit of responsibility to God could actually become sin (4:4). Religion could degenerate to the place where it becomes a curse, a mockery of the will of a holy God.<\/p>\n<p>Amos saw the disobedience and hypocrisy of Israel as culminating in national disaster. Thus his prophecy served as a warning of impending doom to the nation. He saw that other nations besides Israel and Judah were held accountable to God because of their mistreatment of others (1:3–2:3). Their social sins were punished by God in history. Amos thus saw an aspect of the law extending beyond Israel and Judah to other nations. They were responsible to God under what might be called a universal moral law, and they were judged for their crimes against humanity.<\/p>\n<p>The prophetic concept of the Day of the Lord, regarded by the people of Amos’s day as a time of vindication for their nation, was seen by Amos as a time of punishment for all sinners. Such punishment would not exclude the nation of Israel.<\/p>\n<p>Yet denunciation was not the sole purpose of Amos’s prophetic activity. He proclaimed a future of hope for Israel in the reestablishment of the Davidic monarchy, evidently under Messiah, in a time that would be characterized by peace (9:8-15). The relationship of the Davidic kingdom to the messianic kingdom goes back to the promise given to David (2 Sm 7:8-16). Just as those in other nations participated by extension in the demands of the law and in judgment, so would those in other nations who belonged to God participate in the blessings of the promise (9:12).<\/p>\n<p>The concepts of God drawn most sharply in the book of Amos are God’s sovereignty and God’s righteousness. He is sovereign over all the nations of the world, typified by those surrounding Israel, and he brings them to judgment (1:3–2:3). He is also sovereign over nature, as recognized in his control of the universe (4:13; 5:8; 9:13-14). His righteousness demands that he cannot allow his law to continue to be violated without retribution. But his righteousness is also the guarantee of hope for the believing remnant of Israel. It binds him to keep his promise to preserve Israel as a nation (Lv 26:44-45).<\/p>\n<p>Amos held out the possibility of averting the national catastrophe looming on the horizon of world events. However, from his gloomy description of social conditions and of the hardness of people’s hearts at the time, it seems likely that he did not foresee any escape.<\/p>\n<p>His message was presented in bold metaphors and vivid pictures that stick in the mind. That message is still relevant, for many of the sins that characterized the people of the prophet’s day are still prevalent in modern society and in the lives of individuals. Mistreatment of fellow human beings is as much a feature of the 21st century <span>AD<\/span> as it was of the 8th century <span>BC<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p>Today’s reader of the book of Amos should note the prophet’s insistence on the consequences of sin; his emphasis on the responsibility that always accompanies privilege; his presentation of God’s faithfulness; and his message of hope, expressed in part today through the church.<\/p>\n<p>If the book seems to be gloomy in its outlook, it should be remembered that the prophet faced a gloomy picture. He was watching a nation crumble because of its unfaithfulness to God. But beyond the dismal prospect that faced Israel, Amos saw a new kingdom emerging. It was a kingdom of peace in which the people of God would realize the fulfillment of God’s promises. <em>See<\/em> Prophecy; Prophet, Prophetess; Israel, History of.<\/p>","summary_ro":"AMOS, Book of Writings of the prophet Amos, one of the 12 minor prophets of the Hebrew OT. The book of Amos is called minor only because it is relatively short. Its message is as important as that of any of the major prophets. Indeed, Amos has one of the most powerful statements in the Bible of God’s judgment against injustice, oppression, and hypocrisy. The book consists primarily of prophetic sermons preached by Amos at Bethel, royal sanctuary of the northern kingdom of Israel in the eighth...","summary_en":"AMOS, Book of Writings of the prophet Amos, one of the 12 minor prophets of the Hebrew OT. The book of Amos is called minor only because it is relatively short. Its message is as important as that of any of the major prophets. Indeed, Amos has one of the most powerful statements in the Bible of God’s judgment against injustice, oppression, and hypocrisy. The book consists primarily of prophetic sermons preached by Amos at Bethel, royal sanctuary of the northern kingdom of Israel in the eighth...","source":"Articles\/A.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":4430,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Beth-Eden","title_en":"Beth-Eden","content_ro":"<h3>BETH-EDEN<\/h3>\n<p>Small Aramean (Syrian) state north of Damascus. Assyria conquered Beth-eden and deported its people to Kir (2 Kgs 16:9), fulfilling the prediction in Amos 1:5 (<span>kjv<\/span> “house of Eden”). Beth-eden, which means “house of delight,” is sometimes equated with the Eden of Ezekiel 27:23, the location of which is unknown. Its inhabitants are referred to as the “children of Eden” in 2 Kings 19:12 (<span>kjv<\/span>).<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>BETH-EDEN<\/h3>\n<p>Small Aramean (Syrian) state north of Damascus. Assyria conquered Beth-eden and deported its people to Kir (2 Kgs 16:9), fulfilling the prediction in Amos 1:5 (<span>kjv<\/span> “house of Eden”). Beth-eden, which means “house of delight,” is sometimes equated with the Eden of Ezekiel 27:23, the location of which is unknown. Its inhabitants are referred to as the “children of Eden” in 2 Kings 19:12 (<span>kjv<\/span>).<\/p>","summary_ro":"BETH-EDEN Small Aramean (Syrian) state north of Damascus. Assyria conquered Beth-eden and deported its people to Kir (2 Kgs 16:9), fulfilling the prediction in Amos 1:5 (kjv “house of Eden”). Beth-eden, which means “house of delight,” is sometimes equated with the Eden of Ezekiel 27:23, the location of which is unknown. Its inhabitants are referred to as the “children of Eden” in 2 Kings 19:12 (kjv).","summary_en":"BETH-EDEN Small Aramean (Syrian) state north of Damascus. Assyria conquered Beth-eden and deported its people to Kir (2 Kgs 16:9), fulfilling the prediction in Amos 1:5 (kjv “house of Eden”). Beth-eden, which means “house of delight,” is sometimes equated with the Eden of Ezekiel 27:23, the location of which is unknown. Its inhabitants are referred to as the “children of Eden” in 2 Kings 19:12 (kjv).","source":"Articles\/B.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":22141,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Kir","title_en":"Kir","content_ro":"<h3>KIR<\/h3>\n<li>1. Mesopotamian city from which the Syrians migrated to Damascus and back to which they were later exiled by the Assyrians (Am 1:5; 9:7). Escape from Kir to Aram paralleled the exodus of the Israelites. It must have been a terribly bitter experience to have been deported (by Tiglath-pileser) back to Kir (2 Kgs 16:9). Whether the city actually existed or not is debatable. It could have become a metaphor for enslavement and exile.<\/li>\n<li>2. Fortress usually identified with the ancient capital of Moab. Soldiers from Kir were associated with those from Elam (Is 22:6). Likewise, Kir was paralleled with Ar in Isaiah’s lament over Moab (15:1). Kir of Moab, therefore, is probably the same as Kir-hareseth (2 Kgs 3:25; Is 16:7), located at Kerak, 11 miles (17.7 kilometers) east of the southern end of the Dead Sea.<\/li>","content_en":"<h3>KIR<\/h3>\n<li>1. Mesopotamian city from which the Syrians migrated to Damascus and back to which they were later exiled by the Assyrians (Am 1:5; 9:7). Escape from Kir to Aram paralleled the exodus of the Israelites. It must have been a terribly bitter experience to have been deported (by Tiglath-pileser) back to Kir (2 Kgs 16:9). Whether the city actually existed or not is debatable. It could have become a metaphor for enslavement and exile.<\/li>\n<li>2. Fortress usually identified with the ancient capital of Moab. Soldiers from Kir were associated with those from Elam (Is 22:6). Likewise, Kir was paralleled with Ar in Isaiah’s lament over Moab (15:1). Kir of Moab, therefore, is probably the same as Kir-hareseth (2 Kgs 3:25; Is 16:7), located at Kerak, 11 miles (17.7 kilometers) east of the southern end of the Dead Sea.<\/li>","summary_ro":"KIR 1. Mesopotamian city from which the Syrians migrated to Damascus and back to which they were later exiled by the Assyrians (Am 1:5; 9:7). Escape from Kir to Aram paralleled the exodus of the Israelites. It must have been a terribly bitter experience to have been deported (by Tiglath-pileser) back to Kir (2 Kgs 16:9). Whether the city actually existed or not is debatable. It could have become a metaphor for enslavement and exile. 2. Fortress usually identified with the ancient capital of M...","summary_en":"KIR 1. Mesopotamian city from which the Syrians migrated to Damascus and back to which they were later exiled by the Assyrians (Am 1:5; 9:7). Escape from Kir to Aram paralleled the exodus of the Israelites. It must have been a terribly bitter experience to have been deported (by Tiglath-pileser) back to Kir (2 Kgs 16:9). Whether the city actually existed or not is debatable. It could have become a metaphor for enslavement and exile. 2. Fortress usually identified with the ancient capital of M...","source":"Articles\/K.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":36550,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Syrians Syria","title_en":"Syrians Syria","content_ro":"<h3>SYRIA, SYRIANS<\/h3>\n<p>Terms used in the Septuagint and in some English translations to render the names Aram, Arameans.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"HistoryoftheArameans\">History of the Arameans<\/p>\n<p>According to the “table of nations” in Genesis 10:22-23, the Arameans were a Semitic group, descendants of Shem. Another genealogy in Genesis 22:20-21 makes Aram a descendant of Nahor. According to Amos 9:7, the Arameans (Syrians) came from Kir, which is linked with Elam in Isaiah 22:6. The exile of the Arameans to Kir (2 Kgs 16:9; Am 1:5) may suggest they were to go back to their original home. The precise origins of this group of people are, however, lost in antiquity. When they emerged clearly into history, they were settled around the central Euphrates from which they were spread out east, west, and north.<\/p>\n<p>The Arameans were traditionally thought to have been established in upper Mesopotamia in the first part of the second millennium <span>BC<\/span>. Bethuel and Laban were known as Arameans (Gn 25:20; 28:1-7); the home of Bethuel was in Paddan-aram (25:20). The prophet Hosea recalls the tradition by noting that Jacob fled to “the field of Aram” (Hos 12:12) or “Aram-naharaim” (Aram of the two rivers), which was the northern part of Mesopotamia between the Euphrates and Tigris Rivers. In the creedal confession in Deuteronomy 26:5, the Israelite who brought his firstfruits confessed, “My father [probably Jacob] was a wandering Aramean.”<\/p>\n<p>Probably the best early evidence of an Aramean presence in this area comes from Tiglath-pileser I. In his annals of his fourth year (1112 <span>BC<\/span>), he speaks of a campaign among the “Akhlama, Arameans” in the Middle Euphrates area and the sacking of six Aramean villages in the Mt Bishri area.<\/p>\n<p>The Arameans of upper Mesopotamia became important in biblical history. They set up a number of separate Aramean states, two of which were especially important for the people of Israel—Aram-zobah in the days of David, and Aram-damascus from the days of Solomon onward.<\/p>\n<p>By about 1100 <span>BC<\/span>, the Aramean tribes had spread throughout Syria and had expanded into northern Transjordan, where they came into conflict with the Israelites. At his peak Hadadezer, king of Aram-zobah, embraced several vassals, such as Damascus, Maacah, and Tob. He was eventually defeated by King David (2 Sm 8:3-4; 10:17-19).<\/p>\n<p>Events in Israel and Judah had some bearing on Damascus. After the death of Solomon, when the formerly united kingdom became divided into Judah and Israel, tension arose between the two small states. War broke out between Baasha of Israel and Asa of Judah in the years 890–880 <span>BC<\/span>. Asa sought aid from Ben-hadad I of Damascus (1 Kgs 15:18). Lands in Transjordan changed hands several times. The successors of Omri of Israel—namely Ahab, Ahaziah, Jehoram, Jehu, Jehoahaz, and Jehoash—had many conflicts with Damascus. Ahab fought Ben-hadad and his 32 allies who besieged Samaria (20:1), but Israel defeated him. A second time Ben-hadad entered Israelite territory and reached Aphek (20:26), but he was again defeated and captured. As a consequence of his defeat and for the price of his release, he was obliged to make bazaars available in Damascus for Israelite trade. After three years of peace between Israel and Damascus, hostilities broke out again and resulted in a battle in the region of Ramoth-gilead in which Ahab was killed (22:29-37). Aram-damascus was eventually defeated by King Jehoash of Israel (2 Kgs 13:25).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"SyriaaftertheCollapseoftheArameanKingdoms\">Syria after the Collapse of the Aramean Kingdoms<\/p>\n<p>After the collapse of Aram-damascus in 733–732 <span>BC<\/span>, the political character of the whole region changed. Over the centuries that followed and on into Christian times, the region passed under the control of several great powers and no independent Aramean state survived. When Assyria collapsed in 612–609 <span>BC<\/span>, the region came under Babylonian control, but only for a comparatively short period. With the rise of Cyrus the Persian, the Syrian region was quickly overrun by Persian armies. Palestine, Asia Minor, and Egypt were absorbed into the Persian Empire at the same time.<\/p>\n<p>The next significant political change that affected the region came with the appearance of Philip of Macedon in 360 <span>BC<\/span>. His son Alexander the Great (336–323 <span>BC<\/span>) consolidated Greek power throughout western Asia and as far as the borders of India. On his death in 323 <span>BC<\/span>, at the age of 33, the control of western Asia passed to Alexander’s generals. General Seleucus I (312–280 <span>BC<\/span>) controlled the southern half of Asia Minor, the region of Syria, Mesopotamia, and eastward to the borders of India. Syria thus fell under the influence of Hellenist rulers, the Seleucids, who founded a new capital at Antioch.<\/p>\n\n<p>Further west, Rome was rising to power and cast her eyes eastward. It was General Pompey who overcame Mithridates, the young king of Pontus, and moved to crush the remnants of the kingdom of the Seleucids. The western parts of Syria were formed into a Roman province in 64 <span>BC<\/span>. Pompey finally moved into Palestine, which came under Roman control in 63 <span>BC<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p>The Roman province of Syria included Cilicia, a strip of territory in the southeastern corner of Asia Minor. The northern boundary reached to the Euphrates River. The boundary then swung south well to the east of Damascus and then turned west about halfway down the Dead Sea and continued west to the Mediterranean Sea. Syria was bound to the west by the Mediterranean up to the Gulf of Alexandretta, where it turned west. The province of Syria and Cilicia (Acts 15:23, 41; Gal 1:21) was governed by an imperial legate (<em>legatis<\/em>) who commanded a strong force of legionary troops. One such governor, Quirinius, governed Syria at the time of the census of Caesar Augustus; this census brought Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem for the birth of Jesus (Lk 2:2).<\/p>\n<p>In the following centuries the population of Damascus was Christianized, and Christianity spread throughout the Roman province of Syria, giving rise to the Old Syrian Church, which remains to this day. It has left a remarkable legacy of Christian literature written in Syriac (Aramaic). The old Aramaic language remained, though a modified alphabet was used to write it.<\/p>\n<p>It was the rise of Islam in the seventh century <span>AD<\/span> that brought about a considerable weakening of the Syrian church, although it has never been completely destroyed. Scattered communities of Aramaic-speaking people still survive in parts of Syria, and numerous remains of Christian churches have been brought to light as a result of modern archaeological work.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"LanguageandCulture\">Language and Culture<\/p>\n<p>Aramaic was the language of the Arameans, of which numerous inscriptions have been discovered. The Aramaic script was adapted for use by the Israelites, and the language became the international language for diplomacy and administration all over the Near East. It was the <em>lingua franca<\/em> of the Persian period from Egypt to India and was widely spoken in Palestine in Jesus’ day. The words “<em>talitha cumi<\/em>” (Mk 5:41) and “<em>marana tha<\/em>” (1 Cor 16:22) are Aramaic.<\/p>\n<p>Excavations in many sites have provided a good idea of the Aramean architecture, sculpture, pottery, and other arts. The religion of the Arameans was polytheistic. The people adopted many foreign deities as well. The principal Aramean deity was the ancient west Semitic storm god Hadad. In the days of Ahaz of Judah, the Damascus cult was forced on the people of Jerusalem when an altar based on a Damascus model was placed in the temple (2 Kgs 16:10-13). Arameans exiled to Samaria by the Assyrian ruler Sargon brought foreign Aramean cults with them (17:24-34).<\/p>\n<p>Through the centuries that followed the disappearance of the Aramean states, the Aramaic language has survived. The Christian form of Aramaic, Syriac, has left behind a vast legacy of literature, histories, theologies, commentaries, treatises, and translations, which have been carefully preserved in ancient monastic libraries, particularly in northern Syria, northern Iraq, and southern Turkey.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Aramaic.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>SYRIA, SYRIANS<\/h3>\n<p>Terms used in the Septuagint and in some English translations to render the names Aram, Arameans.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"HistoryoftheArameans\">History of the Arameans<\/p>\n<p>According to the “table of nations” in Genesis 10:22-23, the Arameans were a Semitic group, descendants of Shem. Another genealogy in Genesis 22:20-21 makes Aram a descendant of Nahor. According to Amos 9:7, the Arameans (Syrians) came from Kir, which is linked with Elam in Isaiah 22:6. The exile of the Arameans to Kir (2 Kgs 16:9; Am 1:5) may suggest they were to go back to their original home. The precise origins of this group of people are, however, lost in antiquity. When they emerged clearly into history, they were settled around the central Euphrates from which they were spread out east, west, and north.<\/p>\n<p>The Arameans were traditionally thought to have been established in upper Mesopotamia in the first part of the second millennium <span>BC<\/span>. Bethuel and Laban were known as Arameans (Gn 25:20; 28:1-7); the home of Bethuel was in Paddan-aram (25:20). The prophet Hosea recalls the tradition by noting that Jacob fled to “the field of Aram” (Hos 12:12) or “Aram-naharaim” (Aram of the two rivers), which was the northern part of Mesopotamia between the Euphrates and Tigris Rivers. In the creedal confession in Deuteronomy 26:5, the Israelite who brought his firstfruits confessed, “My father [probably Jacob] was a wandering Aramean.”<\/p>\n<p>Probably the best early evidence of an Aramean presence in this area comes from Tiglath-pileser I. In his annals of his fourth year (1112 <span>BC<\/span>), he speaks of a campaign among the “Akhlama, Arameans” in the Middle Euphrates area and the sacking of six Aramean villages in the Mt Bishri area.<\/p>\n<p>The Arameans of upper Mesopotamia became important in biblical history. They set up a number of separate Aramean states, two of which were especially important for the people of Israel—Aram-zobah in the days of David, and Aram-damascus from the days of Solomon onward.<\/p>\n<p>By about 1100 <span>BC<\/span>, the Aramean tribes had spread throughout Syria and had expanded into northern Transjordan, where they came into conflict with the Israelites. At his peak Hadadezer, king of Aram-zobah, embraced several vassals, such as Damascus, Maacah, and Tob. He was eventually defeated by King David (2 Sm 8:3-4; 10:17-19).<\/p>\n<p>Events in Israel and Judah had some bearing on Damascus. After the death of Solomon, when the formerly united kingdom became divided into Judah and Israel, tension arose between the two small states. War broke out between Baasha of Israel and Asa of Judah in the years 890–880 <span>BC<\/span>. Asa sought aid from Ben-hadad I of Damascus (1 Kgs 15:18). Lands in Transjordan changed hands several times. The successors of Omri of Israel—namely Ahab, Ahaziah, Jehoram, Jehu, Jehoahaz, and Jehoash—had many conflicts with Damascus. Ahab fought Ben-hadad and his 32 allies who besieged Samaria (20:1), but Israel defeated him. A second time Ben-hadad entered Israelite territory and reached Aphek (20:26), but he was again defeated and captured. As a consequence of his defeat and for the price of his release, he was obliged to make bazaars available in Damascus for Israelite trade. After three years of peace between Israel and Damascus, hostilities broke out again and resulted in a battle in the region of Ramoth-gilead in which Ahab was killed (22:29-37). Aram-damascus was eventually defeated by King Jehoash of Israel (2 Kgs 13:25).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"SyriaaftertheCollapseoftheArameanKingdoms\">Syria after the Collapse of the Aramean Kingdoms<\/p>\n<p>After the collapse of Aram-damascus in 733–732 <span>BC<\/span>, the political character of the whole region changed. Over the centuries that followed and on into Christian times, the region passed under the control of several great powers and no independent Aramean state survived. When Assyria collapsed in 612–609 <span>BC<\/span>, the region came under Babylonian control, but only for a comparatively short period. With the rise of Cyrus the Persian, the Syrian region was quickly overrun by Persian armies. Palestine, Asia Minor, and Egypt were absorbed into the Persian Empire at the same time.<\/p>\n<p>The next significant political change that affected the region came with the appearance of Philip of Macedon in 360 <span>BC<\/span>. His son Alexander the Great (336–323 <span>BC<\/span>) consolidated Greek power throughout western Asia and as far as the borders of India. On his death in 323 <span>BC<\/span>, at the age of 33, the control of western Asia passed to Alexander’s generals. General Seleucus I (312–280 <span>BC<\/span>) controlled the southern half of Asia Minor, the region of Syria, Mesopotamia, and eastward to the borders of India. Syria thus fell under the influence of Hellenist rulers, the Seleucids, who founded a new capital at Antioch.<\/p>\n\n<p>Further west, Rome was rising to power and cast her eyes eastward. It was General Pompey who overcame Mithridates, the young king of Pontus, and moved to crush the remnants of the kingdom of the Seleucids. The western parts of Syria were formed into a Roman province in 64 <span>BC<\/span>. Pompey finally moved into Palestine, which came under Roman control in 63 <span>BC<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p>The Roman province of Syria included Cilicia, a strip of territory in the southeastern corner of Asia Minor. The northern boundary reached to the Euphrates River. The boundary then swung south well to the east of Damascus and then turned west about halfway down the Dead Sea and continued west to the Mediterranean Sea. Syria was bound to the west by the Mediterranean up to the Gulf of Alexandretta, where it turned west. The province of Syria and Cilicia (Acts 15:23, 41; Gal 1:21) was governed by an imperial legate (<em>legatis<\/em>) who commanded a strong force of legionary troops. One such governor, Quirinius, governed Syria at the time of the census of Caesar Augustus; this census brought Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem for the birth of Jesus (Lk 2:2).<\/p>\n<p>In the following centuries the population of Damascus was Christianized, and Christianity spread throughout the Roman province of Syria, giving rise to the Old Syrian Church, which remains to this day. It has left a remarkable legacy of Christian literature written in Syriac (Aramaic). The old Aramaic language remained, though a modified alphabet was used to write it.<\/p>\n<p>It was the rise of Islam in the seventh century <span>AD<\/span> that brought about a considerable weakening of the Syrian church, although it has never been completely destroyed. Scattered communities of Aramaic-speaking people still survive in parts of Syria, and numerous remains of Christian churches have been brought to light as a result of modern archaeological work.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"LanguageandCulture\">Language and Culture<\/p>\n<p>Aramaic was the language of the Arameans, of which numerous inscriptions have been discovered. The Aramaic script was adapted for use by the Israelites, and the language became the international language for diplomacy and administration all over the Near East. It was the <em>lingua franca<\/em> of the Persian period from Egypt to India and was widely spoken in Palestine in Jesus’ day. The words “<em>talitha cumi<\/em>” (Mk 5:41) and “<em>marana tha<\/em>” (1 Cor 16:22) are Aramaic.<\/p>\n<p>Excavations in many sites have provided a good idea of the Aramean architecture, sculpture, pottery, and other arts. The religion of the Arameans was polytheistic. The people adopted many foreign deities as well. The principal Aramean deity was the ancient west Semitic storm god Hadad. In the days of Ahaz of Judah, the Damascus cult was forced on the people of Jerusalem when an altar based on a Damascus model was placed in the temple (2 Kgs 16:10-13). Arameans exiled to Samaria by the Assyrian ruler Sargon brought foreign Aramean cults with them (17:24-34).<\/p>\n<p>Through the centuries that followed the disappearance of the Aramean states, the Aramaic language has survived. The Christian form of Aramaic, Syriac, has left behind a vast legacy of literature, histories, theologies, commentaries, treatises, and translations, which have been carefully preserved in ancient monastic libraries, particularly in northern Syria, northern Iraq, and southern Turkey.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Aramaic.<\/p>","summary_ro":"SYRIA, SYRIANS Terms used in the Septuagint and in some English translations to render the names Aram, Arameans. History of the Arameans According to the “table of nations” in Genesis 10:22-23, the Arameans were a Semitic group, descendants of Shem. Another genealogy in Genesis 22:20-21 makes Aram a descendant of Nahor. According to Amos 9:7, the Arameans (Syrians) came from Kir, which is linked with Elam in Isaiah 22:6. The exile of the Arameans to Kir (2 Kgs 16:9; Am 1:5) may suggest they w...","summary_en":"SYRIA, SYRIANS Terms used in the Septuagint and in some English translations to render the names Aram, Arameans. History of the Arameans According to the “table of nations” in Genesis 10:22-23, the Arameans were a Semitic group, descendants of Shem. Another genealogy in Genesis 22:20-21 makes Aram a descendant of Nahor. According to Amos 9:7, the Arameans (Syrians) came from Kir, which is linked with Elam in Isaiah 22:6. The exile of the Arameans to Kir (2 Kgs 16:9; Am 1:5) may suggest they w...","source":"Articles\/S.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":47390,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: 2 Împărați 16:9","title_en":"Study Note: 2 Împărați 16:9","content_ro":"<p><strong>16:9<\/strong> The location of <em>Kir<\/em> is unknown; it was the original home of the Arameans (Amos 9:7).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>16:9<\/strong> The location of <em>Kir<\/em> is unknown; it was the original home of the Arameans (Amos 9:7).<\/p>","summary_ro":"16:9 The location of Kir is unknown; it was the original home of the Arameans (Amos 9:7).","summary_en":"16:9 The location of Kir is unknown; it was the original home of the Arameans (Amos 9:7).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":75016,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: 2 Împărați 16:9","title_en":"Study Note: 2 Împărați 16:9","content_ro":"<p><strong>16:9<\/strong> The location of <em>Kir<\/em> is unknown; it was the original home of the Arameans (Amos 9:7).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>16:9<\/strong> The location of <em>Kir<\/em> is unknown; it was the original home of the Arameans (Amos 9:7).<\/p>","summary_ro":"16:9 The location of Kir is unknown; it was the original home of the Arameans (Amos 9:7).","summary_en":"16:9 The location of Kir is unknown; it was the original home of the Arameans (Amos 9:7).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":102642,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: 2 Împărați 16:9","title_en":"Study Note: 2 Împărați 16:9","content_ro":"<p><strong>16:9<\/strong> The location of <em>Kir<\/em> is unknown; it was the original home of the Arameans (Amos 9:7).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>16:9<\/strong> The location of <em>Kir<\/em> is unknown; it was the original home of the Arameans (Amos 9:7).<\/p>","summary_ro":"16:9 The location of Kir is unknown; it was the original home of the Arameans (Amos 9:7).","summary_en":"16:9 The location of Kir is unknown; it was the original home of the Arameans (Amos 9:7).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":130268,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: 2 Împărați 16:9","title_en":"Study Note: 2 Împărați 16:9","content_ro":"<p><strong>16:9<\/strong> The location of <em>Kir<\/em> is unknown; it was the original home of the Arameans (Amos 9:7).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>16:9<\/strong> The location of <em>Kir<\/em> is unknown; it was the original home of the Arameans (Amos 9:7).<\/p>","summary_ro":"16:9 The location of Kir is unknown; it was the original home of the Arameans (Amos 9:7).","summary_en":"16:9 The location of Kir is unknown; it was the original home of the Arameans (Amos 9:7).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"10":[{"id":41648,"type":"profile","type_label":"Profil","type_icon":"👤","type_color":"#f59e0b","title_ro":"Ahaz","title_en":"Ahaz","content_ro":"<h3>Ahaz<\/h3>\n<p>Ahaz reigned in Judah during a turbulent period (743–715 <span>BC<\/span>). His father Jotham (2 Kgs 15:32-38; 2 Chr 27:1-9) and son Hezekiah (2 Kgs 18:1-8) were praised for their obedience to the Lord, but Ahaz was evil, even sacrificing one of his sons to false gods.<\/p>\n<p>Ahaz’s reign was marked with conflict. King Pekah of Israel and King Rezin of Aram (Syria) wanted him to join a coalition against Assyria, but he refused. So Pekah and Rezin turned against Judah and won substantial victories, which severely frightened Ahaz. Isaiah the prophet encouraged Ahaz to rely on the Lord, but Ahaz refused (Isa 7).<\/p>\n<p>Revealing his lack of trust in the true God, Ahaz appealed to Tiglath-pileser III for help (2 Kgs 16:7-9). Ahaz made Judah dangerously dependent on Assyria, and Judah effectively became a vassal state. The Assyrian king subsequently defeated the Arameans in a two-year campaign (734–732 <span>BC<\/span>) and killed Rezin. He subdued Israel and incorporated great tracts of Pekah’s land into the Assyrian Empire (15:29).<\/p>\n<p>Ahaz became an eager servant of Assyria. He adopted many religious innovations based on Assyrian models. Ahaz visited Tiglath-pileser III in Damascus, where he saw an Assyrian altar and sent a model of it to Jerusalem, where a similar altar was built, replacing the original bronze altar (16:10-18). Several other Temple alterations also indicate Ahaz’s defection from faith in the Lord.<\/p>\n<p>Ahaz illustrates why the people of Judah were finally exiled. He did not comport himself appropriately as a king (Deut 17:14-20), and he did not worship the Lord. Upon his death, he was succeeded by his son Hezekiah (2 Kgs 16:20).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>2 Kgs 15:38–16:20; 2 Chr 27:9–28:27; Isa 7:1-25<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Ahaz<\/h3>\n<p>Ahaz reigned in Judah during a turbulent period (743–715 <span>BC<\/span>). His father Jotham (2 Kgs 15:32-38; 2 Chr 27:1-9) and son Hezekiah (2 Kgs 18:1-8) were praised for their obedience to the Lord, but Ahaz was evil, even sacrificing one of his sons to false gods.<\/p>\n<p>Ahaz’s reign was marked with conflict. King Pekah of Israel and King Rezin of Aram (Syria) wanted him to join a coalition against Assyria, but he refused. So Pekah and Rezin turned against Judah and won substantial victories, which severely frightened Ahaz. Isaiah the prophet encouraged Ahaz to rely on the Lord, but Ahaz refused (Isa 7).<\/p>\n<p>Revealing his lack of trust in the true God, Ahaz appealed to Tiglath-pileser III for help (2 Kgs 16:7-9). Ahaz made Judah dangerously dependent on Assyria, and Judah effectively became a vassal state. The Assyrian king subsequently defeated the Arameans in a two-year campaign (734–732 <span>BC<\/span>) and killed Rezin. He subdued Israel and incorporated great tracts of Pekah’s land into the Assyrian Empire (15:29).<\/p>\n<p>Ahaz became an eager servant of Assyria. He adopted many religious innovations based on Assyrian models. Ahaz visited Tiglath-pileser III in Damascus, where he saw an Assyrian altar and sent a model of it to Jerusalem, where a similar altar was built, replacing the original bronze altar (16:10-18). Several other Temple alterations also indicate Ahaz’s defection from faith in the Lord.<\/p>\n<p>Ahaz illustrates why the people of Judah were finally exiled. He did not comport himself appropriately as a king (Deut 17:14-20), and he did not worship the Lord. Upon his death, he was succeeded by his son Hezekiah (2 Kgs 16:20).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>2 Kgs 15:38–16:20; 2 Chr 27:9–28:27; Isa 7:1-25<\/p>","summary_ro":"Ahaz Ahaz reigned in Judah during a turbulent period (743–715 BC). His father Jotham (2 Kgs 15:32-38; 2 Chr 27:1-9) and son Hezekiah (2 Kgs 18:1-8) were praised for their obedience to the Lord, but Ahaz was evil, even sacrificing one of his sons to false gods. Ahaz’s reign was marked with conflict. King Pekah of Israel and King Rezin of Aram (Syria) wanted him to join a coalition against Assyria, but he refused. So Pekah and Rezin turned against Judah and won substantial victories, which seve...","summary_en":"Ahaz Ahaz reigned in Judah during a turbulent period (743–715 BC). His father Jotham (2 Kgs 15:32-38; 2 Chr 27:1-9) and son Hezekiah (2 Kgs 18:1-8) were praised for their obedience to the Lord, but Ahaz was evil, even sacrificing one of his sons to false gods. Ahaz’s reign was marked with conflict. King Pekah of Israel and King Rezin of Aram (Syria) wanted him to join a coalition against Assyria, but he refused. So Pekah and Rezin turned against Judah and won substantial victories, which seve...","source":"Profiles.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":69274,"type":"profile","type_label":"Profil","type_icon":"👤","type_color":"#f59e0b","title_ro":"Ahaz","title_en":"Ahaz","content_ro":"<h3>Ahaz<\/h3>\n<p>Ahaz reigned in Judah during a turbulent period (743–715 <span>BC<\/span>). His father Jotham (2 Kgs 15:32-38; 2 Chr 27:1-9) and son Hezekiah (2 Kgs 18:1-8) were praised for their obedience to the Lord, but Ahaz was evil, even sacrificing one of his sons to false gods.<\/p>\n<p>Ahaz’s reign was marked with conflict. King Pekah of Israel and King Rezin of Aram (Syria) wanted him to join a coalition against Assyria, but he refused. So Pekah and Rezin turned against Judah and won substantial victories, which severely frightened Ahaz. Isaiah the prophet encouraged Ahaz to rely on the Lord, but Ahaz refused (Isa 7).<\/p>\n<p>Revealing his lack of trust in the true God, Ahaz appealed to Tiglath-pileser III for help (2 Kgs 16:7-9). Ahaz made Judah dangerously dependent on Assyria, and Judah effectively became a vassal state. The Assyrian king subsequently defeated the Arameans in a two-year campaign (734–732 <span>BC<\/span>) and killed Rezin. He subdued Israel and incorporated great tracts of Pekah’s land into the Assyrian Empire (15:29).<\/p>\n<p>Ahaz became an eager servant of Assyria. He adopted many religious innovations based on Assyrian models. Ahaz visited Tiglath-pileser III in Damascus, where he saw an Assyrian altar and sent a model of it to Jerusalem, where a similar altar was built, replacing the original bronze altar (16:10-18). Several other Temple alterations also indicate Ahaz’s defection from faith in the Lord.<\/p>\n<p>Ahaz illustrates why the people of Judah were finally exiled. He did not comport himself appropriately as a king (Deut 17:14-20), and he did not worship the Lord. Upon his death, he was succeeded by his son Hezekiah (2 Kgs 16:20).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>2 Kgs 15:38–16:20; 2 Chr 27:9–28:27; Isa 7:1-25<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Ahaz<\/h3>\n<p>Ahaz reigned in Judah during a turbulent period (743–715 <span>BC<\/span>). His father Jotham (2 Kgs 15:32-38; 2 Chr 27:1-9) and son Hezekiah (2 Kgs 18:1-8) were praised for their obedience to the Lord, but Ahaz was evil, even sacrificing one of his sons to false gods.<\/p>\n<p>Ahaz’s reign was marked with conflict. King Pekah of Israel and King Rezin of Aram (Syria) wanted him to join a coalition against Assyria, but he refused. So Pekah and Rezin turned against Judah and won substantial victories, which severely frightened Ahaz. Isaiah the prophet encouraged Ahaz to rely on the Lord, but Ahaz refused (Isa 7).<\/p>\n<p>Revealing his lack of trust in the true God, Ahaz appealed to Tiglath-pileser III for help (2 Kgs 16:7-9). Ahaz made Judah dangerously dependent on Assyria, and Judah effectively became a vassal state. The Assyrian king subsequently defeated the Arameans in a two-year campaign (734–732 <span>BC<\/span>) and killed Rezin. He subdued Israel and incorporated great tracts of Pekah’s land into the Assyrian Empire (15:29).<\/p>\n<p>Ahaz became an eager servant of Assyria. He adopted many religious innovations based on Assyrian models. Ahaz visited Tiglath-pileser III in Damascus, where he saw an Assyrian altar and sent a model of it to Jerusalem, where a similar altar was built, replacing the original bronze altar (16:10-18). Several other Temple alterations also indicate Ahaz’s defection from faith in the Lord.<\/p>\n<p>Ahaz illustrates why the people of Judah were finally exiled. He did not comport himself appropriately as a king (Deut 17:14-20), and he did not worship the Lord. Upon his death, he was succeeded by his son Hezekiah (2 Kgs 16:20).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>2 Kgs 15:38–16:20; 2 Chr 27:9–28:27; Isa 7:1-25<\/p>","summary_ro":"Ahaz Ahaz reigned in Judah during a turbulent period (743–715 BC). His father Jotham (2 Kgs 15:32-38; 2 Chr 27:1-9) and son Hezekiah (2 Kgs 18:1-8) were praised for their obedience to the Lord, but Ahaz was evil, even sacrificing one of his sons to false gods. Ahaz’s reign was marked with conflict. King Pekah of Israel and King Rezin of Aram (Syria) wanted him to join a coalition against Assyria, but he refused. So Pekah and Rezin turned against Judah and won substantial victories, which seve...","summary_en":"Ahaz Ahaz reigned in Judah during a turbulent period (743–715 BC). His father Jotham (2 Kgs 15:32-38; 2 Chr 27:1-9) and son Hezekiah (2 Kgs 18:1-8) were praised for their obedience to the Lord, but Ahaz was evil, even sacrificing one of his sons to false gods. Ahaz’s reign was marked with conflict. King Pekah of Israel and King Rezin of Aram (Syria) wanted him to join a coalition against Assyria, but he refused. So Pekah and Rezin turned against Judah and won substantial victories, which seve...","source":"Profiles.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":96900,"type":"profile","type_label":"Profil","type_icon":"👤","type_color":"#f59e0b","title_ro":"Ahaz","title_en":"Ahaz","content_ro":"<h3>Ahaz<\/h3>\n<p>Ahaz reigned in Judah during a turbulent period (743–715 <span>BC<\/span>). His father Jotham (2 Kgs 15:32-38; 2 Chr 27:1-9) and son Hezekiah (2 Kgs 18:1-8) were praised for their obedience to the Lord, but Ahaz was evil, even sacrificing one of his sons to false gods.<\/p>\n<p>Ahaz’s reign was marked with conflict. King Pekah of Israel and King Rezin of Aram (Syria) wanted him to join a coalition against Assyria, but he refused. So Pekah and Rezin turned against Judah and won substantial victories, which severely frightened Ahaz. Isaiah the prophet encouraged Ahaz to rely on the Lord, but Ahaz refused (Isa 7).<\/p>\n<p>Revealing his lack of trust in the true God, Ahaz appealed to Tiglath-pileser III for help (2 Kgs 16:7-9). Ahaz made Judah dangerously dependent on Assyria, and Judah effectively became a vassal state. The Assyrian king subsequently defeated the Arameans in a two-year campaign (734–732 <span>BC<\/span>) and killed Rezin. He subdued Israel and incorporated great tracts of Pekah’s land into the Assyrian Empire (15:29).<\/p>\n<p>Ahaz became an eager servant of Assyria. He adopted many religious innovations based on Assyrian models. Ahaz visited Tiglath-pileser III in Damascus, where he saw an Assyrian altar and sent a model of it to Jerusalem, where a similar altar was built, replacing the original bronze altar (16:10-18). Several other Temple alterations also indicate Ahaz’s defection from faith in the Lord.<\/p>\n<p>Ahaz illustrates why the people of Judah were finally exiled. He did not comport himself appropriately as a king (Deut 17:14-20), and he did not worship the Lord. Upon his death, he was succeeded by his son Hezekiah (2 Kgs 16:20).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>2 Kgs 15:38–16:20; 2 Chr 27:9–28:27; Isa 7:1-25<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Ahaz<\/h3>\n<p>Ahaz reigned in Judah during a turbulent period (743–715 <span>BC<\/span>). His father Jotham (2 Kgs 15:32-38; 2 Chr 27:1-9) and son Hezekiah (2 Kgs 18:1-8) were praised for their obedience to the Lord, but Ahaz was evil, even sacrificing one of his sons to false gods.<\/p>\n<p>Ahaz’s reign was marked with conflict. King Pekah of Israel and King Rezin of Aram (Syria) wanted him to join a coalition against Assyria, but he refused. So Pekah and Rezin turned against Judah and won substantial victories, which severely frightened Ahaz. Isaiah the prophet encouraged Ahaz to rely on the Lord, but Ahaz refused (Isa 7).<\/p>\n<p>Revealing his lack of trust in the true God, Ahaz appealed to Tiglath-pileser III for help (2 Kgs 16:7-9). Ahaz made Judah dangerously dependent on Assyria, and Judah effectively became a vassal state. The Assyrian king subsequently defeated the Arameans in a two-year campaign (734–732 <span>BC<\/span>) and killed Rezin. He subdued Israel and incorporated great tracts of Pekah’s land into the Assyrian Empire (15:29).<\/p>\n<p>Ahaz became an eager servant of Assyria. He adopted many religious innovations based on Assyrian models. Ahaz visited Tiglath-pileser III in Damascus, where he saw an Assyrian altar and sent a model of it to Jerusalem, where a similar altar was built, replacing the original bronze altar (16:10-18). Several other Temple alterations also indicate Ahaz’s defection from faith in the Lord.<\/p>\n<p>Ahaz illustrates why the people of Judah were finally exiled. He did not comport himself appropriately as a king (Deut 17:14-20), and he did not worship the Lord. Upon his death, he was succeeded by his son Hezekiah (2 Kgs 16:20).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>2 Kgs 15:38–16:20; 2 Chr 27:9–28:27; Isa 7:1-25<\/p>","summary_ro":"Ahaz Ahaz reigned in Judah during a turbulent period (743–715 BC). His father Jotham (2 Kgs 15:32-38; 2 Chr 27:1-9) and son Hezekiah (2 Kgs 18:1-8) were praised for their obedience to the Lord, but Ahaz was evil, even sacrificing one of his sons to false gods. Ahaz’s reign was marked with conflict. King Pekah of Israel and King Rezin of Aram (Syria) wanted him to join a coalition against Assyria, but he refused. So Pekah and Rezin turned against Judah and won substantial victories, which seve...","summary_en":"Ahaz Ahaz reigned in Judah during a turbulent period (743–715 BC). His father Jotham (2 Kgs 15:32-38; 2 Chr 27:1-9) and son Hezekiah (2 Kgs 18:1-8) were praised for their obedience to the Lord, but Ahaz was evil, even sacrificing one of his sons to false gods. Ahaz’s reign was marked with conflict. King Pekah of Israel and King Rezin of Aram (Syria) wanted him to join a coalition against Assyria, but he refused. So Pekah and Rezin turned against Judah and won substantial victories, which seve...","source":"Profiles.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":124526,"type":"profile","type_label":"Profil","type_icon":"👤","type_color":"#f59e0b","title_ro":"Ahaz","title_en":"Ahaz","content_ro":"<h3>Ahaz<\/h3>\n<p>Ahaz reigned in Judah during a turbulent period (743–715 <span>BC<\/span>). His father Jotham (2 Kgs 15:32-38; 2 Chr 27:1-9) and son Hezekiah (2 Kgs 18:1-8) were praised for their obedience to the Lord, but Ahaz was evil, even sacrificing one of his sons to false gods.<\/p>\n<p>Ahaz’s reign was marked with conflict. King Pekah of Israel and King Rezin of Aram (Syria) wanted him to join a coalition against Assyria, but he refused. So Pekah and Rezin turned against Judah and won substantial victories, which severely frightened Ahaz. Isaiah the prophet encouraged Ahaz to rely on the Lord, but Ahaz refused (Isa 7).<\/p>\n<p>Revealing his lack of trust in the true God, Ahaz appealed to Tiglath-pileser III for help (2 Kgs 16:7-9). Ahaz made Judah dangerously dependent on Assyria, and Judah effectively became a vassal state. The Assyrian king subsequently defeated the Arameans in a two-year campaign (734–732 <span>BC<\/span>) and killed Rezin. He subdued Israel and incorporated great tracts of Pekah’s land into the Assyrian Empire (15:29).<\/p>\n<p>Ahaz became an eager servant of Assyria. He adopted many religious innovations based on Assyrian models. Ahaz visited Tiglath-pileser III in Damascus, where he saw an Assyrian altar and sent a model of it to Jerusalem, where a similar altar was built, replacing the original bronze altar (16:10-18). Several other Temple alterations also indicate Ahaz’s defection from faith in the Lord.<\/p>\n<p>Ahaz illustrates why the people of Judah were finally exiled. He did not comport himself appropriately as a king (Deut 17:14-20), and he did not worship the Lord. Upon his death, he was succeeded by his son Hezekiah (2 Kgs 16:20).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>2 Kgs 15:38–16:20; 2 Chr 27:9–28:27; Isa 7:1-25<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Ahaz<\/h3>\n<p>Ahaz reigned in Judah during a turbulent period (743–715 <span>BC<\/span>). His father Jotham (2 Kgs 15:32-38; 2 Chr 27:1-9) and son Hezekiah (2 Kgs 18:1-8) were praised for their obedience to the Lord, but Ahaz was evil, even sacrificing one of his sons to false gods.<\/p>\n<p>Ahaz’s reign was marked with conflict. King Pekah of Israel and King Rezin of Aram (Syria) wanted him to join a coalition against Assyria, but he refused. So Pekah and Rezin turned against Judah and won substantial victories, which severely frightened Ahaz. Isaiah the prophet encouraged Ahaz to rely on the Lord, but Ahaz refused (Isa 7).<\/p>\n<p>Revealing his lack of trust in the true God, Ahaz appealed to Tiglath-pileser III for help (2 Kgs 16:7-9). Ahaz made Judah dangerously dependent on Assyria, and Judah effectively became a vassal state. The Assyrian king subsequently defeated the Arameans in a two-year campaign (734–732 <span>BC<\/span>) and killed Rezin. He subdued Israel and incorporated great tracts of Pekah’s land into the Assyrian Empire (15:29).<\/p>\n<p>Ahaz became an eager servant of Assyria. He adopted many religious innovations based on Assyrian models. Ahaz visited Tiglath-pileser III in Damascus, where he saw an Assyrian altar and sent a model of it to Jerusalem, where a similar altar was built, replacing the original bronze altar (16:10-18). Several other Temple alterations also indicate Ahaz’s defection from faith in the Lord.<\/p>\n<p>Ahaz illustrates why the people of Judah were finally exiled. He did not comport himself appropriately as a king (Deut 17:14-20), and he did not worship the Lord. Upon his death, he was succeeded by his son Hezekiah (2 Kgs 16:20).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>2 Kgs 15:38–16:20; 2 Chr 27:9–28:27; Isa 7:1-25<\/p>","summary_ro":"Ahaz Ahaz reigned in Judah during a turbulent period (743–715 BC). His father Jotham (2 Kgs 15:32-38; 2 Chr 27:1-9) and son Hezekiah (2 Kgs 18:1-8) were praised for their obedience to the Lord, but Ahaz was evil, even sacrificing one of his sons to false gods. Ahaz’s reign was marked with conflict. King Pekah of Israel and King Rezin of Aram (Syria) wanted him to join a coalition against Assyria, but he refused. So Pekah and Rezin turned against Judah and won substantial victories, which seve...","summary_en":"Ahaz Ahaz reigned in Judah during a turbulent period (743–715 BC). His father Jotham (2 Kgs 15:32-38; 2 Chr 27:1-9) and son Hezekiah (2 Kgs 18:1-8) were praised for their obedience to the Lord, but Ahaz was evil, even sacrificing one of his sons to false gods. Ahaz’s reign was marked with conflict. King Pekah of Israel and King Rezin of Aram (Syria) wanted him to join a coalition against Assyria, but he refused. So Pekah and Rezin turned against Judah and won substantial victories, which seve...","source":"Profiles.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":841,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Ahaz","title_en":"Ahaz","content_ro":"<h3>AHAZ<\/h3>\n<li>1. King of Judah (735–715 <span>BC<\/span>) who was especially remembered for his apostasy. The name Ahaz (Mt 1:9) is a shortened form of Ahaziah or Jehoahaz. The three main accounts of Ahaz (2 Kgs 16; 2 Chr 28; Is 7) treat him as one of the most evil rulers of the southern kingdom of Judah. Consequently, his burial was relatively dishonorable (2 Chr 28:27). He was succeeded by his son Hezekiah (2 Kgs 18:1).<\/li>\n<p>There is little agreement on the chronology of this section of the OT. The chronological system that seems to have the fewest problems would place Ahaz’s accession in 735 <span>BC<\/span>. If he first came to the throne as co-regent with his father, Jotham, from 735 to 732 <span>BC<\/span>, his entire reign covered a span of approximately 20 years, ending in 715 <span>BC<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p>Ahaz reigned over Judah during a critical time in the history of the ancient Near East. The Assyrians were pushing westward, threatening the Syro-Palestinian area. Pekah, king of Israel, and Rezin, king of Syria, adopted a policy of resistance against the Assyrians and invaded Judah in order to effect a solid coalition by deposing Ahaz.<\/p>\n<p>Blatantly revealing a lack of trust in God, Ahaz appealed to Tiglath-pileser III, the Assyrian king, for help. That appeal brought the wrath of the prophet Isaiah upon Ahaz. The ensuing encounter (Is 7) led to Isaiah’s prediction of the birth of Immanuel as a sign of the dissolution of the countries of Israel and Syria. Those two kingdoms were ultimately destroyed by Tiglath-pileser in a campaign that lasted about two years (734–732 <span>BC<\/span>).<\/p>\n\n<p>Before the two kingdoms to the north were conquered by Assyria, their invasion of Judah caused great turmoil (2 Chr 28:8). The invaders not only carried off much spoil but also attempted to depopulate portions of Judah by taking 200,000 people captive to Samaria. That attempt was protested by a prophet in Samaria named Obed, who condemned the act of slavery and ordered the captives returned (v 9). He was joined by several leaders of Israel (v 12), who succeeded in having the captives returned to Jericho with provisions from the spoil that had been taken.<\/p>\n<p>During that time, the kingdom of Judah may have been threatened from the south as well. The Edomites, who had long been under the domination of Judah, may have taken advantage of Judah’s growing internal weakness to assert their independence. The Masoretic Text of the OT refers to an invasion of the seaport town of Elath on the Red Sea by Aram, the Hebrew name for Syria (2 Kgs 16:6). The name Aram is quite similar to the name Edom in Hebrew, however, so many scholars think that invasion was actually by Edomites.<\/p>\n<p>By virtue of the alliance he had made, Ahaz placed his country in a dangerous position of dependence on Assyria. The kingdom of Judah became essentially a vassal state under the tacit control of Tiglath-pileser. Ahaz went to Damascus, the capital of fallen Syria, to appear before Tiglath-pileser, possibly to assure his allegiance to the king to whom his nation had become tributary (2 Kgs 16:10).<\/p>\n<p>While in Damascus, Ahaz saw an Assyrian altar, a model of which he sent back to Judah. Under the direction of Uriah the priest, a similar altar was built in Jerusalem, replacing the original bronze altar. Several other alterations were made in the temple by Ahaz, all indicating his turning away from Jewish religion.<\/p>\n<p>The “dial of Ahaz” (2 Kgs 20:11; Is 38:8) later figured in a sign given to his son Hezekiah; the Hebrew word actually refers to a flight of stairs, no doubt built by Ahaz and used to tell time by the movement of a shadow across it.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> King; Kings, Books of First and Second; Israel, History of; Sundial; Chronology of the Bible (Old Testament).<\/p>\n<li>2. Micah’s son and Jehoaddah’s father, a descendant of Saul, otherwise unknown (1 Chr 8:35-36).<\/li>","content_en":"<h3>AHAZ<\/h3>\n<li>1. King of Judah (735–715 <span>BC<\/span>) who was especially remembered for his apostasy. The name Ahaz (Mt 1:9) is a shortened form of Ahaziah or Jehoahaz. The three main accounts of Ahaz (2 Kgs 16; 2 Chr 28; Is 7) treat him as one of the most evil rulers of the southern kingdom of Judah. Consequently, his burial was relatively dishonorable (2 Chr 28:27). He was succeeded by his son Hezekiah (2 Kgs 18:1).<\/li>\n<p>There is little agreement on the chronology of this section of the OT. The chronological system that seems to have the fewest problems would place Ahaz’s accession in 735 <span>BC<\/span>. If he first came to the throne as co-regent with his father, Jotham, from 735 to 732 <span>BC<\/span>, his entire reign covered a span of approximately 20 years, ending in 715 <span>BC<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p>Ahaz reigned over Judah during a critical time in the history of the ancient Near East. The Assyrians were pushing westward, threatening the Syro-Palestinian area. Pekah, king of Israel, and Rezin, king of Syria, adopted a policy of resistance against the Assyrians and invaded Judah in order to effect a solid coalition by deposing Ahaz.<\/p>\n<p>Blatantly revealing a lack of trust in God, Ahaz appealed to Tiglath-pileser III, the Assyrian king, for help. That appeal brought the wrath of the prophet Isaiah upon Ahaz. The ensuing encounter (Is 7) led to Isaiah’s prediction of the birth of Immanuel as a sign of the dissolution of the countries of Israel and Syria. Those two kingdoms were ultimately destroyed by Tiglath-pileser in a campaign that lasted about two years (734–732 <span>BC<\/span>).<\/p>\n\n<p>Before the two kingdoms to the north were conquered by Assyria, their invasion of Judah caused great turmoil (2 Chr 28:8). The invaders not only carried off much spoil but also attempted to depopulate portions of Judah by taking 200,000 people captive to Samaria. That attempt was protested by a prophet in Samaria named Obed, who condemned the act of slavery and ordered the captives returned (v 9). He was joined by several leaders of Israel (v 12), who succeeded in having the captives returned to Jericho with provisions from the spoil that had been taken.<\/p>\n<p>During that time, the kingdom of Judah may have been threatened from the south as well. The Edomites, who had long been under the domination of Judah, may have taken advantage of Judah’s growing internal weakness to assert their independence. The Masoretic Text of the OT refers to an invasion of the seaport town of Elath on the Red Sea by Aram, the Hebrew name for Syria (2 Kgs 16:6). The name Aram is quite similar to the name Edom in Hebrew, however, so many scholars think that invasion was actually by Edomites.<\/p>\n<p>By virtue of the alliance he had made, Ahaz placed his country in a dangerous position of dependence on Assyria. The kingdom of Judah became essentially a vassal state under the tacit control of Tiglath-pileser. Ahaz went to Damascus, the capital of fallen Syria, to appear before Tiglath-pileser, possibly to assure his allegiance to the king to whom his nation had become tributary (2 Kgs 16:10).<\/p>\n<p>While in Damascus, Ahaz saw an Assyrian altar, a model of which he sent back to Judah. Under the direction of Uriah the priest, a similar altar was built in Jerusalem, replacing the original bronze altar. Several other alterations were made in the temple by Ahaz, all indicating his turning away from Jewish religion.<\/p>\n<p>The “dial of Ahaz” (2 Kgs 20:11; Is 38:8) later figured in a sign given to his son Hezekiah; the Hebrew word actually refers to a flight of stairs, no doubt built by Ahaz and used to tell time by the movement of a shadow across it.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> King; Kings, Books of First and Second; Israel, History of; Sundial; Chronology of the Bible (Old Testament).<\/p>\n<li>2. Micah’s son and Jehoaddah’s father, a descendant of Saul, otherwise unknown (1 Chr 8:35-36).<\/li>","summary_ro":"AHAZ 1. King of Judah (735–715 BC) who was especially remembered for his apostasy. The name Ahaz (Mt 1:9) is a shortened form of Ahaziah or Jehoahaz. The three main accounts of Ahaz (2 Kgs 16; 2 Chr 28; Is 7) treat him as one of the most evil rulers of the southern kingdom of Judah. Consequently, his burial was relatively dishonorable (2 Chr 28:27). He was succeeded by his son Hezekiah (2 Kgs 18:1). There is little agreement on the chronology of this section of the OT. The chronological syste...","summary_en":"AHAZ 1. King of Judah (735–715 BC) who was especially remembered for his apostasy. The name Ahaz (Mt 1:9) is a shortened form of Ahaziah or Jehoahaz. The three main accounts of Ahaz (2 Kgs 16; 2 Chr 28; Is 7) treat him as one of the most evil rulers of the southern kingdom of Judah. Consequently, his burial was relatively dishonorable (2 Chr 28:27). He was succeeded by his son Hezekiah (2 Kgs 18:1). There is little agreement on the chronology of this section of the OT. The chronological syste...","source":"Articles\/A.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":1087,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Alliance","title_en":"Alliance","content_ro":"<h3>ALLIANCE<\/h3>\n<p>Close association of powerful individuals or nations for a common objective. Such alliances were ratified by various means, including gifts, oaths, dowries and marriages, and covenants.<\/p>\n<p>In patriarchal times Israelites entered into alliances with foreign nations without hesitation. Abraham had an alliance with three Amorites: Mamre, Eshcol, and Aner (Gn 14:13, 24) and with Abimelech, king of Gerar (Gn 21:22-34). Isaac also made an alliance with Abimelech (Gn 26:26-31). Later, Moses forbade the Israelites to make alliances with the Canaanites (Ex 23:31-33; 34:12; Dt 7:1-4), primarily for religious reasons. In the time of the judges the Israelites were reminded of that command (Jgs 2:1-3), but Joshua 9 tells how Israel was tricked into making an alliance with the Gibeonites.<\/p>\n<p>During the period of the monarchy, various kings formed alliances and intermarried with foreigners. David (before he was king of all Israel) made an agreement with Achish, king of Gath, under which he was expected to fight with the Philistines against the Israelite army of Saul (1 Sm 27:1; 28:2). Solomon made alliances for the purpose of trade with Hiram of Tyre (1 Kgs 5:1-18; 9:26-28) and with the king of Egypt (1 Kgs 9:16). After the division of the kingdom, Asa formed an alliance with the king of Syria, Ben-hadad (1 Kgs 15:18-20). Shortly thereafter, Ahab, King of Israel, joined Jehoshaphat in fighting Syria (1 Kgs 22:1-4; 2 Chr 18:1-13). About a century later, King Pekah of Israel formed an alliance with Rezin, king of Syria, to fight Ahaz, king of Judah (Is 7:1-9), and Ahaz in turn made an alliance with Tiglath-pileser, king of Assyria, to fight against Pekah and Rezin (2 Kgs 16:7-9). The last king of Judah, Zedekiah, made an alliance with Egypt against the Babylonians (2 Kgs 24:20; Ez 17:1-21). In general these alliances brought foreign cults into Jerusalem (2 Kgs 16:10-18) and led the prophets to cry out against them (Hos 8:8-10; Is 30:1-3, 15-16; Jer 2:18).<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>ALLIANCE<\/h3>\n<p>Close association of powerful individuals or nations for a common objective. Such alliances were ratified by various means, including gifts, oaths, dowries and marriages, and covenants.<\/p>\n<p>In patriarchal times Israelites entered into alliances with foreign nations without hesitation. Abraham had an alliance with three Amorites: Mamre, Eshcol, and Aner (Gn 14:13, 24) and with Abimelech, king of Gerar (Gn 21:22-34). Isaac also made an alliance with Abimelech (Gn 26:26-31). Later, Moses forbade the Israelites to make alliances with the Canaanites (Ex 23:31-33; 34:12; Dt 7:1-4), primarily for religious reasons. In the time of the judges the Israelites were reminded of that command (Jgs 2:1-3), but Joshua 9 tells how Israel was tricked into making an alliance with the Gibeonites.<\/p>\n<p>During the period of the monarchy, various kings formed alliances and intermarried with foreigners. David (before he was king of all Israel) made an agreement with Achish, king of Gath, under which he was expected to fight with the Philistines against the Israelite army of Saul (1 Sm 27:1; 28:2). Solomon made alliances for the purpose of trade with Hiram of Tyre (1 Kgs 5:1-18; 9:26-28) and with the king of Egypt (1 Kgs 9:16). After the division of the kingdom, Asa formed an alliance with the king of Syria, Ben-hadad (1 Kgs 15:18-20). Shortly thereafter, Ahab, King of Israel, joined Jehoshaphat in fighting Syria (1 Kgs 22:1-4; 2 Chr 18:1-13). About a century later, King Pekah of Israel formed an alliance with Rezin, king of Syria, to fight Ahaz, king of Judah (Is 7:1-9), and Ahaz in turn made an alliance with Tiglath-pileser, king of Assyria, to fight against Pekah and Rezin (2 Kgs 16:7-9). The last king of Judah, Zedekiah, made an alliance with Egypt against the Babylonians (2 Kgs 24:20; Ez 17:1-21). In general these alliances brought foreign cults into Jerusalem (2 Kgs 16:10-18) and led the prophets to cry out against them (Hos 8:8-10; Is 30:1-3, 15-16; Jer 2:18).<\/p>","summary_ro":"ALLIANCE Close association of powerful individuals or nations for a common objective. Such alliances were ratified by various means, including gifts, oaths, dowries and marriages, and covenants. In patriarchal times Israelites entered into alliances with foreign nations without hesitation. Abraham had an alliance with three Amorites: Mamre, Eshcol, and Aner (Gn 14:13, 24) and with Abimelech, king of Gerar (Gn 21:22-34). Isaac also made an alliance with Abimelech (Gn 26:26-31). Later, Moses fo...","summary_en":"ALLIANCE Close association of powerful individuals or nations for a common objective. Such alliances were ratified by various means, including gifts, oaths, dowries and marriages, and covenants. In patriarchal times Israelites entered into alliances with foreign nations without hesitation. Abraham had an alliance with three Amorites: Mamre, Eshcol, and Aner (Gn 14:13, 24) and with Abimelech, king of Gerar (Gn 21:22-34). Isaac also made an alliance with Abimelech (Gn 26:26-31). Later, Moses fo...","source":"Articles\/A.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":17234,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Immanuel","title_en":"Immanuel","content_ro":"<h3>IMMANUEL<\/h3>\n<p>Hebrew masculine name that means “God with us.” It appears only twice in the OT (Is 7:14; 8:8) and once in the NT (Mt 1:23), where it is sometimes transliterated “Emmanuel.” In the OT the name was given to a child born in the time of Ahaz as a sign to the king that Judah would receive relief from attacks by Israel and Syria. The name symbolized the fact that God would demonstrate his presence with his people in this deliverance. The greater application is that this is a prophecy of the birth of the incarnate God, Jesus the Messiah, as shown in Matthew.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheProphecyinIsaiahsDay\">The Prophecy in Isaiah’s Day<\/p>\n<p>In focusing on the birth of Jesus as Immanuel, there has been some neglect of the historical fulfillment that occurred in the time of Ahaz. Ahaz was the son of a good king, Jotham and the grandson of another godly ruler, Uzziah, but his reign was marked by apostasy and idolatry. He made “molten images” for the Baals, offered incense in the Hinnom Valley, and even burned his sons as an offering (2 Chr 28:2-4). Because of this, the Lord gave him into the hand of Rezin, king of Syria, and of Pekah, king of Israel. The Edomites also invaded Judah, and the Philistines attacked the Shephelah and the Negev and took several cities (vv 17-18).<\/p>\n<p>Ahaz appealed to Tiglath-pileser III of Assyria (745–727 <span>BC<\/span>) for help against Israel and Syria. Tiglath-pileser accepted tribute from Ahaz, but attacked him instead of helping him (2 Chr 28:20-21). When he went to Damascus to meet the Assyrian king, Ahaz saw an altar, upon which he made offerings to the gods of Syria (v 23). He had a replica of this made and placed in the temple of Jerusalem (2 Kgs 16:10-12). The prophet Isaiah was directed to accost Ahaz at the end of the conduit of the upper pool. God’s message to the king was to “take heart,” for the attacking kings would fall (Is 7:7-9). Isaiah directed Ahaz to ask the Lord for a sign of this, but the king demurred, having a sudden attack of piety (v 12).<\/p>\n<p>Upon this refusal, the Lord gave to Ahaz a sign: a young woman would conceive and bear a son and call his name Immanuel (Is 7:14). That son would be able to distinguish good from evil by the time he was old enough to eat curds and wild honey, but even before that, the two kings would be removed and the king of Assyria would devastate their lands. The people would be taken away captive, so that the land would lie desolate and uncultivated. A man would have a cow to provide milk for curds, and wild honey would be gathered from the tangle of brush in the untended land.<\/p>\n<p>The identity of this woman and child in Isaiah’s time is uncertain. It has been proposed that the woman was Abijah, the wife of Ahaz, and that their son, Hezekiah, was this Immanuel. This is not demonstrable, and it seems inappropriate that a man like Ahaz should be the father of Immanuel.<\/p>\n<p>It has also been suggested that the wife of Isaiah was the mother of Immanuel. Isaiah 7:14 tells of the prospective birth of Immanuel; 8:3 tells of the conception and birth of Isaiah’s son, whose name, Maher-shalal-hash-baz (“swift to plunder and quick to spoil”) is related to the prediction of the fall of Judah’s enemies, for before the child would learn to talk, the lands of Syria and Israel would be taken by the king of Assyria (Is 8:4). Isaiah’s statement that he and his children were “signs and portents in Israel from the <span>Lord<\/span>” (v 18, <span>rsv<\/span>) enhances the view that it was his son who was also named Immanuel.<\/p>\n<p>The Lord then directed a message to Immanuel (Is 8:5-10). Because the people had refused the gracious invitation of the Lord, the Assyrians would scourge and fill the land of Immanuel. The plotting and plans of the people would come to nothing, for “God is with us” <em>(<\/em><span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">‘immanu’el<\/span><em>).<\/em> This is a play on words, using the name Immanuel to express the truth of the Lord’s presence.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheProphecyFulfilledinJesus\">The Prophecy Fulfilled in Jesus<\/p>\n<p>In the fullness of time God sent forth his son; more than 700 years after Ahaz, Jesus was born and here all ambiguities fade away. His mother was a virgin from Nazareth named Mary (Miriam), betrothed to a solid citizen named Joseph. Matthew 1:23 cites Isaiah 7:14 as being fulfilled in the birth of Jesus. The Scripture is very explicit in stating that Mary had no sexual contact with her husband prior to the birth of Jesus (Mt 1:25). The same precision is seen in the Gospel of Luke. When the announcement of this child’s conception was made to Mary, she asked, “How can this be, since I have no husband?” (Lk 1:34, <span>rsv<\/span>). The angelic messenger explained that this conception would be brought about by the coming of the Holy Spirit upon her and by the overshadowing power of the Most High (v 35). For this reason the child would be not only Jesus and Immanuel but he would be called holy, the Son of God, God manifest in the flesh (Jn 1:18); the child would be unique, being both God and man.<\/p>\n<p>There were great distinctions between the Immanuel of Isaiah’s day and Immanuel the son of Mary. The first was a type; the other, the antitype. The first was the shadow; the other, the reality. The one symbolized deliverance from foreign oppression; the second was the Deliverer from the oppressor. The first represented God’s presence for but a few years; the second Immanuel is the son who lives forever.<\/p>\n<p>The concept of “God with us” was often reiterated by Jesus. He told his disciples that where two or three gathered in his name he would be present (Mt 18:20). Before his ascension, he assured them that he would be with them until the end of the age (28:20).<\/p>\n<p>He spoke also of the promise of the Holy Spirit, who “lives with you now and later will be in you” (Jn 14:17, <span>nlt<\/span>), who will abide with them forever (v 16). The “God with us” indwelling is spoken of in Colossians 1:27: “Christ lives in you.” In the consummation of all things, as shown to the apostle John, the Lord said: “Look, the home of God is now among his people! He will live with them, and they will be his people. God himself will be with them” (Rv 21:3, <span>nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> God, Names of; Messiah.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>IMMANUEL<\/h3>\n<p>Hebrew masculine name that means “God with us.” It appears only twice in the OT (Is 7:14; 8:8) and once in the NT (Mt 1:23), where it is sometimes transliterated “Emmanuel.” In the OT the name was given to a child born in the time of Ahaz as a sign to the king that Judah would receive relief from attacks by Israel and Syria. The name symbolized the fact that God would demonstrate his presence with his people in this deliverance. The greater application is that this is a prophecy of the birth of the incarnate God, Jesus the Messiah, as shown in Matthew.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheProphecyinIsaiahsDay\">The Prophecy in Isaiah’s Day<\/p>\n<p>In focusing on the birth of Jesus as Immanuel, there has been some neglect of the historical fulfillment that occurred in the time of Ahaz. Ahaz was the son of a good king, Jotham and the grandson of another godly ruler, Uzziah, but his reign was marked by apostasy and idolatry. He made “molten images” for the Baals, offered incense in the Hinnom Valley, and even burned his sons as an offering (2 Chr 28:2-4). Because of this, the Lord gave him into the hand of Rezin, king of Syria, and of Pekah, king of Israel. The Edomites also invaded Judah, and the Philistines attacked the Shephelah and the Negev and took several cities (vv 17-18).<\/p>\n<p>Ahaz appealed to Tiglath-pileser III of Assyria (745–727 <span>BC<\/span>) for help against Israel and Syria. Tiglath-pileser accepted tribute from Ahaz, but attacked him instead of helping him (2 Chr 28:20-21). When he went to Damascus to meet the Assyrian king, Ahaz saw an altar, upon which he made offerings to the gods of Syria (v 23). He had a replica of this made and placed in the temple of Jerusalem (2 Kgs 16:10-12). The prophet Isaiah was directed to accost Ahaz at the end of the conduit of the upper pool. God’s message to the king was to “take heart,” for the attacking kings would fall (Is 7:7-9). Isaiah directed Ahaz to ask the Lord for a sign of this, but the king demurred, having a sudden attack of piety (v 12).<\/p>\n<p>Upon this refusal, the Lord gave to Ahaz a sign: a young woman would conceive and bear a son and call his name Immanuel (Is 7:14). That son would be able to distinguish good from evil by the time he was old enough to eat curds and wild honey, but even before that, the two kings would be removed and the king of Assyria would devastate their lands. The people would be taken away captive, so that the land would lie desolate and uncultivated. A man would have a cow to provide milk for curds, and wild honey would be gathered from the tangle of brush in the untended land.<\/p>\n<p>The identity of this woman and child in Isaiah’s time is uncertain. It has been proposed that the woman was Abijah, the wife of Ahaz, and that their son, Hezekiah, was this Immanuel. This is not demonstrable, and it seems inappropriate that a man like Ahaz should be the father of Immanuel.<\/p>\n<p>It has also been suggested that the wife of Isaiah was the mother of Immanuel. Isaiah 7:14 tells of the prospective birth of Immanuel; 8:3 tells of the conception and birth of Isaiah’s son, whose name, Maher-shalal-hash-baz (“swift to plunder and quick to spoil”) is related to the prediction of the fall of Judah’s enemies, for before the child would learn to talk, the lands of Syria and Israel would be taken by the king of Assyria (Is 8:4). Isaiah’s statement that he and his children were “signs and portents in Israel from the <span>Lord<\/span>” (v 18, <span>rsv<\/span>) enhances the view that it was his son who was also named Immanuel.<\/p>\n<p>The Lord then directed a message to Immanuel (Is 8:5-10). Because the people had refused the gracious invitation of the Lord, the Assyrians would scourge and fill the land of Immanuel. The plotting and plans of the people would come to nothing, for “God is with us” <em>(<\/em><span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">‘immanu’el<\/span><em>).<\/em> This is a play on words, using the name Immanuel to express the truth of the Lord’s presence.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheProphecyFulfilledinJesus\">The Prophecy Fulfilled in Jesus<\/p>\n<p>In the fullness of time God sent forth his son; more than 700 years after Ahaz, Jesus was born and here all ambiguities fade away. His mother was a virgin from Nazareth named Mary (Miriam), betrothed to a solid citizen named Joseph. Matthew 1:23 cites Isaiah 7:14 as being fulfilled in the birth of Jesus. The Scripture is very explicit in stating that Mary had no sexual contact with her husband prior to the birth of Jesus (Mt 1:25). The same precision is seen in the Gospel of Luke. When the announcement of this child’s conception was made to Mary, she asked, “How can this be, since I have no husband?” (Lk 1:34, <span>rsv<\/span>). The angelic messenger explained that this conception would be brought about by the coming of the Holy Spirit upon her and by the overshadowing power of the Most High (v 35). For this reason the child would be not only Jesus and Immanuel but he would be called holy, the Son of God, God manifest in the flesh (Jn 1:18); the child would be unique, being both God and man.<\/p>\n<p>There were great distinctions between the Immanuel of Isaiah’s day and Immanuel the son of Mary. The first was a type; the other, the antitype. The first was the shadow; the other, the reality. The one symbolized deliverance from foreign oppression; the second was the Deliverer from the oppressor. The first represented God’s presence for but a few years; the second Immanuel is the son who lives forever.<\/p>\n<p>The concept of “God with us” was often reiterated by Jesus. He told his disciples that where two or three gathered in his name he would be present (Mt 18:20). Before his ascension, he assured them that he would be with them until the end of the age (28:20).<\/p>\n<p>He spoke also of the promise of the Holy Spirit, who “lives with you now and later will be in you” (Jn 14:17, <span>nlt<\/span>), who will abide with them forever (v 16). The “God with us” indwelling is spoken of in Colossians 1:27: “Christ lives in you.” In the consummation of all things, as shown to the apostle John, the Lord said: “Look, the home of God is now among his people! He will live with them, and they will be his people. God himself will be with them” (Rv 21:3, <span>nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> God, Names of; Messiah.<\/p>","summary_ro":"IMMANUEL Hebrew masculine name that means “God with us.” It appears only twice in the OT (Is 7:14; 8:8) and once in the NT (Mt 1:23), where it is sometimes transliterated “Emmanuel.” In the OT the name was given to a child born in the time of Ahaz as a sign to the king that Judah would receive relief from attacks by Israel and Syria. The name symbolized the fact that God would demonstrate his presence with his people in this deliverance. The greater application is that this is a prophecy of t...","summary_en":"IMMANUEL Hebrew masculine name that means “God with us.” It appears only twice in the OT (Is 7:14; 8:8) and once in the NT (Mt 1:23), where it is sometimes transliterated “Emmanuel.” In the OT the name was given to a child born in the time of Ahaz as a sign to the king that Judah would receive relief from attacks by Israel and Syria. The name symbolized the fact that God would demonstrate his presence with his people in this deliverance. The greater application is that this is a prophecy of t...","source":"Articles\/I.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":25575,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Book of Micah","title_en":"Book of Micah","content_ro":"<h3>MICAH, Book of<\/h3>\n<p>Sixth in the order of the books of the 12 minor prophets.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Author<\/p>\n<p>• Date<\/p>\n<p>• Audience<\/p>\n<p>• Background<\/p>\n<p>• Purpose and Message<\/p>\n<p>• Content<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Author\">Author<\/p>\n<p>Micah 1:1 says that the word of the Lord came to Micah of Moresheth. Micah was God’s spokesman to the people of his day. Micah is not called a prophet in his book. There is no account of God’s call for him to be a prophet, but he does claim to be God’s witness (v 2). Five times in the book some form of the messenger formula, “thus says the <span>Lord<\/span>,” is used (2:3; 3:5; 4:6; 6:1, 9), asserting that the message is from God. Micah, like a true prophet, claims, “As for me, I am filled with power and the Spirit of the <span>Lord<\/span>. I am filled with justice and might, fearlessly pointing out Israel’s sin and rebellion” (3:8, <span>nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>Micah’s name was common in ancient Israel. At least seven different individuals in the OT are called Micah or Michaiah. The prophet is mentioned by name only in Micah 1:1 and Jeremiah 26:18 in the OT.<\/p>\n<p>The superscription of Micah (Mi 1:1) gives his hometown as Moresheth, which may be identified with the modern village of Tell el Judeideh about 25 miles (40.2 kilometers) southwest of Jerusalem on the road from Azekah to Lachish. Moresheth, in Micah’s time, was a frontier village near the Philistine border city of Gath. As a border town, Moresheth often took the brunt of enemy attacks on Judah from the south and west (1:15). Such an attack may be reflected in verses 10-16, where 12 towns in southwest Judah are named as being in the path of an invader. Moresheth-gath is ninth in that list. Because Micah lived in this border town, he seems to have developed an international concern with “the peoples” (1:2; 4:1-5, 11; 5:7-15; 7:16-17). As a citizen of a small town, Micah could identify with peasants and small land holders who were often victims of foreign aggressors and of the politicians and greedy land grabbers in Jerusalem (2:1-4). Although Micah may have left Moresheth to live and preach in Jerusalem, he had harsh words for cities (1:5-6; 3:12; 4:10; 5:11, 14; 6:9).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Date\">Date<\/p>\n<p>The date for Micah’s ministry was sometime during the reigns of three kings of Judah: Jotham (c. 750–735 <span>BC<\/span>), Ahaz (c. 735–715 <span>BC<\/span>), and Hezekiah (c. 715–686 <span>BC<\/span>). The maximum period covered by the reigns of these three kings was over 60 years (750–686 <span>BC<\/span>), but it is not likely that Micah was active as a prophet during all of that time. Jeremiah dates Micah’s ministry in the reign of Hezekiah (Jer 26:18). Some of Micah’s oracles seem to predate the fall of Samaria (Mi 1:2-7; 6:16), an event that took place in 722 <span>BC<\/span>. The Assyrians appear to be Israel’s primary enemy in Micah’s time (5:5-6), a situation that prevailed during the reigns of the three kings listed above. Some striking parallel passages between Micah and Isaiah (Mi 4:1-4; Is 2:2-4) and between Micah and Amos (Mi 6:10-11; Am 8:5-6) make it probable that Micah’s ministry was in the last part of the eighth century <span>BC<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Audience\">Audience<\/p>\n<p>Micah’s message was universal. It was addressed first in a broad sense to “all the people of the world” (Mi 1:2), but the focus narrows quickly to the capital cities of Jerusalem and Samaria (1:1). Other cities in Judah are the object of one oracle (1:10-16). A group of wealthy land grabbers (2:1), false prophets (2:6-11; 3:5-7), judges, prophets, priests, and dishonest merchants (3:1, 11; 6:10-12) are the objects of other messages.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Background\">Background<\/p>\n<p>In order to understand the book of Micah properly, one needs a knowledge of the Assyrian crisis in the history of ancient Israel. During the early part of the eighth century <span>BC<\/span>, the northern and southern kingdoms of Israel and Judah experienced a period of peace and prosperity under the long and stable reigns of Jeroboam II (793–753 <span>BC<\/span>) and Uzziah (792–740 <span>BC<\/span>). Radical changes in the economic structure occurred within Israel and Judah during this long period. There was a rise of cities and a new wealthy class. Commerce grew enormously. The rich got richer and abused their power over the poor, the priests, and the judges. A class system appeared that struck at the heart of OT covenant religion.<\/p>\n<p>During the reigns of Jeroboam II and Uzziah, Israel and Judah were relatively free from outside intervention. But in 745 <span>BC<\/span> Tiglath-pileser III became king of Assyria and set out to create an empire. He captured Damascus in 732 <span>BC<\/span> and made vassals of the small states of Israel, Judah, and Philistia. Tiglath-pileser III died in 727 <span>BC<\/span> and was succeeded by Shalmaneser V. In 724 <span>BC<\/span> Hoshea, the last king of Israel, withheld tribute from Assyria and incurred the wrath of the Assyrians. Shalmaneser V began his siege of Samaria in 724 <span>BC<\/span>, but the people were not subdued until 722 <span>BC<\/span>. By that time, Sargon II was the king of Assyria. Many of the wealthy and influential people of Samaria were carried into captivity to Assyria (2 Kgs 15:29-30; 17:1-41). Judah did not escape the crisis. Although a fragmentary government of Judean kings was left in Jerusalem by the Assyrians, practically all of their liberties were taken away (2 Kgs 16:10). Judah never fully recovered politically nor religiously from the Assyrian crisis.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"PurposeandMessage\">Purpose and Message<\/p>\n<p>The book of Micah is made up of about 20 separate sections or oracles. There is a variety of material in the book about different subjects, coming perhaps from different periods. With such variety in the book, it is difficult to speak of <em>the<\/em> message of the book. However, certain themes are prominent in the book, the most prominent being judgment. It is coming on Samaria (Mi 1:2-6) and on Jerusalem (3:9-12). It is coming on guilty land grabbers (2:3-5), on false prophets, corrupt judges, and hireling priests (3:5-12). Judgment is coming on the cheater, the violent, the liar, and the deceiver (6:9-12). Judgment is coming on the nations (4:11-13; 5:5-9, 15; 7:16-17). Judgment is due to sin (1:5). Sin takes many forms in Micah, ranging from idolatry (1:7; 5:13), to practicing the occult (5:12), to theft (6:11), to lying (6:12), to contempt for parents (7:6), to murder (7:2).<\/p>\n<p>What is Micah’s remedy for sin? For the nations it is a knowledge of and obedience to the ways of God (4:2). For Israel it is “to do what is right, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God” (6:8). All of this is possible because God pardons iniquity and is not always angry. He is a God of compassion who treads iniquities underfoot, casts sins into the depth of the sea, and keeps his covenant with Abraham (7:18-20). Micah caught a glimpse of the future kingdom of God when he saw that a future ruler of Israel would be born in Bethlehem. He will stand and feed his flock in the strength of the Lord. He will provide security because he will be great to the ends of the earth (5:2-4).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Content\">Content<\/p>\n<p>Some scholars divide the book into two parts. The first part (chs 1–5) is addressed primarily to the nations, while the second (chs 6–7) is addressed primarily to Israel. The first part ends with a threat of judgment on the nations (5:15) and the second ends with a hymn to the compassion of God. That outline seems too simple, however, and does not cover the diverse materials in the two parts. Other scholars divide the book into three parts: chapters 1–3 (judgment); chapters 4–5 (hope); and chapters 6–7 (judgment and hope). Again, this outline is too simple because all three sections contain both judgment and hope. Perhaps it is better to divide the book into three parts beginning with chapters 1, 3, and 6. Each section begins with words of judgment (1:2–2:11; 3:1-12; 6:1–7:6) and ends on a note of hope (2:12-13; 4:1–5:15; 7:7-20). Such an outline can be valuable in attempting to see the book as a whole, but a closer look at each oracle or unit is needed to interpret the book properly. This discussion marks off each of the 20 units by chapter and verse, identifies its literary form, and determines its major motif or theme.<\/p>\n<p>The first unit, “The Lord Is Coming,” consists of 1:2-7. Its form is that of a lawsuit and a theophany. The peoples of the world are called to listen to what the Lord will witness against them. He is described as leaving his heavenly temple to come to earth to tread on top of the mountains that melt under him (1:2-4). God’s coming is due to the sins of the people. Samaria, the capital of the northern kingdom of Israel, is to be destroyed primarily because of idolatry (vv 5-7).<\/p>\n<p>The second passage is “The Prophet’s Lament” (1:8-16). The prophet sees an enemy army coming from the southwest. Twelve cities are in its path. Desolation, refugees, and hostages are the result. There is a wordplay on the name of each of the cities except Gath, designed to express the fate of each city. Some of the cities are well known, such as Lachish, Jerusalem, Moresheth-gath, and Adullam. Others cannot be identified. This passage indicates that even though the first oracle was addressed to the nations and specifically announced the fall of Samaria, Judah was the real concern of Micah.<\/p>\n<p>The third passage is “Woe to the Wealthy Wicked” (2:1-5). It is a woe oracle, meaning that it is a message of judgment. This time, judgment is on a certain group of wealthy men who wickedly devise schemes at night to seize houses and lands from unsuspecting farmers. Micah says their plans will boomerang. Their own lands will be snatched from them.<\/p>\n<p>“Micah and the Wealthy Wicked” is the theme of the fourth section (2:6-11). This passage records a dispute between Micah and those who snatched houses and fields from unsuspecting victims. Micah’s wicked listeners could not accept his message of judgment. They found it offensive and commanded him to stop preaching such things. They did not believe that evil would overtake them because they thought God would not do such things (vv 6-7). But Micah enumerates a number of crimes of these wicked men, such as taking the robes off travelers’ backs and driving women and children from their homes (vv 8-9). Such wicked men follow false prophets (v 11).<\/p>\n<p>The fifth passage is “A Remnant to Be Restored” (2:12-13). The Lord will gather a remnant of his people like sheep in a fold (v 12), then the Lord as their king will lead them out through the gate ahead of them (v 13). This section is open to various interpretations. The passage does not indicate the place where the Lord will gather the remnant. Some assume the place is Babylon and take the passage as a reference to the exile. Others believe the place is Jerusalem and relate the incident to refugees fleeing to Jerusalem before Sennacherib’s invasion in 701 <span>BC<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p>The sixth passage is about “Guilty Rulers” (3:1-4). Micah charges that the heads and leaders of his people act like cannibals. They should know justice but they hate the good and love evil. They will cry to the Lord, but he will not hear them.<\/p>\n<p>“Peace Prophets and Micah” is another disputation passage (3:5-8). Micah accuses the false prophets of preaching for money and asserts that they have no vision or message from God. By contrast, Micah claims to speak in the power and Spirit of God.<\/p>\n<p>“Corrupt Leaders and Zion’s Fall” is the subject of the eighth passage (3:9-12). This oracle seems to be a summary of all Micah has been saying to the various groups of leaders in Jerusalem. Because of their sins and crimes, Jerusalem and the temple will be destroyed.<\/p>\n<p>“Zion’s Future Exaltation,” the ninth section, contains the surprising announcement of Zion’s fall and the temple’s destruction (4:1-5). This oracle of salvation was probably deliberately placed after the previous oracle of judgment to indicate that even though the temple might be destroyed, it would be restored in grander style to be the worship center for all nations. A parallel to this passage is found in Isaiah 2:1-4.<\/p>\n<p>“Restoration of a Remnant and Zion” is the subject of the tenth section (4:6-8). The opening phrase, “in that coming day,” indicates that this is an eschatological oracle in that the Lord is seen as reigning over his restored flock in Zion.<\/p>\n<p>The next three passages (4:9-10; 4:11-13; 5:1-4) all begin with the word “now” (in the Hebrew) and end with an assertion that the present evil situation will be changed for the better. The first of the three is “From Distress to Deliverance” (4:9-10); the second is “From Siege to Victory” (vv 11-13); and the third is “From Helpless Judge to Ideal King” (5:1-4). The last passage in this series is one of the most familiar passages in Micah. It contains the promise of the birth of a new king in Bethlehem who will be great to the ends of the earth.<\/p>\n<p>The fourteenth section, “Peace and the Overthrow of Assyria” (5:5-6), is followed closely by “The Remnant among the Peoples” (vv 7-9). The remnant is portrayed as dew on plants and as a lion among sheep. Dew on plants is usually taken to signify a blessing, but in 2 Samuel 17:12 it is a metaphor for judgment as a lion is among sheep.<\/p>\n<p>The sixteenth passage is “Purge of the Military and False Religions” (5:10-15). The expressions “cut off,” “throw down,” “cause to perish,” “root out,” and “destroy” suggest radical surgery. It is an oracle on those things that might take the place of God in people’s minds.<\/p>\n<p>“God’s Lawsuit” (6:1-8) is probably the most familiar passage in Micah. It is one of the great summaries of true religion.<\/p>\n<p>The next passage presents “More Charges and the Sentence” (6:9-16). The further charges are dishonest business practices, lying, and acts of violence. The sentence is a life of futility, frustration, scorn, and destruction.<\/p>\n<p>The nineteenth pericope in Micah is a “Lament over a Decadent Society” (7:1-6). The prophet begins with a woe because he seems to be the only godly or righteous man left (vv 1-2). He cannot trust anyone. Everyone may be setting a trap for another. People do evil with both hands. Even the members of families rise against each other. Jesus applied the words of 7:6 to his own times (Mt 10:21, 35-36).<\/p>\n<p>The last section of Micah (Mi 7:7-20) is a prophetic liturgy. It is made up of a psalm of trust (vv 7-10); a prophetic promise of restoration (vv 11-13); a prayer for God to bless Israel and judge their enemies (vv 14-17); and a hymn or a doxology declaring God incomparable in “grace and truth,” showing faithfulness to Jacob and steadfast love to Abraham (v 20).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Israel, History of; Prophecy; Prophet, Prophetess.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>MICAH, Book of<\/h3>\n<p>Sixth in the order of the books of the 12 minor prophets.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Author<\/p>\n<p>• Date<\/p>\n<p>• Audience<\/p>\n<p>• Background<\/p>\n<p>• Purpose and Message<\/p>\n<p>• Content<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Author\">Author<\/p>\n<p>Micah 1:1 says that the word of the Lord came to Micah of Moresheth. Micah was God’s spokesman to the people of his day. Micah is not called a prophet in his book. There is no account of God’s call for him to be a prophet, but he does claim to be God’s witness (v 2). Five times in the book some form of the messenger formula, “thus says the <span>Lord<\/span>,” is used (2:3; 3:5; 4:6; 6:1, 9), asserting that the message is from God. Micah, like a true prophet, claims, “As for me, I am filled with power and the Spirit of the <span>Lord<\/span>. I am filled with justice and might, fearlessly pointing out Israel’s sin and rebellion” (3:8, <span>nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>Micah’s name was common in ancient Israel. At least seven different individuals in the OT are called Micah or Michaiah. The prophet is mentioned by name only in Micah 1:1 and Jeremiah 26:18 in the OT.<\/p>\n<p>The superscription of Micah (Mi 1:1) gives his hometown as Moresheth, which may be identified with the modern village of Tell el Judeideh about 25 miles (40.2 kilometers) southwest of Jerusalem on the road from Azekah to Lachish. Moresheth, in Micah’s time, was a frontier village near the Philistine border city of Gath. As a border town, Moresheth often took the brunt of enemy attacks on Judah from the south and west (1:15). Such an attack may be reflected in verses 10-16, where 12 towns in southwest Judah are named as being in the path of an invader. Moresheth-gath is ninth in that list. Because Micah lived in this border town, he seems to have developed an international concern with “the peoples” (1:2; 4:1-5, 11; 5:7-15; 7:16-17). As a citizen of a small town, Micah could identify with peasants and small land holders who were often victims of foreign aggressors and of the politicians and greedy land grabbers in Jerusalem (2:1-4). Although Micah may have left Moresheth to live and preach in Jerusalem, he had harsh words for cities (1:5-6; 3:12; 4:10; 5:11, 14; 6:9).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Date\">Date<\/p>\n<p>The date for Micah’s ministry was sometime during the reigns of three kings of Judah: Jotham (c. 750–735 <span>BC<\/span>), Ahaz (c. 735–715 <span>BC<\/span>), and Hezekiah (c. 715–686 <span>BC<\/span>). The maximum period covered by the reigns of these three kings was over 60 years (750–686 <span>BC<\/span>), but it is not likely that Micah was active as a prophet during all of that time. Jeremiah dates Micah’s ministry in the reign of Hezekiah (Jer 26:18). Some of Micah’s oracles seem to predate the fall of Samaria (Mi 1:2-7; 6:16), an event that took place in 722 <span>BC<\/span>. The Assyrians appear to be Israel’s primary enemy in Micah’s time (5:5-6), a situation that prevailed during the reigns of the three kings listed above. Some striking parallel passages between Micah and Isaiah (Mi 4:1-4; Is 2:2-4) and between Micah and Amos (Mi 6:10-11; Am 8:5-6) make it probable that Micah’s ministry was in the last part of the eighth century <span>BC<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Audience\">Audience<\/p>\n<p>Micah’s message was universal. It was addressed first in a broad sense to “all the people of the world” (Mi 1:2), but the focus narrows quickly to the capital cities of Jerusalem and Samaria (1:1). Other cities in Judah are the object of one oracle (1:10-16). A group of wealthy land grabbers (2:1), false prophets (2:6-11; 3:5-7), judges, prophets, priests, and dishonest merchants (3:1, 11; 6:10-12) are the objects of other messages.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Background\">Background<\/p>\n<p>In order to understand the book of Micah properly, one needs a knowledge of the Assyrian crisis in the history of ancient Israel. During the early part of the eighth century <span>BC<\/span>, the northern and southern kingdoms of Israel and Judah experienced a period of peace and prosperity under the long and stable reigns of Jeroboam II (793–753 <span>BC<\/span>) and Uzziah (792–740 <span>BC<\/span>). Radical changes in the economic structure occurred within Israel and Judah during this long period. There was a rise of cities and a new wealthy class. Commerce grew enormously. The rich got richer and abused their power over the poor, the priests, and the judges. A class system appeared that struck at the heart of OT covenant religion.<\/p>\n<p>During the reigns of Jeroboam II and Uzziah, Israel and Judah were relatively free from outside intervention. But in 745 <span>BC<\/span> Tiglath-pileser III became king of Assyria and set out to create an empire. He captured Damascus in 732 <span>BC<\/span> and made vassals of the small states of Israel, Judah, and Philistia. Tiglath-pileser III died in 727 <span>BC<\/span> and was succeeded by Shalmaneser V. In 724 <span>BC<\/span> Hoshea, the last king of Israel, withheld tribute from Assyria and incurred the wrath of the Assyrians. Shalmaneser V began his siege of Samaria in 724 <span>BC<\/span>, but the people were not subdued until 722 <span>BC<\/span>. By that time, Sargon II was the king of Assyria. Many of the wealthy and influential people of Samaria were carried into captivity to Assyria (2 Kgs 15:29-30; 17:1-41). Judah did not escape the crisis. Although a fragmentary government of Judean kings was left in Jerusalem by the Assyrians, practically all of their liberties were taken away (2 Kgs 16:10). Judah never fully recovered politically nor religiously from the Assyrian crisis.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"PurposeandMessage\">Purpose and Message<\/p>\n<p>The book of Micah is made up of about 20 separate sections or oracles. There is a variety of material in the book about different subjects, coming perhaps from different periods. With such variety in the book, it is difficult to speak of <em>the<\/em> message of the book. However, certain themes are prominent in the book, the most prominent being judgment. It is coming on Samaria (Mi 1:2-6) and on Jerusalem (3:9-12). It is coming on guilty land grabbers (2:3-5), on false prophets, corrupt judges, and hireling priests (3:5-12). Judgment is coming on the cheater, the violent, the liar, and the deceiver (6:9-12). Judgment is coming on the nations (4:11-13; 5:5-9, 15; 7:16-17). Judgment is due to sin (1:5). Sin takes many forms in Micah, ranging from idolatry (1:7; 5:13), to practicing the occult (5:12), to theft (6:11), to lying (6:12), to contempt for parents (7:6), to murder (7:2).<\/p>\n<p>What is Micah’s remedy for sin? For the nations it is a knowledge of and obedience to the ways of God (4:2). For Israel it is “to do what is right, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God” (6:8). All of this is possible because God pardons iniquity and is not always angry. He is a God of compassion who treads iniquities underfoot, casts sins into the depth of the sea, and keeps his covenant with Abraham (7:18-20). Micah caught a glimpse of the future kingdom of God when he saw that a future ruler of Israel would be born in Bethlehem. He will stand and feed his flock in the strength of the Lord. He will provide security because he will be great to the ends of the earth (5:2-4).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Content\">Content<\/p>\n<p>Some scholars divide the book into two parts. The first part (chs 1–5) is addressed primarily to the nations, while the second (chs 6–7) is addressed primarily to Israel. The first part ends with a threat of judgment on the nations (5:15) and the second ends with a hymn to the compassion of God. That outline seems too simple, however, and does not cover the diverse materials in the two parts. Other scholars divide the book into three parts: chapters 1–3 (judgment); chapters 4–5 (hope); and chapters 6–7 (judgment and hope). Again, this outline is too simple because all three sections contain both judgment and hope. Perhaps it is better to divide the book into three parts beginning with chapters 1, 3, and 6. Each section begins with words of judgment (1:2–2:11; 3:1-12; 6:1–7:6) and ends on a note of hope (2:12-13; 4:1–5:15; 7:7-20). Such an outline can be valuable in attempting to see the book as a whole, but a closer look at each oracle or unit is needed to interpret the book properly. This discussion marks off each of the 20 units by chapter and verse, identifies its literary form, and determines its major motif or theme.<\/p>\n<p>The first unit, “The Lord Is Coming,” consists of 1:2-7. Its form is that of a lawsuit and a theophany. The peoples of the world are called to listen to what the Lord will witness against them. He is described as leaving his heavenly temple to come to earth to tread on top of the mountains that melt under him (1:2-4). God’s coming is due to the sins of the people. Samaria, the capital of the northern kingdom of Israel, is to be destroyed primarily because of idolatry (vv 5-7).<\/p>\n<p>The second passage is “The Prophet’s Lament” (1:8-16). The prophet sees an enemy army coming from the southwest. Twelve cities are in its path. Desolation, refugees, and hostages are the result. There is a wordplay on the name of each of the cities except Gath, designed to express the fate of each city. Some of the cities are well known, such as Lachish, Jerusalem, Moresheth-gath, and Adullam. Others cannot be identified. This passage indicates that even though the first oracle was addressed to the nations and specifically announced the fall of Samaria, Judah was the real concern of Micah.<\/p>\n<p>The third passage is “Woe to the Wealthy Wicked” (2:1-5). It is a woe oracle, meaning that it is a message of judgment. This time, judgment is on a certain group of wealthy men who wickedly devise schemes at night to seize houses and lands from unsuspecting farmers. Micah says their plans will boomerang. Their own lands will be snatched from them.<\/p>\n<p>“Micah and the Wealthy Wicked” is the theme of the fourth section (2:6-11). This passage records a dispute between Micah and those who snatched houses and fields from unsuspecting victims. Micah’s wicked listeners could not accept his message of judgment. They found it offensive and commanded him to stop preaching such things. They did not believe that evil would overtake them because they thought God would not do such things (vv 6-7). But Micah enumerates a number of crimes of these wicked men, such as taking the robes off travelers’ backs and driving women and children from their homes (vv 8-9). Such wicked men follow false prophets (v 11).<\/p>\n<p>The fifth passage is “A Remnant to Be Restored” (2:12-13). The Lord will gather a remnant of his people like sheep in a fold (v 12), then the Lord as their king will lead them out through the gate ahead of them (v 13). This section is open to various interpretations. The passage does not indicate the place where the Lord will gather the remnant. Some assume the place is Babylon and take the passage as a reference to the exile. Others believe the place is Jerusalem and relate the incident to refugees fleeing to Jerusalem before Sennacherib’s invasion in 701 <span>BC<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p>The sixth passage is about “Guilty Rulers” (3:1-4). Micah charges that the heads and leaders of his people act like cannibals. They should know justice but they hate the good and love evil. They will cry to the Lord, but he will not hear them.<\/p>\n<p>“Peace Prophets and Micah” is another disputation passage (3:5-8). Micah accuses the false prophets of preaching for money and asserts that they have no vision or message from God. By contrast, Micah claims to speak in the power and Spirit of God.<\/p>\n<p>“Corrupt Leaders and Zion’s Fall” is the subject of the eighth passage (3:9-12). This oracle seems to be a summary of all Micah has been saying to the various groups of leaders in Jerusalem. Because of their sins and crimes, Jerusalem and the temple will be destroyed.<\/p>\n<p>“Zion’s Future Exaltation,” the ninth section, contains the surprising announcement of Zion’s fall and the temple’s destruction (4:1-5). This oracle of salvation was probably deliberately placed after the previous oracle of judgment to indicate that even though the temple might be destroyed, it would be restored in grander style to be the worship center for all nations. A parallel to this passage is found in Isaiah 2:1-4.<\/p>\n<p>“Restoration of a Remnant and Zion” is the subject of the tenth section (4:6-8). The opening phrase, “in that coming day,” indicates that this is an eschatological oracle in that the Lord is seen as reigning over his restored flock in Zion.<\/p>\n<p>The next three passages (4:9-10; 4:11-13; 5:1-4) all begin with the word “now” (in the Hebrew) and end with an assertion that the present evil situation will be changed for the better. The first of the three is “From Distress to Deliverance” (4:9-10); the second is “From Siege to Victory” (vv 11-13); and the third is “From Helpless Judge to Ideal King” (5:1-4). The last passage in this series is one of the most familiar passages in Micah. It contains the promise of the birth of a new king in Bethlehem who will be great to the ends of the earth.<\/p>\n<p>The fourteenth section, “Peace and the Overthrow of Assyria” (5:5-6), is followed closely by “The Remnant among the Peoples” (vv 7-9). The remnant is portrayed as dew on plants and as a lion among sheep. Dew on plants is usually taken to signify a blessing, but in 2 Samuel 17:12 it is a metaphor for judgment as a lion is among sheep.<\/p>\n<p>The sixteenth passage is “Purge of the Military and False Religions” (5:10-15). The expressions “cut off,” “throw down,” “cause to perish,” “root out,” and “destroy” suggest radical surgery. It is an oracle on those things that might take the place of God in people’s minds.<\/p>\n<p>“God’s Lawsuit” (6:1-8) is probably the most familiar passage in Micah. It is one of the great summaries of true religion.<\/p>\n<p>The next passage presents “More Charges and the Sentence” (6:9-16). The further charges are dishonest business practices, lying, and acts of violence. The sentence is a life of futility, frustration, scorn, and destruction.<\/p>\n<p>The nineteenth pericope in Micah is a “Lament over a Decadent Society” (7:1-6). The prophet begins with a woe because he seems to be the only godly or righteous man left (vv 1-2). He cannot trust anyone. Everyone may be setting a trap for another. People do evil with both hands. Even the members of families rise against each other. Jesus applied the words of 7:6 to his own times (Mt 10:21, 35-36).<\/p>\n<p>The last section of Micah (Mi 7:7-20) is a prophetic liturgy. It is made up of a psalm of trust (vv 7-10); a prophetic promise of restoration (vv 11-13); a prayer for God to bless Israel and judge their enemies (vv 14-17); and a hymn or a doxology declaring God incomparable in “grace and truth,” showing faithfulness to Jacob and steadfast love to Abraham (v 20).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Israel, History of; Prophecy; Prophet, Prophetess.<\/p>","summary_ro":"MICAH, Book of Sixth in the order of the books of the 12 minor prophets. Preview • Author • Date • Audience • Background • Purpose and Message • Content Author Micah 1:1 says that the word of the Lord came to Micah of Moresheth. Micah was God’s spokesman to the people of his day. Micah is not called a prophet in his book. There is no account of God’s call for him to be a prophet, but he does claim to be God’s witness (v 2). Five times in the book some form of the messenger formula, “thus says...","summary_en":"MICAH, Book of Sixth in the order of the books of the 12 minor prophets. Preview • Author • Date • Audience • Background • Purpose and Message • Content Author Micah 1:1 says that the word of the Lord came to Micah of Moresheth. Micah was God’s spokesman to the people of his day. Micah is not called a prophet in his book. There is no account of God’s call for him to be a prophet, but he does claim to be God’s witness (v 2). Five times in the book some form of the messenger formula, “thus says...","source":"Articles\/M.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":28350,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Oholah and Oholibah","title_en":"Oholah and Oholibah","content_ro":"<h3>OHOLAH AND OHOLIBAH<\/h3>\n<p>Names given to the northern kingdom (<span>kjv<\/span> “Aholah”), with its capital at Samaria, and to the southern kingdom (<span>kjv<\/span> “Aholibah”), with its capital at Jerusalem, respectively, by Ezekiel in his allegory depicting the unfaithfulness of God’s people (Ez 23). The names characterized the basic attitude of each of the twin kingdoms toward God and his worship. Samaria (Oholah) had “her own tent” (the literal meaning of the name) and had invented her own centers of worship; Jerusalem (Oholibah, literally “my tent is in her”) prided herself in being the custodian of the temple.<\/p>\n<p>Rather than being true to the Lord, Samaria had committed spiritual adultery. Not being content with her spiritual infidelity in wooing the gods of Egypt, she had lusted after the idols of Assyria and the worldly attractions that the Neo-Assyrian culture held out before her. Both courses of action are adequately documented by archaeological discoveries from the ancient Near East, such as Jehu’s act of homage as portrayed on the Black Obelisk of King Shalmaneser III of Assyria (859–824 <span>BC<\/span>). Samaria’s conduct had been judged by God; her newfound desire had proved to be her destruction, God giving her over into the hands of the Assyrian conqueror.<\/p>\n<p>Far from learning from Israel’s example, Judah had not only courted Assyria and its idolatry (e.g., 2 Kgs 16:10-18) but also had added to her affections the Neo-Babylonian Empire (e.g., 20:14-18) and then had turned once again to Egypt (e.g., Jer 37; 46), her earlier lover (Ez 23:11-21). Therefore, God would sorely punish her at the hands of the Babylonians, and she would know the just judgment of God.<\/p>\n<p>Ezekiel closes his allegory with a rehearsal of God’s charges against the two kingdoms. God’s people were doubly guilty. Not being content with their apostasy, they had gone so far as to profane the sanctuary of God and his Sabbath by entering the temple with hands bloodied in the sacrifice of their own children in pagan rites.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>OHOLAH AND OHOLIBAH<\/h3>\n<p>Names given to the northern kingdom (<span>kjv<\/span> “Aholah”), with its capital at Samaria, and to the southern kingdom (<span>kjv<\/span> “Aholibah”), with its capital at Jerusalem, respectively, by Ezekiel in his allegory depicting the unfaithfulness of God’s people (Ez 23). The names characterized the basic attitude of each of the twin kingdoms toward God and his worship. Samaria (Oholah) had “her own tent” (the literal meaning of the name) and had invented her own centers of worship; Jerusalem (Oholibah, literally “my tent is in her”) prided herself in being the custodian of the temple.<\/p>\n<p>Rather than being true to the Lord, Samaria had committed spiritual adultery. Not being content with her spiritual infidelity in wooing the gods of Egypt, she had lusted after the idols of Assyria and the worldly attractions that the Neo-Assyrian culture held out before her. Both courses of action are adequately documented by archaeological discoveries from the ancient Near East, such as Jehu’s act of homage as portrayed on the Black Obelisk of King Shalmaneser III of Assyria (859–824 <span>BC<\/span>). Samaria’s conduct had been judged by God; her newfound desire had proved to be her destruction, God giving her over into the hands of the Assyrian conqueror.<\/p>\n<p>Far from learning from Israel’s example, Judah had not only courted Assyria and its idolatry (e.g., 2 Kgs 16:10-18) but also had added to her affections the Neo-Babylonian Empire (e.g., 20:14-18) and then had turned once again to Egypt (e.g., Jer 37; 46), her earlier lover (Ez 23:11-21). Therefore, God would sorely punish her at the hands of the Babylonians, and she would know the just judgment of God.<\/p>\n<p>Ezekiel closes his allegory with a rehearsal of God’s charges against the two kingdoms. God’s people were doubly guilty. Not being content with their apostasy, they had gone so far as to profane the sanctuary of God and his Sabbath by entering the temple with hands bloodied in the sacrifice of their own children in pagan rites.<\/p>","summary_ro":"OHOLAH AND OHOLIBAH Names given to the northern kingdom (kjv “Aholah”), with its capital at Samaria, and to the southern kingdom (kjv “Aholibah”), with its capital at Jerusalem, respectively, by Ezekiel in his allegory depicting the unfaithfulness of God’s people (Ez 23). The names characterized the basic attitude of each of the twin kingdoms toward God and his worship. Samaria (Oholah) had “her own tent” (the literal meaning of the name) and had invented her own centers of worship; Jerusalem...","summary_en":"OHOLAH AND OHOLIBAH Names given to the northern kingdom (kjv “Aholah”), with its capital at Samaria, and to the southern kingdom (kjv “Aholibah”), with its capital at Jerusalem, respectively, by Ezekiel in his allegory depicting the unfaithfulness of God’s people (Ez 23). The names characterized the basic attitude of each of the twin kingdoms toward God and his worship. Samaria (Oholah) had “her own tent” (the literal meaning of the name) and had invented her own centers of worship; Jerusalem...","source":"Articles\/O.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":36568,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Syrians Syria","title_en":"Syrians Syria","content_ro":"<h3>SYRIA, SYRIANS<\/h3>\n<p>Terms used in the Septuagint and in some English translations to render the names Aram, Arameans.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"HistoryoftheArameans\">History of the Arameans<\/p>\n<p>According to the “table of nations” in Genesis 10:22-23, the Arameans were a Semitic group, descendants of Shem. Another genealogy in Genesis 22:20-21 makes Aram a descendant of Nahor. According to Amos 9:7, the Arameans (Syrians) came from Kir, which is linked with Elam in Isaiah 22:6. The exile of the Arameans to Kir (2 Kgs 16:9; Am 1:5) may suggest they were to go back to their original home. The precise origins of this group of people are, however, lost in antiquity. When they emerged clearly into history, they were settled around the central Euphrates from which they were spread out east, west, and north.<\/p>\n<p>The Arameans were traditionally thought to have been established in upper Mesopotamia in the first part of the second millennium <span>BC<\/span>. Bethuel and Laban were known as Arameans (Gn 25:20; 28:1-7); the home of Bethuel was in Paddan-aram (25:20). The prophet Hosea recalls the tradition by noting that Jacob fled to “the field of Aram” (Hos 12:12) or “Aram-naharaim” (Aram of the two rivers), which was the northern part of Mesopotamia between the Euphrates and Tigris Rivers. In the creedal confession in Deuteronomy 26:5, the Israelite who brought his firstfruits confessed, “My father [probably Jacob] was a wandering Aramean.”<\/p>\n<p>Probably the best early evidence of an Aramean presence in this area comes from Tiglath-pileser I. In his annals of his fourth year (1112 <span>BC<\/span>), he speaks of a campaign among the “Akhlama, Arameans” in the Middle Euphrates area and the sacking of six Aramean villages in the Mt Bishri area.<\/p>\n<p>The Arameans of upper Mesopotamia became important in biblical history. They set up a number of separate Aramean states, two of which were especially important for the people of Israel—Aram-zobah in the days of David, and Aram-damascus from the days of Solomon onward.<\/p>\n<p>By about 1100 <span>BC<\/span>, the Aramean tribes had spread throughout Syria and had expanded into northern Transjordan, where they came into conflict with the Israelites. At his peak Hadadezer, king of Aram-zobah, embraced several vassals, such as Damascus, Maacah, and Tob. He was eventually defeated by King David (2 Sm 8:3-4; 10:17-19).<\/p>\n<p>Events in Israel and Judah had some bearing on Damascus. After the death of Solomon, when the formerly united kingdom became divided into Judah and Israel, tension arose between the two small states. War broke out between Baasha of Israel and Asa of Judah in the years 890–880 <span>BC<\/span>. Asa sought aid from Ben-hadad I of Damascus (1 Kgs 15:18). Lands in Transjordan changed hands several times. The successors of Omri of Israel—namely Ahab, Ahaziah, Jehoram, Jehu, Jehoahaz, and Jehoash—had many conflicts with Damascus. Ahab fought Ben-hadad and his 32 allies who besieged Samaria (20:1), but Israel defeated him. A second time Ben-hadad entered Israelite territory and reached Aphek (20:26), but he was again defeated and captured. As a consequence of his defeat and for the price of his release, he was obliged to make bazaars available in Damascus for Israelite trade. After three years of peace between Israel and Damascus, hostilities broke out again and resulted in a battle in the region of Ramoth-gilead in which Ahab was killed (22:29-37). Aram-damascus was eventually defeated by King Jehoash of Israel (2 Kgs 13:25).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"SyriaaftertheCollapseoftheArameanKingdoms\">Syria after the Collapse of the Aramean Kingdoms<\/p>\n<p>After the collapse of Aram-damascus in 733–732 <span>BC<\/span>, the political character of the whole region changed. Over the centuries that followed and on into Christian times, the region passed under the control of several great powers and no independent Aramean state survived. When Assyria collapsed in 612–609 <span>BC<\/span>, the region came under Babylonian control, but only for a comparatively short period. With the rise of Cyrus the Persian, the Syrian region was quickly overrun by Persian armies. Palestine, Asia Minor, and Egypt were absorbed into the Persian Empire at the same time.<\/p>\n<p>The next significant political change that affected the region came with the appearance of Philip of Macedon in 360 <span>BC<\/span>. His son Alexander the Great (336–323 <span>BC<\/span>) consolidated Greek power throughout western Asia and as far as the borders of India. On his death in 323 <span>BC<\/span>, at the age of 33, the control of western Asia passed to Alexander’s generals. General Seleucus I (312–280 <span>BC<\/span>) controlled the southern half of Asia Minor, the region of Syria, Mesopotamia, and eastward to the borders of India. Syria thus fell under the influence of Hellenist rulers, the Seleucids, who founded a new capital at Antioch.<\/p>\n\n<p>Further west, Rome was rising to power and cast her eyes eastward. It was General Pompey who overcame Mithridates, the young king of Pontus, and moved to crush the remnants of the kingdom of the Seleucids. The western parts of Syria were formed into a Roman province in 64 <span>BC<\/span>. Pompey finally moved into Palestine, which came under Roman control in 63 <span>BC<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p>The Roman province of Syria included Cilicia, a strip of territory in the southeastern corner of Asia Minor. The northern boundary reached to the Euphrates River. The boundary then swung south well to the east of Damascus and then turned west about halfway down the Dead Sea and continued west to the Mediterranean Sea. Syria was bound to the west by the Mediterranean up to the Gulf of Alexandretta, where it turned west. The province of Syria and Cilicia (Acts 15:23, 41; Gal 1:21) was governed by an imperial legate (<em>legatis<\/em>) who commanded a strong force of legionary troops. One such governor, Quirinius, governed Syria at the time of the census of Caesar Augustus; this census brought Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem for the birth of Jesus (Lk 2:2).<\/p>\n<p>In the following centuries the population of Damascus was Christianized, and Christianity spread throughout the Roman province of Syria, giving rise to the Old Syrian Church, which remains to this day. It has left a remarkable legacy of Christian literature written in Syriac (Aramaic). The old Aramaic language remained, though a modified alphabet was used to write it.<\/p>\n<p>It was the rise of Islam in the seventh century <span>AD<\/span> that brought about a considerable weakening of the Syrian church, although it has never been completely destroyed. Scattered communities of Aramaic-speaking people still survive in parts of Syria, and numerous remains of Christian churches have been brought to light as a result of modern archaeological work.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"LanguageandCulture\">Language and Culture<\/p>\n<p>Aramaic was the language of the Arameans, of which numerous inscriptions have been discovered. The Aramaic script was adapted for use by the Israelites, and the language became the international language for diplomacy and administration all over the Near East. It was the <em>lingua franca<\/em> of the Persian period from Egypt to India and was widely spoken in Palestine in Jesus’ day. The words “<em>talitha cumi<\/em>” (Mk 5:41) and “<em>marana tha<\/em>” (1 Cor 16:22) are Aramaic.<\/p>\n<p>Excavations in many sites have provided a good idea of the Aramean architecture, sculpture, pottery, and other arts. The religion of the Arameans was polytheistic. The people adopted many foreign deities as well. The principal Aramean deity was the ancient west Semitic storm god Hadad. In the days of Ahaz of Judah, the Damascus cult was forced on the people of Jerusalem when an altar based on a Damascus model was placed in the temple (2 Kgs 16:10-13). Arameans exiled to Samaria by the Assyrian ruler Sargon brought foreign Aramean cults with them (17:24-34).<\/p>\n<p>Through the centuries that followed the disappearance of the Aramean states, the Aramaic language has survived. The Christian form of Aramaic, Syriac, has left behind a vast legacy of literature, histories, theologies, commentaries, treatises, and translations, which have been carefully preserved in ancient monastic libraries, particularly in northern Syria, northern Iraq, and southern Turkey.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Aramaic.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>SYRIA, SYRIANS<\/h3>\n<p>Terms used in the Septuagint and in some English translations to render the names Aram, Arameans.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"HistoryoftheArameans\">History of the Arameans<\/p>\n<p>According to the “table of nations” in Genesis 10:22-23, the Arameans were a Semitic group, descendants of Shem. Another genealogy in Genesis 22:20-21 makes Aram a descendant of Nahor. According to Amos 9:7, the Arameans (Syrians) came from Kir, which is linked with Elam in Isaiah 22:6. The exile of the Arameans to Kir (2 Kgs 16:9; Am 1:5) may suggest they were to go back to their original home. The precise origins of this group of people are, however, lost in antiquity. When they emerged clearly into history, they were settled around the central Euphrates from which they were spread out east, west, and north.<\/p>\n<p>The Arameans were traditionally thought to have been established in upper Mesopotamia in the first part of the second millennium <span>BC<\/span>. Bethuel and Laban were known as Arameans (Gn 25:20; 28:1-7); the home of Bethuel was in Paddan-aram (25:20). The prophet Hosea recalls the tradition by noting that Jacob fled to “the field of Aram” (Hos 12:12) or “Aram-naharaim” (Aram of the two rivers), which was the northern part of Mesopotamia between the Euphrates and Tigris Rivers. In the creedal confession in Deuteronomy 26:5, the Israelite who brought his firstfruits confessed, “My father [probably Jacob] was a wandering Aramean.”<\/p>\n<p>Probably the best early evidence of an Aramean presence in this area comes from Tiglath-pileser I. In his annals of his fourth year (1112 <span>BC<\/span>), he speaks of a campaign among the “Akhlama, Arameans” in the Middle Euphrates area and the sacking of six Aramean villages in the Mt Bishri area.<\/p>\n<p>The Arameans of upper Mesopotamia became important in biblical history. They set up a number of separate Aramean states, two of which were especially important for the people of Israel—Aram-zobah in the days of David, and Aram-damascus from the days of Solomon onward.<\/p>\n<p>By about 1100 <span>BC<\/span>, the Aramean tribes had spread throughout Syria and had expanded into northern Transjordan, where they came into conflict with the Israelites. At his peak Hadadezer, king of Aram-zobah, embraced several vassals, such as Damascus, Maacah, and Tob. He was eventually defeated by King David (2 Sm 8:3-4; 10:17-19).<\/p>\n<p>Events in Israel and Judah had some bearing on Damascus. After the death of Solomon, when the formerly united kingdom became divided into Judah and Israel, tension arose between the two small states. War broke out between Baasha of Israel and Asa of Judah in the years 890–880 <span>BC<\/span>. Asa sought aid from Ben-hadad I of Damascus (1 Kgs 15:18). Lands in Transjordan changed hands several times. The successors of Omri of Israel—namely Ahab, Ahaziah, Jehoram, Jehu, Jehoahaz, and Jehoash—had many conflicts with Damascus. Ahab fought Ben-hadad and his 32 allies who besieged Samaria (20:1), but Israel defeated him. A second time Ben-hadad entered Israelite territory and reached Aphek (20:26), but he was again defeated and captured. As a consequence of his defeat and for the price of his release, he was obliged to make bazaars available in Damascus for Israelite trade. After three years of peace between Israel and Damascus, hostilities broke out again and resulted in a battle in the region of Ramoth-gilead in which Ahab was killed (22:29-37). Aram-damascus was eventually defeated by King Jehoash of Israel (2 Kgs 13:25).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"SyriaaftertheCollapseoftheArameanKingdoms\">Syria after the Collapse of the Aramean Kingdoms<\/p>\n<p>After the collapse of Aram-damascus in 733–732 <span>BC<\/span>, the political character of the whole region changed. Over the centuries that followed and on into Christian times, the region passed under the control of several great powers and no independent Aramean state survived. When Assyria collapsed in 612–609 <span>BC<\/span>, the region came under Babylonian control, but only for a comparatively short period. With the rise of Cyrus the Persian, the Syrian region was quickly overrun by Persian armies. Palestine, Asia Minor, and Egypt were absorbed into the Persian Empire at the same time.<\/p>\n<p>The next significant political change that affected the region came with the appearance of Philip of Macedon in 360 <span>BC<\/span>. His son Alexander the Great (336–323 <span>BC<\/span>) consolidated Greek power throughout western Asia and as far as the borders of India. On his death in 323 <span>BC<\/span>, at the age of 33, the control of western Asia passed to Alexander’s generals. General Seleucus I (312–280 <span>BC<\/span>) controlled the southern half of Asia Minor, the region of Syria, Mesopotamia, and eastward to the borders of India. Syria thus fell under the influence of Hellenist rulers, the Seleucids, who founded a new capital at Antioch.<\/p>\n\n<p>Further west, Rome was rising to power and cast her eyes eastward. It was General Pompey who overcame Mithridates, the young king of Pontus, and moved to crush the remnants of the kingdom of the Seleucids. The western parts of Syria were formed into a Roman province in 64 <span>BC<\/span>. Pompey finally moved into Palestine, which came under Roman control in 63 <span>BC<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p>The Roman province of Syria included Cilicia, a strip of territory in the southeastern corner of Asia Minor. The northern boundary reached to the Euphrates River. The boundary then swung south well to the east of Damascus and then turned west about halfway down the Dead Sea and continued west to the Mediterranean Sea. Syria was bound to the west by the Mediterranean up to the Gulf of Alexandretta, where it turned west. The province of Syria and Cilicia (Acts 15:23, 41; Gal 1:21) was governed by an imperial legate (<em>legatis<\/em>) who commanded a strong force of legionary troops. One such governor, Quirinius, governed Syria at the time of the census of Caesar Augustus; this census brought Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem for the birth of Jesus (Lk 2:2).<\/p>\n<p>In the following centuries the population of Damascus was Christianized, and Christianity spread throughout the Roman province of Syria, giving rise to the Old Syrian Church, which remains to this day. It has left a remarkable legacy of Christian literature written in Syriac (Aramaic). The old Aramaic language remained, though a modified alphabet was used to write it.<\/p>\n<p>It was the rise of Islam in the seventh century <span>AD<\/span> that brought about a considerable weakening of the Syrian church, although it has never been completely destroyed. Scattered communities of Aramaic-speaking people still survive in parts of Syria, and numerous remains of Christian churches have been brought to light as a result of modern archaeological work.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"LanguageandCulture\">Language and Culture<\/p>\n<p>Aramaic was the language of the Arameans, of which numerous inscriptions have been discovered. The Aramaic script was adapted for use by the Israelites, and the language became the international language for diplomacy and administration all over the Near East. It was the <em>lingua franca<\/em> of the Persian period from Egypt to India and was widely spoken in Palestine in Jesus’ day. The words “<em>talitha cumi<\/em>” (Mk 5:41) and “<em>marana tha<\/em>” (1 Cor 16:22) are Aramaic.<\/p>\n<p>Excavations in many sites have provided a good idea of the Aramean architecture, sculpture, pottery, and other arts. The religion of the Arameans was polytheistic. The people adopted many foreign deities as well. The principal Aramean deity was the ancient west Semitic storm god Hadad. In the days of Ahaz of Judah, the Damascus cult was forced on the people of Jerusalem when an altar based on a Damascus model was placed in the temple (2 Kgs 16:10-13). Arameans exiled to Samaria by the Assyrian ruler Sargon brought foreign Aramean cults with them (17:24-34).<\/p>\n<p>Through the centuries that followed the disappearance of the Aramean states, the Aramaic language has survived. The Christian form of Aramaic, Syriac, has left behind a vast legacy of literature, histories, theologies, commentaries, treatises, and translations, which have been carefully preserved in ancient monastic libraries, particularly in northern Syria, northern Iraq, and southern Turkey.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Aramaic.<\/p>","summary_ro":"SYRIA, SYRIANS Terms used in the Septuagint and in some English translations to render the names Aram, Arameans. History of the Arameans According to the “table of nations” in Genesis 10:22-23, the Arameans were a Semitic group, descendants of Shem. Another genealogy in Genesis 22:20-21 makes Aram a descendant of Nahor. According to Amos 9:7, the Arameans (Syrians) came from Kir, which is linked with Elam in Isaiah 22:6. The exile of the Arameans to Kir (2 Kgs 16:9; Am 1:5) may suggest they w...","summary_en":"SYRIA, SYRIANS Terms used in the Septuagint and in some English translations to render the names Aram, Arameans. History of the Arameans According to the “table of nations” in Genesis 10:22-23, the Arameans were a Semitic group, descendants of Shem. Another genealogy in Genesis 22:20-21 makes Aram a descendant of Nahor. According to Amos 9:7, the Arameans (Syrians) came from Kir, which is linked with Elam in Isaiah 22:6. The exile of the Arameans to Kir (2 Kgs 16:9; Am 1:5) may suggest they w...","source":"Articles\/S.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":37895,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Uriah","title_en":"Uriah","content_ro":"<h3>URIAH<\/h3>\n<li>1. Hittite who joined the people of Israel, became a leader in David’s army, and was listed among the king’s mighty men (2 Sm 23:39; 1 Chr 11:41). Uriah’s wife was Bathsheba, with whom David committed adultery while Uriah was fighting the Ammonites. Upon learning that she was pregnant, David summoned Uriah to Jerusalem, hoping that Uriah would sleep with his wife and consider himself the child’s father. However, Uriah slept in the servants’ quarters because he was unwilling to enjoy the comforts of home while his companions were at war. The second night David again tried to entice him to sleep with his wife. Even after falling into a drunken stupor, Uriah still could not be persuaded to go home; instead, he spent the night at the palace. To deepen the intrigue, David sent Uriah back to the battle, ordering him positioned at a vulnerable place, where he was killed (2 Sm 11; Mt 1:6).<\/li>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> David; Genealogy of Jesus Christ.<\/p>\n<li>2. Priest who built an altar at Jerusalem in imitation of an Assyrian model at King Ahaz of Judah’s request (2 Kgs 16:10-16).<\/li>\n<li>3. Priest who was the father of Meremoth. Meremoth weighed the silver, gold, and vessels for the temple (Ezr 8:33) and built portions of the Jerusalem wall during the days of Nehemiah (Neh 3:4, 21).<\/li>\n<li>4. One of the men who stood to Ezra’s right when Ezra read the law to the people (Neh 8:4). He is perhaps the same man as #3 above.<\/li>\n<li>5. Priest whom Isaiah took as a witness (Is 8:2). He is perhaps the same man as #2 above.<\/li>\n<li>6. Prophet and Shemaiah’s son from Kiriath-jearim. Uriah enraged King Jehoiakim by prophesying against Judah and Jerusalem. Fearing for his life, Uriah fled to Egypt but was eventually abducted and brought back to King Jehoiakim, who subsequently put him to death (Jer 26:20-23).<\/li>","content_en":"<h3>URIAH<\/h3>\n<li>1. Hittite who joined the people of Israel, became a leader in David’s army, and was listed among the king’s mighty men (2 Sm 23:39; 1 Chr 11:41). Uriah’s wife was Bathsheba, with whom David committed adultery while Uriah was fighting the Ammonites. Upon learning that she was pregnant, David summoned Uriah to Jerusalem, hoping that Uriah would sleep with his wife and consider himself the child’s father. However, Uriah slept in the servants’ quarters because he was unwilling to enjoy the comforts of home while his companions were at war. The second night David again tried to entice him to sleep with his wife. Even after falling into a drunken stupor, Uriah still could not be persuaded to go home; instead, he spent the night at the palace. To deepen the intrigue, David sent Uriah back to the battle, ordering him positioned at a vulnerable place, where he was killed (2 Sm 11; Mt 1:6).<\/li>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> David; Genealogy of Jesus Christ.<\/p>\n<li>2. Priest who built an altar at Jerusalem in imitation of an Assyrian model at King Ahaz of Judah’s request (2 Kgs 16:10-16).<\/li>\n<li>3. Priest who was the father of Meremoth. Meremoth weighed the silver, gold, and vessels for the temple (Ezr 8:33) and built portions of the Jerusalem wall during the days of Nehemiah (Neh 3:4, 21).<\/li>\n<li>4. One of the men who stood to Ezra’s right when Ezra read the law to the people (Neh 8:4). He is perhaps the same man as #3 above.<\/li>\n<li>5. Priest whom Isaiah took as a witness (Is 8:2). He is perhaps the same man as #2 above.<\/li>\n<li>6. Prophet and Shemaiah’s son from Kiriath-jearim. Uriah enraged King Jehoiakim by prophesying against Judah and Jerusalem. Fearing for his life, Uriah fled to Egypt but was eventually abducted and brought back to King Jehoiakim, who subsequently put him to death (Jer 26:20-23).<\/li>","summary_ro":"URIAH 1. Hittite who joined the people of Israel, became a leader in David’s army, and was listed among the king’s mighty men (2 Sm 23:39; 1 Chr 11:41). Uriah’s wife was Bathsheba, with whom David committed adultery while Uriah was fighting the Ammonites. Upon learning that she was pregnant, David summoned Uriah to Jerusalem, hoping that Uriah would sleep with his wife and consider himself the child’s father. However, Uriah slept in the servants’ quarters because he was unwilling to enjoy the...","summary_en":"URIAH 1. Hittite who joined the people of Israel, became a leader in David’s army, and was listed among the king’s mighty men (2 Sm 23:39; 1 Chr 11:41). Uriah’s wife was Bathsheba, with whom David committed adultery while Uriah was fighting the Ammonites. Upon learning that she was pregnant, David summoned Uriah to Jerusalem, hoping that Uriah would sleep with his wife and consider himself the child’s father. However, Uriah slept in the servants’ quarters because he was unwilling to enjoy the...","source":"Articles\/U.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":47391,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: 2 Împărați 16:10","title_en":"Study Note: 2 Împărați 16:10","content_ro":"<p><strong>16:10-11<\/strong> <em>Ahaz . . . took special note of the altar<\/em> of the Arameans and had a copy made so as to emulate their pagan worship.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>16:10-11<\/strong> <em>Ahaz . . . took special note of the altar<\/em> of the Arameans and had a copy made so as to emulate their pagan worship.<\/p>","summary_ro":"16:10-11 Ahaz . . . took special note of the altar of the Arameans and had a copy made so as to emulate their pagan worship.","summary_en":"16:10-11 Ahaz . . . took special note of the altar of the Arameans and had a copy made so as to emulate their pagan worship.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":75017,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: 2 Împărați 16:10","title_en":"Study Note: 2 Împărați 16:10","content_ro":"<p><strong>16:10-11<\/strong> <em>Ahaz . . . took special note of the altar<\/em> of the Arameans and had a copy made so as to emulate their pagan worship.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>16:10-11<\/strong> <em>Ahaz . . . took special note of the altar<\/em> of the Arameans and had a copy made so as to emulate their pagan worship.<\/p>","summary_ro":"16:10-11 Ahaz . . . took special note of the altar of the Arameans and had a copy made so as to emulate their pagan worship.","summary_en":"16:10-11 Ahaz . . . took special note of the altar of the Arameans and had a copy made so as to emulate their pagan worship.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":102643,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: 2 Împărați 16:10","title_en":"Study Note: 2 Împărați 16:10","content_ro":"<p><strong>16:10-11<\/strong> <em>Ahaz . . . took special note of the altar<\/em> of the Arameans and had a copy made so as to emulate their pagan worship.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>16:10-11<\/strong> <em>Ahaz . . . took special note of the altar<\/em> of the Arameans and had a copy made so as to emulate their pagan worship.<\/p>","summary_ro":"16:10-11 Ahaz . . . took special note of the altar of the Arameans and had a copy made so as to emulate their pagan worship.","summary_en":"16:10-11 Ahaz . . . took special note of the altar of the Arameans and had a copy made so as to emulate their pagan worship.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":130269,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: 2 Împărați 16:10","title_en":"Study Note: 2 Împărați 16:10","content_ro":"<p><strong>16:10-11<\/strong> <em>Ahaz . . . took special note of the altar<\/em> of the Arameans and had a copy made so as to emulate their pagan worship.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>16:10-11<\/strong> <em>Ahaz . . . took special note of the altar<\/em> of the Arameans and had a copy made so as to emulate their pagan worship.<\/p>","summary_ro":"16:10-11 Ahaz . . . took special note of the altar of the Arameans and had a copy made so as to emulate their pagan worship.","summary_en":"16:10-11 Ahaz . . . took special note of the altar of the Arameans and had a copy made so as to emulate their pagan worship.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"12":[{"id":47392,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: 2 Împărați 16:12","title_en":"Study Note: 2 Împărați 16:12","content_ro":"<p><strong>16:12-13<\/strong> <em>The king<\/em> initiated the new <em>altar<\/em> by making the traditional offerings upon it (see Lev 1–3; Num 15:1-10; 28:9-15, 24, 31; 2 Kgs 6:8-23; 7:11-20). Sadly, such offerings upon a pagan altar by a leader devoid of spiritual character constituted a mockery of their deep spiritual meaning.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>16:12-13<\/strong> <em>The king<\/em> initiated the new <em>altar<\/em> by making the traditional offerings upon it (see Lev 1–3; Num 15:1-10; 28:9-15, 24, 31; 2 Kgs 6:8-23; 7:11-20). Sadly, such offerings upon a pagan altar by a leader devoid of spiritual character constituted a mockery of their deep spiritual meaning.<\/p>","summary_ro":"16:12-13 The king initiated the new altar by making the traditional offerings upon it (see Lev 1–3; Num 15:1-10; 28:9-15, 24, 31; 2 Kgs 6:8-23; 7:11-20). Sadly, such offerings upon a pagan altar by a leader devoid of spiritual character constituted a mockery of their deep spiritual meaning.","summary_en":"16:12-13 The king initiated the new altar by making the traditional offerings upon it (see Lev 1–3; Num 15:1-10; 28:9-15, 24, 31; 2 Kgs 6:8-23; 7:11-20). Sadly, such offerings upon a pagan altar by a leader devoid of spiritual character constituted a mockery of their deep spiritual meaning.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":75018,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: 2 Împărați 16:12","title_en":"Study Note: 2 Împărați 16:12","content_ro":"<p><strong>16:12-13<\/strong> <em>The king<\/em> initiated the new <em>altar<\/em> by making the traditional offerings upon it (see Lev 1–3; Num 15:1-10; 28:9-15, 24, 31; 2 Kgs 6:8-23; 7:11-20). Sadly, such offerings upon a pagan altar by a leader devoid of spiritual character constituted a mockery of their deep spiritual meaning.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>16:12-13<\/strong> <em>The king<\/em> initiated the new <em>altar<\/em> by making the traditional offerings upon it (see Lev 1–3; Num 15:1-10; 28:9-15, 24, 31; 2 Kgs 6:8-23; 7:11-20). Sadly, such offerings upon a pagan altar by a leader devoid of spiritual character constituted a mockery of their deep spiritual meaning.<\/p>","summary_ro":"16:12-13 The king initiated the new altar by making the traditional offerings upon it (see Lev 1–3; Num 15:1-10; 28:9-15, 24, 31; 2 Kgs 6:8-23; 7:11-20). Sadly, such offerings upon a pagan altar by a leader devoid of spiritual character constituted a mockery of their deep spiritual meaning.","summary_en":"16:12-13 The king initiated the new altar by making the traditional offerings upon it (see Lev 1–3; Num 15:1-10; 28:9-15, 24, 31; 2 Kgs 6:8-23; 7:11-20). Sadly, such offerings upon a pagan altar by a leader devoid of spiritual character constituted a mockery of their deep spiritual meaning.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":102644,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: 2 Împărați 16:12","title_en":"Study Note: 2 Împărați 16:12","content_ro":"<p><strong>16:12-13<\/strong> <em>The king<\/em> initiated the new <em>altar<\/em> by making the traditional offerings upon it (see Lev 1–3; Num 15:1-10; 28:9-15, 24, 31; 2 Kgs 6:8-23; 7:11-20). Sadly, such offerings upon a pagan altar by a leader devoid of spiritual character constituted a mockery of their deep spiritual meaning.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>16:12-13<\/strong> <em>The king<\/em> initiated the new <em>altar<\/em> by making the traditional offerings upon it (see Lev 1–3; Num 15:1-10; 28:9-15, 24, 31; 2 Kgs 6:8-23; 7:11-20). Sadly, such offerings upon a pagan altar by a leader devoid of spiritual character constituted a mockery of their deep spiritual meaning.<\/p>","summary_ro":"16:12-13 The king initiated the new altar by making the traditional offerings upon it (see Lev 1–3; Num 15:1-10; 28:9-15, 24, 31; 2 Kgs 6:8-23; 7:11-20). Sadly, such offerings upon a pagan altar by a leader devoid of spiritual character constituted a mockery of their deep spiritual meaning.","summary_en":"16:12-13 The king initiated the new altar by making the traditional offerings upon it (see Lev 1–3; Num 15:1-10; 28:9-15, 24, 31; 2 Kgs 6:8-23; 7:11-20). Sadly, such offerings upon a pagan altar by a leader devoid of spiritual character constituted a mockery of their deep spiritual meaning.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":130270,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: 2 Împărați 16:12","title_en":"Study Note: 2 Împărați 16:12","content_ro":"<p><strong>16:12-13<\/strong> <em>The king<\/em> initiated the new <em>altar<\/em> by making the traditional offerings upon it (see Lev 1–3; Num 15:1-10; 28:9-15, 24, 31; 2 Kgs 6:8-23; 7:11-20). Sadly, such offerings upon a pagan altar by a leader devoid of spiritual character constituted a mockery of their deep spiritual meaning.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>16:12-13<\/strong> <em>The king<\/em> initiated the new <em>altar<\/em> by making the traditional offerings upon it (see Lev 1–3; Num 15:1-10; 28:9-15, 24, 31; 2 Kgs 6:8-23; 7:11-20). Sadly, such offerings upon a pagan altar by a leader devoid of spiritual character constituted a mockery of their deep spiritual meaning.<\/p>","summary_ro":"16:12-13 The king initiated the new altar by making the traditional offerings upon it (see Lev 1–3; Num 15:1-10; 28:9-15, 24, 31; 2 Kgs 6:8-23; 7:11-20). Sadly, such offerings upon a pagan altar by a leader devoid of spiritual character constituted a mockery of their deep spiritual meaning.","summary_en":"16:12-13 The king initiated the new altar by making the traditional offerings upon it (see Lev 1–3; Num 15:1-10; 28:9-15, 24, 31; 2 Kgs 6:8-23; 7:11-20). Sadly, such offerings upon a pagan altar by a leader devoid of spiritual character constituted a mockery of their deep spiritual meaning.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"14":[{"id":1165,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Altar","title_en":"Altar","content_ro":"<h3>ALTAR<\/h3>\n<p>The platform upon which offerings are made to the deity. This may include a ritual sacrifice of animals or a burning of incense before God (Ex 30:1-10). The Hebrew word for altar and the verb “to slaughter” both derive from the same root word; they are terms used in connection with the ritual of sacrificing animals to God as a covering for sin. The Greek terms also point to sacrificing animals. The practice was not peculiar to Israel but was widely known in the ancient Middle East. Israel’s immediate neighbors, the Canaanites, had their own altars and rituals. The altar was always a raised-up place.<\/p>\n<p>The Bible refers to several altars built by the patriarchs. Noah offered burnt offerings (Gn 8:20). Abraham built an altar at Shechem (Gn 12:7), another at Bethel (Gn 12:8), and one on Mt Moriah (Gn 22:9). Isaac built an altar at Beersheba (Gn 26:25), and Jacob at Shechem (Gn 33:20) and Bethel (Gn 35:7). Moses built one at Rephidim (Ex 17:15) and another at Horeb (Ex 24:4). In each case the altar was erected to commemorate an event in which God had helped the offerer.<\/p>\n<p>Two altars were used in the tabernacle. One, measuring 5 by 5 by 3 cubits (7.5 by 7.5 by 4.5 feet; 2.3 by 2.3 by 1.4 meters), was made of acacia wood overlaid with bronze and used for burnt offerings (Ex 27:1-8; 38:1-7). The other, smaller one, the golden altar, was about 18 inches (45 centimeters) square and 3 feet (90 centimeters) high, and was used to burn incense before the veil (Ex 30:1-10; 40:5).<\/p>\n<p>In Exodus 20:24-26, instructions were given to Israel to make an altar of earth or of unhewn stones, upon which burnt offerings and peace offerings were to be made in every place where God caused his name to dwell. This very general prescription seems to have allowed various individuals to erect an altar from time to time. Joshua built an altar on Mt Ebal (Jos 8:30-31); the Reubenites, Gadites, and the half-tribe of Manasseh built one in Transjordan (Jos 22:10-16); Gideon built one in Ophrah (Jgs 6:24); the family of David in Bethlehem (1 Sm 20:6, 29); David at the threshing floor of Araunah (2 Sm 24:25); and Elijah on Mt Carmel (1 Kgs 18:30). Apart from Elijah’s altar these all predated Solomon’s temple.<\/p>\n<p>There were two altars in Solomon’s temple. One was 20 cubits square (about 25 feet; 7.6 meters) and 10 cubits high (about 12.5 feet; 3.8 meters). It was made of bronze and used for burnt offerings. It remained the center of temple worship until the temple was destroyed, although in the days of King Ahaz it was removed from its place to the northern side of the temple at the command of the Assyrian ruler Tiglath-pileser (2 Kgs 16:14). It was later restored to its proper place by Hezekiah (2 Chr 29:18). The second, the incense altar, stood in front of the veil. It was made of cedar and overlaid with gold (1 Kgs 6:20-22).<\/p>\n<p>During the exile, when the temple lay in ruins, Ezekiel had a vision of the restored temple in Jerusalem. There was an elaborate altar of burnt offering, rising in three terraces to a height of 10 cubits (17.5 feet; 5.3 meters) and resting on a base about 20 cubits (35 feet; 10.6 meters) square. Although the altar was visionary, it emphasized the need for atonement in Israel (Ez 43:13-17). No reference is made to an incense altar.<\/p>\n<p>Zerubbabel built an altar of burnt offerings (Ezr 3:2) that Antiochus Epiphanes desecrated with a “desolating sacrilege,” probably an image of Zeus (1 Macc 1:54). There was also an altar of incense. Antiochus Epiphanes carried off the golden altar (1 Macc 1:21) in 169 <span>BC<\/span>. Both were later restored by Judas Maccabeus (1 Macc 4:44-49).<\/p>\n\n<p>In Christian worship no altar was required, since in the death of Jesus Christ the final sacrifice for sin had been made. There are numerous references to both the altar of burnt offering in the temple (Mt 5:23-24; 23:18-20, 35; Lk 11:51; 1 Cor 9:13; 10:18; Heb 7:13; Rv 11:1) and the altar of incense, both in the earthly temple (Lk 1:11) and in the heavenly temple (Rv 6:9; 8:5; 9:13).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Tabernacle; Temple.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>ALTAR<\/h3>\n<p>The platform upon which offerings are made to the deity. This may include a ritual sacrifice of animals or a burning of incense before God (Ex 30:1-10). The Hebrew word for altar and the verb “to slaughter” both derive from the same root word; they are terms used in connection with the ritual of sacrificing animals to God as a covering for sin. The Greek terms also point to sacrificing animals. The practice was not peculiar to Israel but was widely known in the ancient Middle East. Israel’s immediate neighbors, the Canaanites, had their own altars and rituals. The altar was always a raised-up place.<\/p>\n<p>The Bible refers to several altars built by the patriarchs. Noah offered burnt offerings (Gn 8:20). Abraham built an altar at Shechem (Gn 12:7), another at Bethel (Gn 12:8), and one on Mt Moriah (Gn 22:9). Isaac built an altar at Beersheba (Gn 26:25), and Jacob at Shechem (Gn 33:20) and Bethel (Gn 35:7). Moses built one at Rephidim (Ex 17:15) and another at Horeb (Ex 24:4). In each case the altar was erected to commemorate an event in which God had helped the offerer.<\/p>\n<p>Two altars were used in the tabernacle. One, measuring 5 by 5 by 3 cubits (7.5 by 7.5 by 4.5 feet; 2.3 by 2.3 by 1.4 meters), was made of acacia wood overlaid with bronze and used for burnt offerings (Ex 27:1-8; 38:1-7). The other, smaller one, the golden altar, was about 18 inches (45 centimeters) square and 3 feet (90 centimeters) high, and was used to burn incense before the veil (Ex 30:1-10; 40:5).<\/p>\n<p>In Exodus 20:24-26, instructions were given to Israel to make an altar of earth or of unhewn stones, upon which burnt offerings and peace offerings were to be made in every place where God caused his name to dwell. This very general prescription seems to have allowed various individuals to erect an altar from time to time. Joshua built an altar on Mt Ebal (Jos 8:30-31); the Reubenites, Gadites, and the half-tribe of Manasseh built one in Transjordan (Jos 22:10-16); Gideon built one in Ophrah (Jgs 6:24); the family of David in Bethlehem (1 Sm 20:6, 29); David at the threshing floor of Araunah (2 Sm 24:25); and Elijah on Mt Carmel (1 Kgs 18:30). Apart from Elijah’s altar these all predated Solomon’s temple.<\/p>\n<p>There were two altars in Solomon’s temple. One was 20 cubits square (about 25 feet; 7.6 meters) and 10 cubits high (about 12.5 feet; 3.8 meters). It was made of bronze and used for burnt offerings. It remained the center of temple worship until the temple was destroyed, although in the days of King Ahaz it was removed from its place to the northern side of the temple at the command of the Assyrian ruler Tiglath-pileser (2 Kgs 16:14). It was later restored to its proper place by Hezekiah (2 Chr 29:18). The second, the incense altar, stood in front of the veil. It was made of cedar and overlaid with gold (1 Kgs 6:20-22).<\/p>\n<p>During the exile, when the temple lay in ruins, Ezekiel had a vision of the restored temple in Jerusalem. There was an elaborate altar of burnt offering, rising in three terraces to a height of 10 cubits (17.5 feet; 5.3 meters) and resting on a base about 20 cubits (35 feet; 10.6 meters) square. Although the altar was visionary, it emphasized the need for atonement in Israel (Ez 43:13-17). No reference is made to an incense altar.<\/p>\n<p>Zerubbabel built an altar of burnt offerings (Ezr 3:2) that Antiochus Epiphanes desecrated with a “desolating sacrilege,” probably an image of Zeus (1 Macc 1:54). There was also an altar of incense. Antiochus Epiphanes carried off the golden altar (1 Macc 1:21) in 169 <span>BC<\/span>. Both were later restored by Judas Maccabeus (1 Macc 4:44-49).<\/p>\n\n<p>In Christian worship no altar was required, since in the death of Jesus Christ the final sacrifice for sin had been made. There are numerous references to both the altar of burnt offering in the temple (Mt 5:23-24; 23:18-20, 35; Lk 11:51; 1 Cor 9:13; 10:18; Heb 7:13; Rv 11:1) and the altar of incense, both in the earthly temple (Lk 1:11) and in the heavenly temple (Rv 6:9; 8:5; 9:13).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Tabernacle; Temple.<\/p>","summary_ro":"ALTAR The platform upon which offerings are made to the deity. This may include a ritual sacrifice of animals or a burning of incense before God (Ex 30:1-10). The Hebrew word for altar and the verb “to slaughter” both derive from the same root word; they are terms used in connection with the ritual of sacrificing animals to God as a covering for sin. The Greek terms also point to sacrificing animals. The practice was not peculiar to Israel but was widely known in the ancient Middle East. Isra...","summary_en":"ALTAR The platform upon which offerings are made to the deity. This may include a ritual sacrifice of animals or a burning of incense before God (Ex 30:1-10). The Hebrew word for altar and the verb “to slaughter” both derive from the same root word; they are terms used in connection with the ritual of sacrificing animals to God as a covering for sin. The Greek terms also point to sacrificing animals. The practice was not peculiar to Israel but was widely known in the ancient Middle East. Isra...","source":"Articles\/A.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":47393,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: 2 Împărați 16:14","title_en":"Study Note: 2 Împărați 16:14","content_ro":"<p><strong>16:14<\/strong> Solomon had originally placed the <em>bronze altar<\/em> in front of the <em>Temple<\/em> (see Exod 40:6; 2 Chr 4:1; 7:7-10). At first, Ahaz positioned his <em>new altar<\/em> so that worshipers would come to it before coming to the bronze altar. Then Ahaz had the bronze altar <em>placed . . . on the north side<\/em> of the new altar, completely replacing the bronze altar as the center of sacrificial activity.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>16:14<\/strong> Solomon had originally placed the <em>bronze altar<\/em> in front of the <em>Temple<\/em> (see Exod 40:6; 2 Chr 4:1; 7:7-10). At first, Ahaz positioned his <em>new altar<\/em> so that worshipers would come to it before coming to the bronze altar. Then Ahaz had the bronze altar <em>placed . . . on the north side<\/em> of the new altar, completely replacing the bronze altar as the center of sacrificial activity.<\/p>","summary_ro":"16:14 Solomon had originally placed the bronze altar in front of the Temple (see Exod 40:6; 2 Chr 4:1; 7:7-10). At first, Ahaz positioned his new altar so that worshipers would come to it before coming to the bronze altar. Then Ahaz had the bronze altar placed . . . on the north side of the new altar, completely replacing the bronze altar as the center of sacrificial activity.","summary_en":"16:14 Solomon had originally placed the bronze altar in front of the Temple (see Exod 40:6; 2 Chr 4:1; 7:7-10). At first, Ahaz positioned his new altar so that worshipers would come to it before coming to the bronze altar. Then Ahaz had the bronze altar placed . . . on the north side of the new altar, completely replacing the bronze altar as the center of sacrificial activity.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":75019,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: 2 Împărați 16:14","title_en":"Study Note: 2 Împărați 16:14","content_ro":"<p><strong>16:14<\/strong> Solomon had originally placed the <em>bronze altar<\/em> in front of the <em>Temple<\/em> (see Exod 40:6; 2 Chr 4:1; 7:7-10). At first, Ahaz positioned his <em>new altar<\/em> so that worshipers would come to it before coming to the bronze altar. Then Ahaz had the bronze altar <em>placed . . . on the north side<\/em> of the new altar, completely replacing the bronze altar as the center of sacrificial activity.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>16:14<\/strong> Solomon had originally placed the <em>bronze altar<\/em> in front of the <em>Temple<\/em> (see Exod 40:6; 2 Chr 4:1; 7:7-10). At first, Ahaz positioned his <em>new altar<\/em> so that worshipers would come to it before coming to the bronze altar. Then Ahaz had the bronze altar <em>placed . . . on the north side<\/em> of the new altar, completely replacing the bronze altar as the center of sacrificial activity.<\/p>","summary_ro":"16:14 Solomon had originally placed the bronze altar in front of the Temple (see Exod 40:6; 2 Chr 4:1; 7:7-10). At first, Ahaz positioned his new altar so that worshipers would come to it before coming to the bronze altar. Then Ahaz had the bronze altar placed . . . on the north side of the new altar, completely replacing the bronze altar as the center of sacrificial activity.","summary_en":"16:14 Solomon had originally placed the bronze altar in front of the Temple (see Exod 40:6; 2 Chr 4:1; 7:7-10). At first, Ahaz positioned his new altar so that worshipers would come to it before coming to the bronze altar. Then Ahaz had the bronze altar placed . . . on the north side of the new altar, completely replacing the bronze altar as the center of sacrificial activity.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":102645,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: 2 Împărați 16:14","title_en":"Study Note: 2 Împărați 16:14","content_ro":"<p><strong>16:14<\/strong> Solomon had originally placed the <em>bronze altar<\/em> in front of the <em>Temple<\/em> (see Exod 40:6; 2 Chr 4:1; 7:7-10). At first, Ahaz positioned his <em>new altar<\/em> so that worshipers would come to it before coming to the bronze altar. Then Ahaz had the bronze altar <em>placed . . . on the north side<\/em> of the new altar, completely replacing the bronze altar as the center of sacrificial activity.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>16:14<\/strong> Solomon had originally placed the <em>bronze altar<\/em> in front of the <em>Temple<\/em> (see Exod 40:6; 2 Chr 4:1; 7:7-10). At first, Ahaz positioned his <em>new altar<\/em> so that worshipers would come to it before coming to the bronze altar. Then Ahaz had the bronze altar <em>placed . . . on the north side<\/em> of the new altar, completely replacing the bronze altar as the center of sacrificial activity.<\/p>","summary_ro":"16:14 Solomon had originally placed the bronze altar in front of the Temple (see Exod 40:6; 2 Chr 4:1; 7:7-10). At first, Ahaz positioned his new altar so that worshipers would come to it before coming to the bronze altar. Then Ahaz had the bronze altar placed . . . on the north side of the new altar, completely replacing the bronze altar as the center of sacrificial activity.","summary_en":"16:14 Solomon had originally placed the bronze altar in front of the Temple (see Exod 40:6; 2 Chr 4:1; 7:7-10). At first, Ahaz positioned his new altar so that worshipers would come to it before coming to the bronze altar. Then Ahaz had the bronze altar placed . . . on the north side of the new altar, completely replacing the bronze altar as the center of sacrificial activity.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":130271,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: 2 Împărați 16:14","title_en":"Study Note: 2 Împărați 16:14","content_ro":"<p><strong>16:14<\/strong> Solomon had originally placed the <em>bronze altar<\/em> in front of the <em>Temple<\/em> (see Exod 40:6; 2 Chr 4:1; 7:7-10). At first, Ahaz positioned his <em>new altar<\/em> so that worshipers would come to it before coming to the bronze altar. Then Ahaz had the bronze altar <em>placed . . . on the north side<\/em> of the new altar, completely replacing the bronze altar as the center of sacrificial activity.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>16:14<\/strong> Solomon had originally placed the <em>bronze altar<\/em> in front of the <em>Temple<\/em> (see Exod 40:6; 2 Chr 4:1; 7:7-10). At first, Ahaz positioned his <em>new altar<\/em> so that worshipers would come to it before coming to the bronze altar. Then Ahaz had the bronze altar <em>placed . . . on the north side<\/em> of the new altar, completely replacing the bronze altar as the center of sacrificial activity.<\/p>","summary_ro":"16:14 Solomon had originally placed the bronze altar in front of the Temple (see Exod 40:6; 2 Chr 4:1; 7:7-10). At first, Ahaz positioned his new altar so that worshipers would come to it before coming to the bronze altar. Then Ahaz had the bronze altar placed . . . on the north side of the new altar, completely replacing the bronze altar as the center of sacrificial activity.","summary_en":"16:14 Solomon had originally placed the bronze altar in front of the Temple (see Exod 40:6; 2 Chr 4:1; 7:7-10). At first, Ahaz positioned his new altar so that worshipers would come to it before coming to the bronze altar. Then Ahaz had the bronze altar placed . . . on the north side of the new altar, completely replacing the bronze altar as the center of sacrificial activity.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"15":[{"id":47394,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: 2 Împărați 16:15","title_en":"Study Note: 2 Împărați 16:15","content_ro":"<p><strong>16:15-16<\/strong> Ahaz ordered that standard daily sacrifices (Num 28:1-8) as well as the individual <em>offerings<\/em> of the king and <em>people<\/em> would be made on the <em>new altar.<\/em> Ahaz then restricted the <em>bronze altar<\/em> to his <em>personal use<\/em> (literally <em>for seeking\/inquiry<\/em>), probably to use it for pagan divination. This demand displayed a callous insolence against the Lord and his worship. <em>Uriah the priest<\/em> complied with Ahaz’s demands (2 Kgs 16:10-11, 16), rather than resisting the king.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>16:15-16<\/strong> Ahaz ordered that standard daily sacrifices (Num 28:1-8) as well as the individual <em>offerings<\/em> of the king and <em>people<\/em> would be made on the <em>new altar.<\/em> Ahaz then restricted the <em>bronze altar<\/em> to his <em>personal use<\/em> (literally <em>for seeking\/inquiry<\/em>), probably to use it for pagan divination. This demand displayed a callous insolence against the Lord and his worship. <em>Uriah the priest<\/em> complied with Ahaz’s demands (2 Kgs 16:10-11, 16), rather than resisting the king.<\/p>","summary_ro":"16:15-16 Ahaz ordered that standard daily sacrifices (Num 28:1-8) as well as the individual offerings of the king and people would be made on the new altar. Ahaz then restricted the bronze altar to his personal use (literally for seeking\/inquiry), probably to use it for pagan divination. This demand displayed a callous insolence against the Lord and his worship. Uriah the priest complied with Ahaz’s demands (2 Kgs 16:10-11, 16), rather than resisting the king.","summary_en":"16:15-16 Ahaz ordered that standard daily sacrifices (Num 28:1-8) as well as the individual offerings of the king and people would be made on the new altar. Ahaz then restricted the bronze altar to his personal use (literally for seeking\/inquiry), probably to use it for pagan divination. This demand displayed a callous insolence against the Lord and his worship. Uriah the priest complied with Ahaz’s demands (2 Kgs 16:10-11, 16), rather than resisting the king.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":75020,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: 2 Împărați 16:15","title_en":"Study Note: 2 Împărați 16:15","content_ro":"<p><strong>16:15-16<\/strong> Ahaz ordered that standard daily sacrifices (Num 28:1-8) as well as the individual <em>offerings<\/em> of the king and <em>people<\/em> would be made on the <em>new altar.<\/em> Ahaz then restricted the <em>bronze altar<\/em> to his <em>personal use<\/em> (literally <em>for seeking\/inquiry<\/em>), probably to use it for pagan divination. This demand displayed a callous insolence against the Lord and his worship. <em>Uriah the priest<\/em> complied with Ahaz’s demands (2 Kgs 16:10-11, 16), rather than resisting the king.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>16:15-16<\/strong> Ahaz ordered that standard daily sacrifices (Num 28:1-8) as well as the individual <em>offerings<\/em> of the king and <em>people<\/em> would be made on the <em>new altar.<\/em> Ahaz then restricted the <em>bronze altar<\/em> to his <em>personal use<\/em> (literally <em>for seeking\/inquiry<\/em>), probably to use it for pagan divination. This demand displayed a callous insolence against the Lord and his worship. <em>Uriah the priest<\/em> complied with Ahaz’s demands (2 Kgs 16:10-11, 16), rather than resisting the king.<\/p>","summary_ro":"16:15-16 Ahaz ordered that standard daily sacrifices (Num 28:1-8) as well as the individual offerings of the king and people would be made on the new altar. Ahaz then restricted the bronze altar to his personal use (literally for seeking\/inquiry), probably to use it for pagan divination. This demand displayed a callous insolence against the Lord and his worship. Uriah the priest complied with Ahaz’s demands (2 Kgs 16:10-11, 16), rather than resisting the king.","summary_en":"16:15-16 Ahaz ordered that standard daily sacrifices (Num 28:1-8) as well as the individual offerings of the king and people would be made on the new altar. Ahaz then restricted the bronze altar to his personal use (literally for seeking\/inquiry), probably to use it for pagan divination. This demand displayed a callous insolence against the Lord and his worship. Uriah the priest complied with Ahaz’s demands (2 Kgs 16:10-11, 16), rather than resisting the king.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":102646,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: 2 Împărați 16:15","title_en":"Study Note: 2 Împărați 16:15","content_ro":"<p><strong>16:15-16<\/strong> Ahaz ordered that standard daily sacrifices (Num 28:1-8) as well as the individual <em>offerings<\/em> of the king and <em>people<\/em> would be made on the <em>new altar.<\/em> Ahaz then restricted the <em>bronze altar<\/em> to his <em>personal use<\/em> (literally <em>for seeking\/inquiry<\/em>), probably to use it for pagan divination. This demand displayed a callous insolence against the Lord and his worship. <em>Uriah the priest<\/em> complied with Ahaz’s demands (2 Kgs 16:10-11, 16), rather than resisting the king.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>16:15-16<\/strong> Ahaz ordered that standard daily sacrifices (Num 28:1-8) as well as the individual <em>offerings<\/em> of the king and <em>people<\/em> would be made on the <em>new altar.<\/em> Ahaz then restricted the <em>bronze altar<\/em> to his <em>personal use<\/em> (literally <em>for seeking\/inquiry<\/em>), probably to use it for pagan divination. This demand displayed a callous insolence against the Lord and his worship. <em>Uriah the priest<\/em> complied with Ahaz’s demands (2 Kgs 16:10-11, 16), rather than resisting the king.<\/p>","summary_ro":"16:15-16 Ahaz ordered that standard daily sacrifices (Num 28:1-8) as well as the individual offerings of the king and people would be made on the new altar. Ahaz then restricted the bronze altar to his personal use (literally for seeking\/inquiry), probably to use it for pagan divination. This demand displayed a callous insolence against the Lord and his worship. Uriah the priest complied with Ahaz’s demands (2 Kgs 16:10-11, 16), rather than resisting the king.","summary_en":"16:15-16 Ahaz ordered that standard daily sacrifices (Num 28:1-8) as well as the individual offerings of the king and people would be made on the new altar. Ahaz then restricted the bronze altar to his personal use (literally for seeking\/inquiry), probably to use it for pagan divination. This demand displayed a callous insolence against the Lord and his worship. Uriah the priest complied with Ahaz’s demands (2 Kgs 16:10-11, 16), rather than resisting the king.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":130272,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: 2 Împărați 16:15","title_en":"Study Note: 2 Împărați 16:15","content_ro":"<p><strong>16:15-16<\/strong> Ahaz ordered that standard daily sacrifices (Num 28:1-8) as well as the individual <em>offerings<\/em> of the king and <em>people<\/em> would be made on the <em>new altar.<\/em> Ahaz then restricted the <em>bronze altar<\/em> to his <em>personal use<\/em> (literally <em>for seeking\/inquiry<\/em>), probably to use it for pagan divination. This demand displayed a callous insolence against the Lord and his worship. <em>Uriah the priest<\/em> complied with Ahaz’s demands (2 Kgs 16:10-11, 16), rather than resisting the king.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>16:15-16<\/strong> Ahaz ordered that standard daily sacrifices (Num 28:1-8) as well as the individual <em>offerings<\/em> of the king and <em>people<\/em> would be made on the <em>new altar.<\/em> Ahaz then restricted the <em>bronze altar<\/em> to his <em>personal use<\/em> (literally <em>for seeking\/inquiry<\/em>), probably to use it for pagan divination. This demand displayed a callous insolence against the Lord and his worship. <em>Uriah the priest<\/em> complied with Ahaz’s demands (2 Kgs 16:10-11, 16), rather than resisting the king.<\/p>","summary_ro":"16:15-16 Ahaz ordered that standard daily sacrifices (Num 28:1-8) as well as the individual offerings of the king and people would be made on the new altar. Ahaz then restricted the bronze altar to his personal use (literally for seeking\/inquiry), probably to use it for pagan divination. This demand displayed a callous insolence against the Lord and his worship. Uriah the priest complied with Ahaz’s demands (2 Kgs 16:10-11, 16), rather than resisting the king.","summary_en":"16:15-16 Ahaz ordered that standard daily sacrifices (Num 28:1-8) as well as the individual offerings of the king and people would be made on the new altar. Ahaz then restricted the bronze altar to his personal use (literally for seeking\/inquiry), probably to use it for pagan divination. This demand displayed a callous insolence against the Lord and his worship. Uriah the priest complied with Ahaz’s demands (2 Kgs 16:10-11, 16), rather than resisting the king.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"17":[{"id":5722,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Bronze Sea","title_en":"Bronze Sea","content_ro":"<h3>BRONZE SEA<\/h3>\n<p>Large tank of water in Solomon’s temple yard for the priests’ washing (1 Kgs 7:23-44; 2 Kgs 16:17; 25:13; 1 Chr 18:8; 2 Chr 4:2-6, 15; Jer 52:17). Cast from bronze and about three inches (7.6 centimeters) thick (a handbreadth), it was mounted on 12 bronze oxen (three facing in each compass direction) in the courtyard at the southeast corner of the sanctuary. It was five cubits (about 7.5 feet, or over 2 meters) high and ten cubits (15 feet, or 4.6 meters) in diameter, with a capacity of either 2,000 baths (1 Kgs 7:26) or 3,000 (2 Chr 4:5). The discrepancy possibly comes from a scribal error. The bath (originally a vessel large enough to hold a person) was a liquid measure of about 6 gallons (23 liters), so the tank held perhaps 18,000 gallons (68,136 liters) of water.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Temple; Laver.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>BRONZE SEA<\/h3>\n<p>Large tank of water in Solomon’s temple yard for the priests’ washing (1 Kgs 7:23-44; 2 Kgs 16:17; 25:13; 1 Chr 18:8; 2 Chr 4:2-6, 15; Jer 52:17). Cast from bronze and about three inches (7.6 centimeters) thick (a handbreadth), it was mounted on 12 bronze oxen (three facing in each compass direction) in the courtyard at the southeast corner of the sanctuary. It was five cubits (about 7.5 feet, or over 2 meters) high and ten cubits (15 feet, or 4.6 meters) in diameter, with a capacity of either 2,000 baths (1 Kgs 7:26) or 3,000 (2 Chr 4:5). The discrepancy possibly comes from a scribal error. The bath (originally a vessel large enough to hold a person) was a liquid measure of about 6 gallons (23 liters), so the tank held perhaps 18,000 gallons (68,136 liters) of water.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Temple; Laver.<\/p>","summary_ro":"BRONZE SEA Large tank of water in Solomon’s temple yard for the priests’ washing (1 Kgs 7:23-44; 2 Kgs 16:17; 25:13; 1 Chr 18:8; 2 Chr 4:2-6, 15; Jer 52:17). Cast from bronze and about three inches (7.6 centimeters) thick (a handbreadth), it was mounted on 12 bronze oxen (three facing in each compass direction) in the courtyard at the southeast corner of the sanctuary. It was five cubits (about 7.5 feet, or over 2 meters) high and ten cubits (15 feet, or 4.6 meters) in diameter, with a capaci...","summary_en":"BRONZE SEA Large tank of water in Solomon’s temple yard for the priests’ washing (1 Kgs 7:23-44; 2 Kgs 16:17; 25:13; 1 Chr 18:8; 2 Chr 4:2-6, 15; Jer 52:17). Cast from bronze and about three inches (7.6 centimeters) thick (a handbreadth), it was mounted on 12 bronze oxen (three facing in each compass direction) in the courtyard at the southeast corner of the sanctuary. It was five cubits (about 7.5 feet, or over 2 meters) high and ten cubits (15 feet, or 4.6 meters) in diameter, with a capaci...","source":"Articles\/B.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":22655,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Laver*","title_en":"Laver*","content_ro":"<h3>LAVER*<\/h3>\n<p>Basin filled with water that the priests used to wash their hands and feet before entering the Holy Place and before returning to serve at the altar (Ex 30:17-21). In Solomon’s temple a large laver called the “molten sea” was placed between the altar of burnt offerings in the courtyard and the entrance to the inner temple. This consisted of the large basin and the pedestal on which it sat (Ex 30:18); it was made of bronze or brass, melted and shaped from mirrors of highly polished metal given by Israelite women (38:8).<\/p>\n<p>In Solomon’s temple, in addition to the molten sea (1 Kgs 7:23), there were ten smaller lavers, five on the north and five on the south sides of the sanctuary (1 Kgs 7:38-39). Each held 40 baths (320–440 gallons, or 1,211.2–1,665.4 liters), one-fiftieth the capacity of the large laver. The lavishly decorated molten sea was used for the ablutions of the priests, while the ten lavers were no doubt used for the sacrifices (2 Chr 4:6). Later King Ahaz, possibly for religious or financial reasons, severed the lavers from their bases and the sea from its base, placing it on a stone pediment (2 Kgs 16:17). The prophet Jeremiah, during King Jehoiakim’s reign, predicted that the molten sea and the bases would be carried into Babylon (Jer 27:19-22), which in fact happened, according to Jeremiah 52:17. No mention is made of the ten small lavers, which were perhaps already melted down and sold.<\/p>\n<p>In Ezekiel’s description of the temple to come (Ez 40–42), there is no mention of a laver or molten sea. The apostle John, however, in Revelation 4:6 and 15:2 mentions a “sea of glass,” perhaps reminiscent of Solomon’s molten sea.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Bronze Sea.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>LAVER*<\/h3>\n<p>Basin filled with water that the priests used to wash their hands and feet before entering the Holy Place and before returning to serve at the altar (Ex 30:17-21). In Solomon’s temple a large laver called the “molten sea” was placed between the altar of burnt offerings in the courtyard and the entrance to the inner temple. This consisted of the large basin and the pedestal on which it sat (Ex 30:18); it was made of bronze or brass, melted and shaped from mirrors of highly polished metal given by Israelite women (38:8).<\/p>\n<p>In Solomon’s temple, in addition to the molten sea (1 Kgs 7:23), there were ten smaller lavers, five on the north and five on the south sides of the sanctuary (1 Kgs 7:38-39). Each held 40 baths (320–440 gallons, or 1,211.2–1,665.4 liters), one-fiftieth the capacity of the large laver. The lavishly decorated molten sea was used for the ablutions of the priests, while the ten lavers were no doubt used for the sacrifices (2 Chr 4:6). Later King Ahaz, possibly for religious or financial reasons, severed the lavers from their bases and the sea from its base, placing it on a stone pediment (2 Kgs 16:17). The prophet Jeremiah, during King Jehoiakim’s reign, predicted that the molten sea and the bases would be carried into Babylon (Jer 27:19-22), which in fact happened, according to Jeremiah 52:17. No mention is made of the ten small lavers, which were perhaps already melted down and sold.<\/p>\n<p>In Ezekiel’s description of the temple to come (Ez 40–42), there is no mention of a laver or molten sea. The apostle John, however, in Revelation 4:6 and 15:2 mentions a “sea of glass,” perhaps reminiscent of Solomon’s molten sea.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Bronze Sea.<\/p>","summary_ro":"LAVER* Basin filled with water that the priests used to wash their hands and feet before entering the Holy Place and before returning to serve at the altar (Ex 30:17-21). In Solomon’s temple a large laver called the “molten sea” was placed between the altar of burnt offerings in the courtyard and the entrance to the inner temple. This consisted of the large basin and the pedestal on which it sat (Ex 30:18); it was made of bronze or brass, melted and shaped from mirrors of highly polished meta...","summary_en":"LAVER* Basin filled with water that the priests used to wash their hands and feet before entering the Holy Place and before returning to serve at the altar (Ex 30:17-21). In Solomon’s temple a large laver called the “molten sea” was placed between the altar of burnt offerings in the courtyard and the entrance to the inner temple. This consisted of the large basin and the pedestal on which it sat (Ex 30:18); it was made of bronze or brass, melted and shaped from mirrors of highly polished meta...","source":"Articles\/L.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":47395,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: 2 Împărați 16:17","title_en":"Study Note: 2 Împărați 16:17","content_ro":"<p><strong>16:17-18<\/strong> Because the <em>side panels and basins from the . . . water carts<\/em> and the <em>Sea<\/em> were made of <em>bronze<\/em> (see 1 Kgs 7:25-40), Ahaz might have used them to pay tribute or for some other project. • <em>In deference:<\/em>Apparently at the request of <em>the king of Assyria<\/em><em>,<\/em> Ahaz removed <em>the canopy<\/em> that led to the inner court as well as to the king’s private <em>entrance to the Temple<\/em>. Judah paid a heavy price in loss of freedom because of Ahaz’s trust in the Assyrian king’s military intervention on their behalf (2 Kgs 16:7-8, 10).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>16:17-18<\/strong> Because the <em>side panels and basins from the . . . water carts<\/em> and the <em>Sea<\/em> were made of <em>bronze<\/em> (see 1 Kgs 7:25-40), Ahaz might have used them to pay tribute or for some other project. • <em>In deference:<\/em>Apparently at the request of <em>the king of Assyria<\/em><em>,<\/em> Ahaz removed <em>the canopy<\/em> that led to the inner court as well as to the king’s private <em>entrance to the Temple<\/em>. Judah paid a heavy price in loss of freedom because of Ahaz’s trust in the Assyrian king’s military intervention on their behalf (2 Kgs 16:7-8, 10).<\/p>","summary_ro":"16:17-18 Because the side panels and basins from the . . . water carts and the Sea were made of bronze (see 1 Kgs 7:25-40), Ahaz might have used them to pay tribute or for some other project. • In deference:Apparently at the request of the king of Assyria, Ahaz removed the canopy that led to the inner court as well as to the king’s private entrance to the Temple. Judah paid a heavy price in loss of freedom because of Ahaz’s trust in the Assyrian king’s military intervention on their behalf (2...","summary_en":"16:17-18 Because the side panels and basins from the . . . water carts and the Sea were made of bronze (see 1 Kgs 7:25-40), Ahaz might have used them to pay tribute or for some other project. • In deference:Apparently at the request of the king of Assyria, Ahaz removed the canopy that led to the inner court as well as to the king’s private entrance to the Temple. Judah paid a heavy price in loss of freedom because of Ahaz’s trust in the Assyrian king’s military intervention on their behalf (2...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":75021,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: 2 Împărați 16:17","title_en":"Study Note: 2 Împărați 16:17","content_ro":"<p><strong>16:17-18<\/strong> Because the <em>side panels and basins from the . . . water carts<\/em> and the <em>Sea<\/em> were made of <em>bronze<\/em> (see 1 Kgs 7:25-40), Ahaz might have used them to pay tribute or for some other project. • <em>In deference:<\/em>Apparently at the request of <em>the king of Assyria<\/em><em>,<\/em> Ahaz removed <em>the canopy<\/em> that led to the inner court as well as to the king’s private <em>entrance to the Temple<\/em>. Judah paid a heavy price in loss of freedom because of Ahaz’s trust in the Assyrian king’s military intervention on their behalf (2 Kgs 16:7-8, 10).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>16:17-18<\/strong> Because the <em>side panels and basins from the . . . water carts<\/em> and the <em>Sea<\/em> were made of <em>bronze<\/em> (see 1 Kgs 7:25-40), Ahaz might have used them to pay tribute or for some other project. • <em>In deference:<\/em>Apparently at the request of <em>the king of Assyria<\/em><em>,<\/em> Ahaz removed <em>the canopy<\/em> that led to the inner court as well as to the king’s private <em>entrance to the Temple<\/em>. Judah paid a heavy price in loss of freedom because of Ahaz’s trust in the Assyrian king’s military intervention on their behalf (2 Kgs 16:7-8, 10).<\/p>","summary_ro":"16:17-18 Because the side panels and basins from the . . . water carts and the Sea were made of bronze (see 1 Kgs 7:25-40), Ahaz might have used them to pay tribute or for some other project. • In deference:Apparently at the request of the king of Assyria, Ahaz removed the canopy that led to the inner court as well as to the king’s private entrance to the Temple. Judah paid a heavy price in loss of freedom because of Ahaz’s trust in the Assyrian king’s military intervention on their behalf (2...","summary_en":"16:17-18 Because the side panels and basins from the . . . water carts and the Sea were made of bronze (see 1 Kgs 7:25-40), Ahaz might have used them to pay tribute or for some other project. • In deference:Apparently at the request of the king of Assyria, Ahaz removed the canopy that led to the inner court as well as to the king’s private entrance to the Temple. Judah paid a heavy price in loss of freedom because of Ahaz’s trust in the Assyrian king’s military intervention on their behalf (2...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":102647,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: 2 Împărați 16:17","title_en":"Study Note: 2 Împărați 16:17","content_ro":"<p><strong>16:17-18<\/strong> Because the <em>side panels and basins from the . . . water carts<\/em> and the <em>Sea<\/em> were made of <em>bronze<\/em> (see 1 Kgs 7:25-40), Ahaz might have used them to pay tribute or for some other project. • <em>In deference:<\/em>Apparently at the request of <em>the king of Assyria<\/em><em>,<\/em> Ahaz removed <em>the canopy<\/em> that led to the inner court as well as to the king’s private <em>entrance to the Temple<\/em>. Judah paid a heavy price in loss of freedom because of Ahaz’s trust in the Assyrian king’s military intervention on their behalf (2 Kgs 16:7-8, 10).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>16:17-18<\/strong> Because the <em>side panels and basins from the . . . water carts<\/em> and the <em>Sea<\/em> were made of <em>bronze<\/em> (see 1 Kgs 7:25-40), Ahaz might have used them to pay tribute or for some other project. • <em>In deference:<\/em>Apparently at the request of <em>the king of Assyria<\/em><em>,<\/em> Ahaz removed <em>the canopy<\/em> that led to the inner court as well as to the king’s private <em>entrance to the Temple<\/em>. Judah paid a heavy price in loss of freedom because of Ahaz’s trust in the Assyrian king’s military intervention on their behalf (2 Kgs 16:7-8, 10).<\/p>","summary_ro":"16:17-18 Because the side panels and basins from the . . . water carts and the Sea were made of bronze (see 1 Kgs 7:25-40), Ahaz might have used them to pay tribute or for some other project. • In deference:Apparently at the request of the king of Assyria, Ahaz removed the canopy that led to the inner court as well as to the king’s private entrance to the Temple. Judah paid a heavy price in loss of freedom because of Ahaz’s trust in the Assyrian king’s military intervention on their behalf (2...","summary_en":"16:17-18 Because the side panels and basins from the . . . water carts and the Sea were made of bronze (see 1 Kgs 7:25-40), Ahaz might have used them to pay tribute or for some other project. • In deference:Apparently at the request of the king of Assyria, Ahaz removed the canopy that led to the inner court as well as to the king’s private entrance to the Temple. Judah paid a heavy price in loss of freedom because of Ahaz’s trust in the Assyrian king’s military intervention on their behalf (2...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":130273,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: 2 Împărați 16:17","title_en":"Study Note: 2 Împărați 16:17","content_ro":"<p><strong>16:17-18<\/strong> Because the <em>side panels and basins from the . . . water carts<\/em> and the <em>Sea<\/em> were made of <em>bronze<\/em> (see 1 Kgs 7:25-40), Ahaz might have used them to pay tribute or for some other project. • <em>In deference:<\/em>Apparently at the request of <em>the king of Assyria<\/em><em>,<\/em> Ahaz removed <em>the canopy<\/em> that led to the inner court as well as to the king’s private <em>entrance to the Temple<\/em>. Judah paid a heavy price in loss of freedom because of Ahaz’s trust in the Assyrian king’s military intervention on their behalf (2 Kgs 16:7-8, 10).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>16:17-18<\/strong> Because the <em>side panels and basins from the . . . water carts<\/em> and the <em>Sea<\/em> were made of <em>bronze<\/em> (see 1 Kgs 7:25-40), Ahaz might have used them to pay tribute or for some other project. • <em>In deference:<\/em>Apparently at the request of <em>the king of Assyria<\/em><em>,<\/em> Ahaz removed <em>the canopy<\/em> that led to the inner court as well as to the king’s private <em>entrance to the Temple<\/em>. Judah paid a heavy price in loss of freedom because of Ahaz’s trust in the Assyrian king’s military intervention on their behalf (2 Kgs 16:7-8, 10).<\/p>","summary_ro":"16:17-18 Because the side panels and basins from the . . . water carts and the Sea were made of bronze (see 1 Kgs 7:25-40), Ahaz might have used them to pay tribute or for some other project. • In deference:Apparently at the request of the king of Assyria, Ahaz removed the canopy that led to the inner court as well as to the king’s private entrance to the Temple. Judah paid a heavy price in loss of freedom because of Ahaz’s trust in the Assyrian king’s military intervention on their behalf (2...","summary_en":"16:17-18 Because the side panels and basins from the . . . water carts and the Sea were made of bronze (see 1 Kgs 7:25-40), Ahaz might have used them to pay tribute or for some other project. • In deference:Apparently at the request of the king of Assyria, Ahaz removed the canopy that led to the inner court as well as to the king’s private entrance to the Temple. Judah paid a heavy price in loss of freedom because of Ahaz’s trust in the Assyrian king’s military intervention on their behalf (2...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"18":[{"id":33447,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"for the Sabbath*, Covert","title_en":"for the Sabbath*, Covert","content_ro":"<h3>SABBATH*, Covert for the<\/h3>\n<p>Covered place in the court of the temple reserved for the king who stood there with his attendants on a Sabbath or feast day (2 Kgs 16:18, <span>kjv<\/span>; <span>nlt<\/span> “canopy”).<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>SABBATH*, Covert for the<\/h3>\n<p>Covered place in the court of the temple reserved for the king who stood there with his attendants on a Sabbath or feast day (2 Kgs 16:18, <span>kjv<\/span>; <span>nlt<\/span> “canopy”).<\/p>","summary_ro":"SABBATH*, Covert for the Covered place in the court of the temple reserved for the king who stood there with his attendants on a Sabbath or feast day (2 Kgs 16:18, kjv; nlt “canopy”).","summary_en":"SABBATH*, Covert for the Covered place in the court of the temple reserved for the king who stood there with his attendants on a Sabbath or feast day (2 Kgs 16:18, kjv; nlt “canopy”).","source":"Articles\/S.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":36956,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Temple","title_en":"Temple","content_ro":"<h3>TEMPLE<\/h3>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Background<\/p>\n<p>• Solomon’s Temple<\/p>\n<p>• Zerubbabel’s Temple<\/p>\n<p>• Herod’s Temple<\/p>\n<p>• Significance of the Temple in the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>• Significance of the Temple in the New Testament<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Background\">Background<\/p>\n<p>David’s capture of Jerusalem (2 Sm 5:6-9) and his designation of it as the nation’s capital is one of the great masterstrokes of history. Occupied by the Jebusites, it was a pocket of neutral territory between the northern and southern sections of David’s united kingdom and was politically acceptable to both. Jerusalem was then established as the national religious center by the return of the ark, which had been largely neglected since its capture by the Philistines (2 Sm 6:1-17). Henceforth, God’s choices of both David and Jerusalem (“Mount Zion”) were indissolubly linked (Ps 78:67-72).<\/p>\n<p>David’s great impulse was to build an adequate dwelling place for Israel’s God. The idea was initially approved by Nathan the prophet (2 Sm 7:1-3), but God revealed otherwise to him, and he conveyed the divine purpose to David (vv 4-17). In a significant wordplay, David was informed that, while he was not to build a house (temple) for God, God would build a house (dynasty) for him. David was not the one to build a temple because of the numerous wars during his reign; the temple would instead be built by his son (1 Kgs 5:3; 1 Chr 22:7-8; 28:3). Nevertheless, David enthusiastically amassed most of the necessary finances and materials and drew up the blueprints for the temple (1 Chr 22:3-5, 14; 28:2, 11-19). He also purchased the temple site (21:25).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"SolomonsTemple\">Solomon’s Temple<\/p>\n\n<h5>Date<\/h5>\n<p>Construction commenced in Solomon’s fourth year, about 966 <span>BC<\/span>, and took seven years to complete (1 Kgs 6:1, 38). Everything necessary for the temple, including the workers, had been prepared by David (1 Chr 28:21). The temple evidently had first priority among Solomon’s building schemes, as he built his own palace later (1 Kgs 7:1).<\/p>\n<h5>Superintendents and Workforce<\/h5>\n<p>The principal architect for the bronze furnishings was Huram (Hebrew “Hiram”), whose father was a metal craftsman from Tyre and whose mother was an Israelite (1 Kgs 7:13-14). Cedar for the temple came from Lebanon and was felled and transported by the skilled woodsmen of another Hiram—the king of Tyre, Solomon’s ally (5:5-9). Thirty thousand Israelites, divided into three groups, were drafted to assist at Lebanon. Each group was on duty for one month in three. For the stonework, Solomon conscripted 153,600 foreigners resident in Israel to provide a self-contained group of carriers, stone cutters, and supervisors (vv 15-17; 2 Chr 2:17-18). Possibly the “men of Gebal,” with their specialized skills, formed yet another group (1 Kgs 5:18). Building the temple was obviously a national project of immense size and effort. In order to preserve the sanctity of the site and to eliminate noise, the masonry and carpentry were not done at the temple site (6:7).<\/p>\n<h5>Description<\/h5>\n<p>The details given in the Bible are sufficiently clear for us to make a reasonably accurate description of the temple. The accounts in Kings and Chronicles are supplemented by Ezekiel’s depiction of the temple (see below), which was broadly based on his knowledge of the Jerusalem temple (Ez 40–48).<\/p>\n<p>The side rooms probably rested on a foundation or platform that was separate from the temple itself (1 Kgs 6:5, 10; cf. Ez 41:8-9) and were arranged in three stories, each seven and a half feet (2.3 meters) high, extending around the whole building except for the porch side. Each successive story was one and a half feet (.5 meter) wider than the one below, these dimensions coinciding with the thickness of the side wall of the Holy Place. The ground floor rooms were seven and a half feet (2.3 meters) wide; the first story was nine feet (2.7 meters), and the second was ten and a half feet (3.2 meters). Access to the upper stories was possibly by winding staircases (1 Kgs 6:8). There is some uncertainty concerning the location of the entrances; there may have been one on either side, but only one is mentioned (v 8). As in Ezekiel’s temple (Ez 40:17, 28), there were two adjacent courts, an inner and an outer (1 Kgs 6:36; 7:12), but no dimensions are given for these. The inner court, or “court of the priests,” being next to the temple itself, was also called “the upper court” (2 Chr 4:9; Jer 36:10). The wall of the inner court was made of three layers of hewn stone held together by a layer of cedar beams (1 Kgs 6:36), and the doors of both courts were sheathed in bronze (2 Chr 4:9). The palace buildings were within the outer court area, probably with a private passageway between the palace and the temple that was later closed during the reign of Ahaz (2 Chr 4:9, 12; 2 Kgs 16:18).<\/p>\n<p>The temple itself was 90 feet (27.4 meters) long, 30 feet (9.1 meters) wide, and 45 feet (13.7 meters) high (1 Kgs 6:2), with a porch or vestibule 15 feet (4.6 meters) deep stretching across the width. Probably the vestibule was on the east end of the temple, thus corresponding with the orientation of Ezekiel’s temple (Ez 43:1; 44:1). The larger part of the main sanctuary, next to the porch, formed the Holy Place, which was 60 feet (18.3 meters) long (1 Kgs 6:17). Beyond this was the innermost sanctuary, the Holy of Holies (or the “Most Holy Place“), which was a perfect cube of 30 feet (9.1 meters). All the interior walls were paneled with cedar decorated with flower patterns, cherubim, and palm trees, so that no masonry was visible. The walls of both inner and outer sanctuaries were “overlaid” (v 22) with pure gold. Actually the gold decoration may have been inlaid, on the basis that a solid sheath of gold would spoil the natural beauty of the wood carving. The floor was made of cypress planks (v 15). Narrow windows set high in the walls above the level of the three-storied outer chambers provided light in the Holy Place (v 4). The ceiling was paneled with beams and planks of cedar. No detail is given about the exterior roofing, but probably the contemporary technique was employed, using a wooden, latticelike framework into which a waterproof, limestone plaster was packed and rolled.<\/p>\n<p>The outer porch was apparently an open space, since no doors are mentioned. Access into the Holy Place was by double doors, both hinged to fold back on themselves, made of cypress and decorated in exactly the same way as the interior walls (vv 34-35). The doorposts were made of olive wood. Within the Holy Place was the altar of incense made of cedar overlaid with gold; it was placed centrally before the Holy of Holies. Also in the Holy Place were a table for the bread of the Presence of God, ten lampstands arranged in two groups of five on either side, and various utensils required for maintaining the priestly duties (1 Kgs 7:48-50). All these were made or overlaid with gold. The ten tables, arranged five on each side, were presumably for the utensils and accessories (2 Chr 4:8).<\/p>\n<p>Between the Holy Place and the Holy of Holies was a double door made of olive wood, carved with cherubim, palm trees, and flower patterns and overlaid with gold. Inside these doors, veiling still further the Holy of Holies, was a blue, purple, and crimson curtain, made of the finest fabrics and ornamented with cherubim (2 Chr 3:14).<\/p>\n<p>In the Holy of Holies were two cherubim, each 15 feet (4.6 meters) high and made of olive wood covered with gold (1 Kgs 6:23-28). Each wing measured seven and a half feet (2.3 meters). A wing of each touched the side walls; the other wings met at the center of the room. The divine throne had been considerably less impressive in the tabernacle, where a wing of each cherubim fused into the mercy seat above the ark (Ex 25:17-22). In Solomon’s temple, the ark of the covenant was placed below the forward-facing cherubim, the symbolic protectors. The ark, the only major item surviving from the Mosaic tabernacle, still contained the tablets of the law, but the pot of manna and Aaron’s rod were missing (1 Kgs 8:9).<\/p>\n<p>Immediately outside the temple and on either side of the vestibule were two hollow bronze pillars (1 Kgs 7:15-20; 2 Chr 3:15-17). According to the book of Kings, these pillars were 27 feet (8.2 meters) high, with a circumference of 18 feet (5.5 meters). The metal itself was about four inches (10.2 centimeters) thick. The pillars were surmounted by bronze, lily-shaped capitals seven and a half feet (2.3 meters) high and six feet (1.8 meters) wide, intricately adorned with a chain latticework that supported two rows of pomegranates. The total weight must have been enormous, and their size is attested to by Jeremiah, who notes that the Babylonians had to break them in pieces before transporting them to Babylon (Jer 52:17, 21-23).<\/p>\n<p>The bronze altar of sacrifice in front of the vestibule is not listed in the specifications of 1 Kings 7. However, it is mentioned in the temple dedication and subsequently (1 Kgs 8:22, 54, 64; 9:25) and clearly stood in the inner court. Its dimensions were 30 feet (9.1 meters) square and 15 feet (4.6 meters) high (2 Chr 4:1). In view of its weight, it was probably cast in sections at Solomon’s foundry in the Jordan Rift valley (vv 17-18) and then transported to the temple site for assembly.<\/p>\n<p>Probably the most striking article in the inner court was the “molten (bronze) sea,” a huge, round tank made of bronze 3 inches (8 centimeters) thick, 7½ feet (2.3 meters) high, and 15 feet (4.6 meters) in diameter (1 Kgs 7:23-26). Its rim flared out like a lily (2 Chr 4:2-5). The tank was supported on 12 bronze oxen, four on each side, and had two rows of decoration, possibly gourds or pomegranates, under the brim. Its capacity was between 10,000 and 12,000 gallons (37,850–45,420 liters). The bronze sea was used for priestly ablutions (v 6). Presumably this involved a platform of sorts, for the brim of this vast basin would have been about 15 feet (4.6 meters) above ground level.<\/p>\n<p>Hiram also constructed ten large lavers, mounted on moveable stands and placed in two groups of five, on the north and south sides of the inner court (1 Kgs 7:27-39). Basically the stands were bronze boxes, six feet (1.8 meters) square and four and a half feet (1.4 meters) high with a nine-inch (22.9-centimeter) rim around the top edge. Each corner was attached to braced posts to which the axles were fixed. The four-spoked wheels were 27 inches (68.6 centimeters) high. Into each stand there fitted a laver containing approximately 220 gallons (832.7 liters) of water, used for washing sacrificial animals (2 Chr 4:6). Probably each was adjacent to one of the ten tables that would be used to flay and otherwise prepare the sacrifices (v 8). Supplementary items, such as pots, shovels, and basins, all made of bronze, were also manufactured (1 Kgs 7:40, 45).<\/p>\n<h5>The Dedication<\/h5>\n<p>Eleven months elapsed between the completion of the temple and its dedication (1 Kgs 6:38; 8:2), during which time the major items of furniture were set in place. The dedication itself took place in the seventh month, presumably in connection with the Feast of Tabernacles and the Day of Atonement (Lv 23:23-36). The ark of the covenant was brought into its final resting place (1 Kgs 8:3-4), but the inner court proved inadequate for the vast numbers of beasts sacrificed (1 Kgs 8:62-64; 2 Chr 7:7).<\/p>\n<p>The temple employed the most sophisticated building techniques of the age, and no expense had been spared in construction, ornamentation, or equipment. Yet Solomon readily confessed its utter inadequacy to house the eternal God (1 Kgs 8:27). His prayer also underlined Israel’s propensity to forsake the Lord, contrasting the nation with God, who, though a just judge, was also merciful and faithful. The climax of the proceedings came when fire from heaven consumed the sacrifices and the shekinah glory filled the temple (2 Chr 7:1-3).<\/p>\n<h5>Later History<\/h5>\n<p>Like most ancient shrines, the temple became a treasury for national wealth and as such was often the target for attack. Shishak of Egypt plundered it within five years of Solomon’s death (1 Kgs 14:25-38). Shortly afterward, King Asa (910–869 <span>BC<\/span>) depleted its gold and silver treasures to buy Syrian help against his oppressor, Baasha (908–886 <span>BC<\/span>), king of Israel (15:16-19). Joash, the king of Judah (835–796 <span>BC<\/span>) who was concealed in the temple from the vicious Athaliah during his youth (2 Kgs 11), made provision for its repair after protesting the priests’ embezzlement of gifts (12:4-16). But after the death of Jehoiada, the high priest, Joash himself was adversely influenced by his nobles (2 Chr 24:15-19). As punishment for his apostasy, the Lord allowed the Syrians to attack, and Joash used the temple treasures to buy them off (2 Kgs 12:17-18). Hardly had provision for replacements been made, when Jehoash of Israel (798–782 <span>BC<\/span>), having shattered the arrogant pride of Amaziah of Judah (796–767 <span>BC<\/span>), again stripped the temple (14:8-14). Later, King Ahaz (735-715 <span>BC<\/span>) used the remaining resources of the temple to enlist support from the Assyrians (16:7-9), though he eventually became completely subservient to them.<\/p>\n<p> Then Hezekiah (715–686 <span>BC<\/span>), one of the great reforming kings, thoroughly renovated the temple and restored worship after it had fallen into disuse during theclosing years of Ahaz (2 Chr 29:1-19; 31:9-21). Manasseh (696–642 <span>BC<\/span>), however, completely reversed his father’s policy, bringing the practices of Canaanite and Mesopotamian worship into the temple (2 Kgs 21:3-7). His conversion experience, which probably occurred late in his reign and resulted in certain reform measures in the temple (2 Chr 33:12-19), was not far-reaching enough to escape the final judgment that his reign was the dark spot of Judah’s history (2 Kgs 21:10-16).<\/p>\n<p>Manasseh’s grandson Josiah (640–609 <span>BC<\/span>), was the second great reforming king. He organized the repair of the temple in 622 <span>BC<\/span>, during which the lost Book of the Law (almost certainly the book of Deuteronomy) was discovered (2 Kgs 22:3-13). As a result, Josiah’s reformation gained a new dimension and sense of urgency (22:14–23:3). The reformation included a thorough purge of all idolatrous elements from the temple (23:4-12) and the restoration of the traditional festivals. Sadly, however, Josiah’s reformation died with him, and Judah’s downward slide continued under the apostate Jehoiakim (609–598 <span>BC<\/span>). It was probably during this time that Jeremiah preached his famous temple sermon foretelling its destruction (Jer 7:1–8:3; 26:1-19), which alienated him from the religious leaders. In Nebuchadnezzar’s reprisal raid following Jehoiakim’s rebellion in 601 <span>BC<\/span> (2 Kgs 24:1-4), Jerusalem was captured (596 <span>BC<\/span>) and many of the temple treasures were transported to Babylon (2 Chr 36:7). The temple itself appears to have escaped damage, but when Judah again rebelled under Zedekiah (597–586 <span>BC<\/span>), the temple was demolished (2 Kgs 25:8-10). The remaining temple treasures were taken away.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"ZerubbabelsTemple\">Zerubbabel’s Temple<\/p>\n<h5>Construction<\/h5>\n<p>Although the temple was devastated, the site still remained as a place of pilgrimage during the exile (Jer 41:4-5). In 538 <span>BC<\/span> the Persian king, Cyrus, in pursuance of a liberal policy diametrically opposed to that of the earlier empires, permitted the Jews to return from exile. And he authorized the rebuilding of the temple, financing it from the Persian treasury.<\/p>\n<p>In the book of Ezra, the decree of authorization has been preserved in two forms: the general proclamation (Ezr 1:2-4) and a more prosaic memorandum in the national archives indicating the main temple specifications and the amount of promised Persian help (6:1-5). Probably only a minority of the Jews opted to leave the relative comforts of Mesopotamia for the dangers of a long journey to their desolated homeland. According to the book of Ezra, 42,360 dedicated individuals and their servants (2:64-65) responded under the leadership of Sheshbazzar (1:8-11; 5:14-16) and Zerubbabel (2:2; 3:2, 8; 4:2). With great enthusiasm, the altar was rebuilt on the temple site and the traditional pattern of worship reestablished (3:1-6). Utilizing the grant from Persia as well as their own freewill gifts (2:68-69; 3:7), the Jews began to plan the second temple and lay its foundations (3:7-13). The initial impetus quickly died as a result of local opposition (4:1-4, 24), selfish preoccupation, and crop failures (Hg 1:2-11). In 520 <span>BC<\/span> (Ezr 4:24; Hg 1:1; Zec 1:1), inspired by the prophets Haggai and Zechariah, the Jews under Zerubbabel and Joshua the high priest commenced rebuilding. Work continued in spite of official suspicion, if not direct opposition, and the temple was completed and dedicated in 515 <span>BC<\/span> (Ezr 5:1–6:22).<\/p>\n<p>Little is known of the physical features of Zerubbabel’s temple. The inference that it was vastly inferior to Solomon’s temple (Hg 2:3) probably relates to an early stage in the building operation. In fact, the second temple stood for over 500 years. The dimensions noted in Ezra 6:3 are incomplete; the new temple was no doubt about the same size as its predecessor and was probably built on the same foundation. The construction technique appears to have followed the method of the original, with layers of timber providing a framework for sections of masonry (v 4). Clearly, there was auxiliary accommodation, probably like the side rooms of Solomon’s temple (Ezr 8:29; Neh 12:44; 13:4-5). If Persian aid was forthcoming as promised (Ezr 6:8-12), the second temple was a more splendid, substantial structure than is generally supposed.<\/p>\n<h5>Later History<\/h5>\n<p>Several references in the Apocrypha, pseudepigrapha, rabbinic writings, and the historian Josephus help to illumine the history of the temple and give more detail on its structure and furnishings. Josephus, quoting from Hecateus of Abdera (fourth century <span>BC<\/span>), states that the temple was a large building in an enclosure about 500 feet by 150 feet (152.4 meters by 45.7 meters), surrounded by a stone wall, with an altar of unhewn stones the same size as Solomon’s bronze altar (cf. 2 Chr 4:1). Within the sanctuary was a golden altar of incense and a lampstand, the flame of which burned continually. Josephus also notes that Antiochus III (223–187 <span>BC<\/span>) financially supported the temple when the Seleucids displaced the Ptolemies as masters of Jerusalem.<\/p>\n<p>Ben Sirach, early in the second century <span>BC<\/span>, commended Simon, the son of Onias the high priest, for his work in fortifying and repairing the temple area. First Maccabees provides valuable evidence of the fate of the temple during the oppression under Antiochus IV Epiphanes (175–164 <span>BC<\/span>). The books of the Maccabees recount the defilement of the altar of burnt offering (1 Macc 1:54) and the plundering of the golden lampstand, altar of incense, table of offering, veil, and other treasures (2 Macc 5:15-16; 6:2-4). When the temple was recaptured and restored, the victorious Maccabees replaced the items taken by the Seleucids, except for the altar of sacrifice, which was considered so polluted that it was dismantled and replaced by a new one constructed of unhewn stone (1 Macc 4:36-61; 2 Macc 10:1-9). Clearly the temple area was used as a fortress, both in opposition to the Seleucid garrison that was maintained in Jerusalem in the Maccabean period and in the conflicts of the later Hasmonean period. When Pompey captured Jerusalem about 63 <span>BC<\/span>, he entered the temple to assert his authority but took no plunder, thus showing respect for it.<\/p>\n<p>The history of Zerubbabel’s temple closed when Herod, having carefully preserved it from any major damage when he gained control of Jerusalem with Roman aid in 37 <span>BC<\/span>, began to dismantle it about 21 <span>BC<\/span> in preparation for the construction of his own grand temple.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"HerodsTemple\">Herod’s Temple<\/p>\n<p>Apart from over 100 references in the NT, our main sources of information about Herod’s temple come from the Jewish historian Josephus and from the Middoth (a section of the Jewish rabbinic writings). There are considerable differences in detail between the two, which rules out any dogmatic interpretation in attempted reconstructions. Since Josephus was contemporary with the temple (he was born about <span>AD<\/span> 37 and died early in the second century), he is probably more reliable than the Middoth, which, dating from about <span>AD<\/span> 150, appears to exaggerate occasionally. Archaeological research has been helpful in determining the positions of the outer walls and gates.<\/p>\n<p>Herod’s motive in building his temple was political rather than religious. As an Idumean, he wished to placate his Jewish subjects by constructing a sanctuary as magnificent as Solomon’s. Possible fears that the site might be profaned, or that the existing temple might be demolished and never rebuilt, were allayed by the training of 1,000 priests as masons and the amassing of materials before the work commenced. Herod’s temple followed the tripartite plan of its predecessors, although its porch was much larger. It was built in the contemporary Greco-Roman architectural style and must therefore be regarded as distinct from Zerubbabel’s temple. Work began in 20 <span>BC<\/span>, and while the main sanctuary was quickly erected (it was in full operation within ten years), the total project was not completed until <span>AD<\/span> 64, only six years before it was destroyed by the Romans.<\/p>\n<p>Herod first prepared the site by clearing and leveling an area approximately 500 yards (457.2 meters) from north to south and about 325 yards (297.2 meters) from east to west. This involved cutting away sections of rock in some areas and building up with rubble in others. Considerable sections of the enclosing wall, constructed on stone blocks averaging about 15 feet (4.6 meters) long by 4 feet (1.2 meters) high, still survive. Some of the stones in the corners of the south wall weigh up to 70 tons (63.5 metric tons).<\/p>\n<p>The sanctuary itself seems to have been based on the same dimensions as Solomon’s temple. It was divided into the Holy Place, which was 60 feet (18.3 meters) long, 30 feet (9.1 meters) wide, and 60 feet high, and the Holy of Holies, which was 30 feet square. There was no furniture within the Holy of Holies, which was separated by a veil from the Holy Place. The Holy Place contained the seven-branch lampstand, the table for the bread of the Presence, and the incense altar. The main divergence from Solomon’s temple was the imposing porch, 150 feet (45.7 meters) in width and height. Outside was a doorway approximately 30 feet (9.1 meters) wide by 40 feet (12.2 meters) high, with an inner doorway about half that size leading into the sanctuary. By allowing empty rooms over the Holy of Holies and the Holy Place, there was a uniform roof height of 150 feet (45.7 meters). Golden spikes on the roof discouraged birds from alighting and defiling the structure. Like its predecessors, the temple was oriented toward the east and was surrounded on the other sides by three stories of rooms rising to a height of 60 feet (18.3 meters). The stone used was the local white stone, cut in huge blocks and highly polished.<\/p>\n<p>Access to the porch was by a flight of 12 steps from the Court of the Priests. Centrally placed before the porch and 33 feet (10.1 meters) away was the altar of sacrifice. Made of unhewn stone, it was a multilevel construction 15 feet (4.6 meters) high and about 48 feet (14.6 meters) square at its base. Male Israelites were allowed into this area once a year, during the Feast of the Tabernacles, to walk around the altar of sacrifice. Otherwise, they were restricted to the Court of Israel. To the east of the Court of Israel, and separated from it by a flight of 15 steps and by the ornate Great Gate, made of Corinthian bronze, was the Court of the Women. Here the offertory chests for temple expenses were located (Mk 12:41-44). The next court was the large, lower, outer Court of the Gentiles, which surrounded the inner courts and was separated from them by a balustrade and a series of warning notices. Two of these have been excavated, written in Latin and Greek and forbidding trespass by Gentiles into the inner areas, on pain of death. This outer court was widely used. Immediately inside its walls was a portico, supported by four rows of columns almost 40 feet (12.2 meters) high on the south side (the Royal Porch), and two rows on the other sides, the eastern portico known as “Solomon’s Porch” or “Solomon’s Colonnade.” Here is the area where the stalls of the money changers and merchants were set up, where the Sanhedrin met, and where Christ and the scribes taught and debated (Mk 11:27; Lk 2:46; 19:47; Jn 10:23). Here, too, the infant church met before it was rejected by a hostile Judaism (Acts 3:11; 5:12). Just to the northwest of the temple enclosure was the Fortress of Antonia, where the Roman governor resided while in Jerusalem, and where a Roman garrison was on hand to deal with disturbances (Acts 21:31-40). Overlooking the temple area, it was separated from it by a wide moat. The high priest’s vestments were stored in the fortress as a symbol of Roman authority. Access to the Court of the Gentiles was by four gates in the west wall; two in the south wall, where the ground fell away steeply into the valley, a site often identified as the pinnacle of the temple (Mt 4:5; Lk 4:9); and one gate in each of the east and north walls.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"SignificanceoftheTempleintheOldTestament\">Significance of the Temple in the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>The temple in Jerusalem functioned as the focal point of the tribal confederation. In spite of the attempt of Jeroboam I, the first king of the northern kingdom, to divert attention from Jerusalem by establishing shrines at Bethel and Dan (1 Kgs 12:26-30), Jerusalem never lost its preeminence. Naturally, both Hezekiah and Josiah sought to extend their reformation into the area of the northern tribes (2 Chr 30:1-12; 34:6-7), and Jerusalem was a pilgrimage center for those areas even after its destruction (Jer 41:5). The prophets foretold its destiny as the focal point of universal worship (Is 2:1-4).<\/p>\n<p>The temple was God’s dwelling place among his people. God’s presence, symbolized in the shekinah glory and the pillar of cloud, was associated with the tent of meeting (Ex 33:9-11), with the tabernacle (40:34-38), and finally with the temple (1 Kgs 8:10-11). The paradox is that while God is completely unrestricted, the temple was considered a place for God to live forever (vv 13, 27). God had chosen Zion, as he had chosen David (Pss 68:15-18; 76:2; 78:67-72), so the temple was regarded as God’s house (27:4; 42:4; 84:1-4).<\/p>\n<h5>Ezekiel’s Temple<\/h5>\n<p>Ezekiel’s detailed description of the ideal temple (Ez 40–48) was not used as the blueprint for Zerubbabel’s temple. In fact, since Ezekiel must have been familiar with Solomon’s temple before his deportation in 597 <span>BC<\/span>, his description is of greater help in determining uncertain details of the first temple. Ezekiel’s concern was to show the nature of pure worship, safeguarded from all contamination. This worship would allow the glory of God, which had departed from corrupted Solomon’s temple (9:3; 10:4, 18-19: 11:22-23), to return so that Jerusalem could again be named “the Lord is there” (43:1-5; 48:35). This thought, linked with Ezekiel’s vital concept of God’s Spirit indwelling his faithful worshipers (36:24-28), anticipated the NT teaching of the believers becoming God’s temple.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"SignificanceoftheTempleintheNewTestament\">Significance of the Temple in the New Testament<\/p>\n<h5>Christ and the Temple<\/h5>\n<p>Christ showed considerable respect for the temple. When he was 12 years old, he entered into the rabbinic discussions in its porticoes and described it as his Father’s house (Lk 2:41-50). To him “the house of God” was indwelt by God (Mt 12:4; 23:21). Although he twice cleansed it in righteous anger (Mt 21:12-13; Jn 2:13-16), he wept over the impending destruction of the city and temple (Lk 19:41-44). He often taught there, but he was “greater than the temple” (Mt 12:6). When his presentation to Jerusalem as the predicted Messiah was rejected, in spite of attendant miracles, he foretold its inevitable destruction (Mt 21:9-15; 24:1-2). For a brief period after Pentecost, the early church used the temple as its meeting place, until mounting opposition drove believers from Jerusalem (Acts 5:12, 21, 42; 8:1).<\/p>\n<h5>The Church as the Temple<\/h5>\n<p>The NT writers used two different Greek words to describe the temple: <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">naos<\/span> and <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">hieron<\/span><em>.<\/em> <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">Naos<\/span> refers to the actual sanctuary of the temple, the place of God’s dwelling. <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">Hieron<\/span> refers to the temple precincts as well as to the sanctuary. Generally speaking, <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">naos<\/span> was used to designate the inner section of the temple known as the Holy Place and the Holy of Holies, whereas <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">hieron<\/span> included the outer court and the temple proper.<\/p>\n<p>In Paul’s epistles the word <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">naos<\/span> appears six times (1 Cor 3:16-17; 6:19; 2 Cor 6:16; Eph 2:21; 2 Thes 2:4) and <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">hieron<\/span> once (1 Cor 9:13). In these verses Paul maintains the distinction of definition noted above. When speaking of the actual physical temple, he used the word <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">hieron<\/span> to indicate the place where the priests offered up animal sacrifices on the altar (1 Cor 9:13), which was situated in the outer court (see Ex 27–29, 40). And when Paul referred to the abominable act of the lawless one in usurping God’s place in the temple, he used the word <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">naos<\/span>—the word that designates the place of deity’s presence (2 Thes 2:4).<\/p>\n<p>In all the other Pauline passages, <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">naos<\/span> is used metaphorically—to depict a human habitation for the divine Spirit. In one instance the sanctuary image is used to describe the individual believer’s body (1 Cor 6:19); in every other instance the sanctuary depicts Christ’s body, the church (1 Cor 3:16-17; 2 Cor 6:16; Eph 2:21). Mistakenly, many readers think 1 Corinthians 3:16-17 speaks of the individual, but according to the Greek text, it is unquestionably clear that Paul was speaking about the collective church (specifically, the church in Corinth).<\/p>\n<p>When Paul told the church in Corinth that it was God’s sanctuary, they would have understood the image from their knowledge of pagan temples. But Paul probably had in mind the one temple in Jerusalem. The Gentiles had many gods with many temples in one city; the Jews had one God with only one temple in all of Israel. This helped to preserve unity among the Israelites. The Corinthians needed spiritual unity; they were fragmented due to their individual preferences (see 1 Cor 1:10-13).<\/p>\n<p>In Ephesians, Paul’s masterpiece on the church, he speaks of the local churches as living, organic entities that are all (compositely speaking) growing into a holy sanctuary in the Lord (Eph 2:21). Paul pictured each local church as providing God with a spiritual habitation in that locality (v 22) and as growing together with all the other churches into one holy, universal sanctuary for the Lord’s indwelling.<\/p>\n<h5>The Temple in John’s Revelation<\/h5>\n<p>In John’s revelation there is no material temple, even though he continues to use the imagery of Jerusalem and Mt Zion (Rv 3:12; 14:1; 21:2, 10, 22). Three interrelated ideas dominate. First is the concept of the church made up of martyrs, whose faithful members are God’s temple (3:12; 14:1). This temple grows gradually as the number of martyrs increases (6:11). Another aspect is the temple as the place of judgment (11:19; 14:15; 15:5–16:1). Finally, any temple in the new age is unnecessary, “for its temple is the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb” (21:22). The ultimate state will be God’s dwelling with his people—the eternal, spritual temple.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Altar; Ark of the Covenant; Bread of the Presence; David; Feasts and Festivals of Israel; First Jewish Revolt; Judaism; Mercy Seat; Offerings and Sacrifices; Priests and Levites; Sanctuary; Singers in the Temple; Solomon (Person).<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>TEMPLE<\/h3>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Background<\/p>\n<p>• Solomon’s Temple<\/p>\n<p>• Zerubbabel’s Temple<\/p>\n<p>• Herod’s Temple<\/p>\n<p>• Significance of the Temple in the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>• Significance of the Temple in the New Testament<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Background\">Background<\/p>\n<p>David’s capture of Jerusalem (2 Sm 5:6-9) and his designation of it as the nation’s capital is one of the great masterstrokes of history. Occupied by the Jebusites, it was a pocket of neutral territory between the northern and southern sections of David’s united kingdom and was politically acceptable to both. Jerusalem was then established as the national religious center by the return of the ark, which had been largely neglected since its capture by the Philistines (2 Sm 6:1-17). Henceforth, God’s choices of both David and Jerusalem (“Mount Zion”) were indissolubly linked (Ps 78:67-72).<\/p>\n<p>David’s great impulse was to build an adequate dwelling place for Israel’s God. The idea was initially approved by Nathan the prophet (2 Sm 7:1-3), but God revealed otherwise to him, and he conveyed the divine purpose to David (vv 4-17). In a significant wordplay, David was informed that, while he was not to build a house (temple) for God, God would build a house (dynasty) for him. David was not the one to build a temple because of the numerous wars during his reign; the temple would instead be built by his son (1 Kgs 5:3; 1 Chr 22:7-8; 28:3). Nevertheless, David enthusiastically amassed most of the necessary finances and materials and drew up the blueprints for the temple (1 Chr 22:3-5, 14; 28:2, 11-19). He also purchased the temple site (21:25).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"SolomonsTemple\">Solomon’s Temple<\/p>\n\n<h5>Date<\/h5>\n<p>Construction commenced in Solomon’s fourth year, about 966 <span>BC<\/span>, and took seven years to complete (1 Kgs 6:1, 38). Everything necessary for the temple, including the workers, had been prepared by David (1 Chr 28:21). The temple evidently had first priority among Solomon’s building schemes, as he built his own palace later (1 Kgs 7:1).<\/p>\n<h5>Superintendents and Workforce<\/h5>\n<p>The principal architect for the bronze furnishings was Huram (Hebrew “Hiram”), whose father was a metal craftsman from Tyre and whose mother was an Israelite (1 Kgs 7:13-14). Cedar for the temple came from Lebanon and was felled and transported by the skilled woodsmen of another Hiram—the king of Tyre, Solomon’s ally (5:5-9). Thirty thousand Israelites, divided into three groups, were drafted to assist at Lebanon. Each group was on duty for one month in three. For the stonework, Solomon conscripted 153,600 foreigners resident in Israel to provide a self-contained group of carriers, stone cutters, and supervisors (vv 15-17; 2 Chr 2:17-18). Possibly the “men of Gebal,” with their specialized skills, formed yet another group (1 Kgs 5:18). Building the temple was obviously a national project of immense size and effort. In order to preserve the sanctity of the site and to eliminate noise, the masonry and carpentry were not done at the temple site (6:7).<\/p>\n<h5>Description<\/h5>\n<p>The details given in the Bible are sufficiently clear for us to make a reasonably accurate description of the temple. The accounts in Kings and Chronicles are supplemented by Ezekiel’s depiction of the temple (see below), which was broadly based on his knowledge of the Jerusalem temple (Ez 40–48).<\/p>\n<p>The side rooms probably rested on a foundation or platform that was separate from the temple itself (1 Kgs 6:5, 10; cf. Ez 41:8-9) and were arranged in three stories, each seven and a half feet (2.3 meters) high, extending around the whole building except for the porch side. Each successive story was one and a half feet (.5 meter) wider than the one below, these dimensions coinciding with the thickness of the side wall of the Holy Place. The ground floor rooms were seven and a half feet (2.3 meters) wide; the first story was nine feet (2.7 meters), and the second was ten and a half feet (3.2 meters). Access to the upper stories was possibly by winding staircases (1 Kgs 6:8). There is some uncertainty concerning the location of the entrances; there may have been one on either side, but only one is mentioned (v 8). As in Ezekiel’s temple (Ez 40:17, 28), there were two adjacent courts, an inner and an outer (1 Kgs 6:36; 7:12), but no dimensions are given for these. The inner court, or “court of the priests,” being next to the temple itself, was also called “the upper court” (2 Chr 4:9; Jer 36:10). The wall of the inner court was made of three layers of hewn stone held together by a layer of cedar beams (1 Kgs 6:36), and the doors of both courts were sheathed in bronze (2 Chr 4:9). The palace buildings were within the outer court area, probably with a private passageway between the palace and the temple that was later closed during the reign of Ahaz (2 Chr 4:9, 12; 2 Kgs 16:18).<\/p>\n<p>The temple itself was 90 feet (27.4 meters) long, 30 feet (9.1 meters) wide, and 45 feet (13.7 meters) high (1 Kgs 6:2), with a porch or vestibule 15 feet (4.6 meters) deep stretching across the width. Probably the vestibule was on the east end of the temple, thus corresponding with the orientation of Ezekiel’s temple (Ez 43:1; 44:1). The larger part of the main sanctuary, next to the porch, formed the Holy Place, which was 60 feet (18.3 meters) long (1 Kgs 6:17). Beyond this was the innermost sanctuary, the Holy of Holies (or the “Most Holy Place“), which was a perfect cube of 30 feet (9.1 meters). All the interior walls were paneled with cedar decorated with flower patterns, cherubim, and palm trees, so that no masonry was visible. The walls of both inner and outer sanctuaries were “overlaid” (v 22) with pure gold. Actually the gold decoration may have been inlaid, on the basis that a solid sheath of gold would spoil the natural beauty of the wood carving. The floor was made of cypress planks (v 15). Narrow windows set high in the walls above the level of the three-storied outer chambers provided light in the Holy Place (v 4). The ceiling was paneled with beams and planks of cedar. No detail is given about the exterior roofing, but probably the contemporary technique was employed, using a wooden, latticelike framework into which a waterproof, limestone plaster was packed and rolled.<\/p>\n<p>The outer porch was apparently an open space, since no doors are mentioned. Access into the Holy Place was by double doors, both hinged to fold back on themselves, made of cypress and decorated in exactly the same way as the interior walls (vv 34-35). The doorposts were made of olive wood. Within the Holy Place was the altar of incense made of cedar overlaid with gold; it was placed centrally before the Holy of Holies. Also in the Holy Place were a table for the bread of the Presence of God, ten lampstands arranged in two groups of five on either side, and various utensils required for maintaining the priestly duties (1 Kgs 7:48-50). All these were made or overlaid with gold. The ten tables, arranged five on each side, were presumably for the utensils and accessories (2 Chr 4:8).<\/p>\n<p>Between the Holy Place and the Holy of Holies was a double door made of olive wood, carved with cherubim, palm trees, and flower patterns and overlaid with gold. Inside these doors, veiling still further the Holy of Holies, was a blue, purple, and crimson curtain, made of the finest fabrics and ornamented with cherubim (2 Chr 3:14).<\/p>\n<p>In the Holy of Holies were two cherubim, each 15 feet (4.6 meters) high and made of olive wood covered with gold (1 Kgs 6:23-28). Each wing measured seven and a half feet (2.3 meters). A wing of each touched the side walls; the other wings met at the center of the room. The divine throne had been considerably less impressive in the tabernacle, where a wing of each cherubim fused into the mercy seat above the ark (Ex 25:17-22). In Solomon’s temple, the ark of the covenant was placed below the forward-facing cherubim, the symbolic protectors. The ark, the only major item surviving from the Mosaic tabernacle, still contained the tablets of the law, but the pot of manna and Aaron’s rod were missing (1 Kgs 8:9).<\/p>\n<p>Immediately outside the temple and on either side of the vestibule were two hollow bronze pillars (1 Kgs 7:15-20; 2 Chr 3:15-17). According to the book of Kings, these pillars were 27 feet (8.2 meters) high, with a circumference of 18 feet (5.5 meters). The metal itself was about four inches (10.2 centimeters) thick. The pillars were surmounted by bronze, lily-shaped capitals seven and a half feet (2.3 meters) high and six feet (1.8 meters) wide, intricately adorned with a chain latticework that supported two rows of pomegranates. The total weight must have been enormous, and their size is attested to by Jeremiah, who notes that the Babylonians had to break them in pieces before transporting them to Babylon (Jer 52:17, 21-23).<\/p>\n<p>The bronze altar of sacrifice in front of the vestibule is not listed in the specifications of 1 Kings 7. However, it is mentioned in the temple dedication and subsequently (1 Kgs 8:22, 54, 64; 9:25) and clearly stood in the inner court. Its dimensions were 30 feet (9.1 meters) square and 15 feet (4.6 meters) high (2 Chr 4:1). In view of its weight, it was probably cast in sections at Solomon’s foundry in the Jordan Rift valley (vv 17-18) and then transported to the temple site for assembly.<\/p>\n<p>Probably the most striking article in the inner court was the “molten (bronze) sea,” a huge, round tank made of bronze 3 inches (8 centimeters) thick, 7½ feet (2.3 meters) high, and 15 feet (4.6 meters) in diameter (1 Kgs 7:23-26). Its rim flared out like a lily (2 Chr 4:2-5). The tank was supported on 12 bronze oxen, four on each side, and had two rows of decoration, possibly gourds or pomegranates, under the brim. Its capacity was between 10,000 and 12,000 gallons (37,850–45,420 liters). The bronze sea was used for priestly ablutions (v 6). Presumably this involved a platform of sorts, for the brim of this vast basin would have been about 15 feet (4.6 meters) above ground level.<\/p>\n<p>Hiram also constructed ten large lavers, mounted on moveable stands and placed in two groups of five, on the north and south sides of the inner court (1 Kgs 7:27-39). Basically the stands were bronze boxes, six feet (1.8 meters) square and four and a half feet (1.4 meters) high with a nine-inch (22.9-centimeter) rim around the top edge. Each corner was attached to braced posts to which the axles were fixed. The four-spoked wheels were 27 inches (68.6 centimeters) high. Into each stand there fitted a laver containing approximately 220 gallons (832.7 liters) of water, used for washing sacrificial animals (2 Chr 4:6). Probably each was adjacent to one of the ten tables that would be used to flay and otherwise prepare the sacrifices (v 8). Supplementary items, such as pots, shovels, and basins, all made of bronze, were also manufactured (1 Kgs 7:40, 45).<\/p>\n<h5>The Dedication<\/h5>\n<p>Eleven months elapsed between the completion of the temple and its dedication (1 Kgs 6:38; 8:2), during which time the major items of furniture were set in place. The dedication itself took place in the seventh month, presumably in connection with the Feast of Tabernacles and the Day of Atonement (Lv 23:23-36). The ark of the covenant was brought into its final resting place (1 Kgs 8:3-4), but the inner court proved inadequate for the vast numbers of beasts sacrificed (1 Kgs 8:62-64; 2 Chr 7:7).<\/p>\n<p>The temple employed the most sophisticated building techniques of the age, and no expense had been spared in construction, ornamentation, or equipment. Yet Solomon readily confessed its utter inadequacy to house the eternal God (1 Kgs 8:27). His prayer also underlined Israel’s propensity to forsake the Lord, contrasting the nation with God, who, though a just judge, was also merciful and faithful. The climax of the proceedings came when fire from heaven consumed the sacrifices and the shekinah glory filled the temple (2 Chr 7:1-3).<\/p>\n<h5>Later History<\/h5>\n<p>Like most ancient shrines, the temple became a treasury for national wealth and as such was often the target for attack. Shishak of Egypt plundered it within five years of Solomon’s death (1 Kgs 14:25-38). Shortly afterward, King Asa (910–869 <span>BC<\/span>) depleted its gold and silver treasures to buy Syrian help against his oppressor, Baasha (908–886 <span>BC<\/span>), king of Israel (15:16-19). Joash, the king of Judah (835–796 <span>BC<\/span>) who was concealed in the temple from the vicious Athaliah during his youth (2 Kgs 11), made provision for its repair after protesting the priests’ embezzlement of gifts (12:4-16). But after the death of Jehoiada, the high priest, Joash himself was adversely influenced by his nobles (2 Chr 24:15-19). As punishment for his apostasy, the Lord allowed the Syrians to attack, and Joash used the temple treasures to buy them off (2 Kgs 12:17-18). Hardly had provision for replacements been made, when Jehoash of Israel (798–782 <span>BC<\/span>), having shattered the arrogant pride of Amaziah of Judah (796–767 <span>BC<\/span>), again stripped the temple (14:8-14). Later, King Ahaz (735-715 <span>BC<\/span>) used the remaining resources of the temple to enlist support from the Assyrians (16:7-9), though he eventually became completely subservient to them.<\/p>\n<p> Then Hezekiah (715–686 <span>BC<\/span>), one of the great reforming kings, thoroughly renovated the temple and restored worship after it had fallen into disuse during theclosing years of Ahaz (2 Chr 29:1-19; 31:9-21). Manasseh (696–642 <span>BC<\/span>), however, completely reversed his father’s policy, bringing the practices of Canaanite and Mesopotamian worship into the temple (2 Kgs 21:3-7). His conversion experience, which probably occurred late in his reign and resulted in certain reform measures in the temple (2 Chr 33:12-19), was not far-reaching enough to escape the final judgment that his reign was the dark spot of Judah’s history (2 Kgs 21:10-16).<\/p>\n<p>Manasseh’s grandson Josiah (640–609 <span>BC<\/span>), was the second great reforming king. He organized the repair of the temple in 622 <span>BC<\/span>, during which the lost Book of the Law (almost certainly the book of Deuteronomy) was discovered (2 Kgs 22:3-13). As a result, Josiah’s reformation gained a new dimension and sense of urgency (22:14–23:3). The reformation included a thorough purge of all idolatrous elements from the temple (23:4-12) and the restoration of the traditional festivals. Sadly, however, Josiah’s reformation died with him, and Judah’s downward slide continued under the apostate Jehoiakim (609–598 <span>BC<\/span>). It was probably during this time that Jeremiah preached his famous temple sermon foretelling its destruction (Jer 7:1–8:3; 26:1-19), which alienated him from the religious leaders. In Nebuchadnezzar’s reprisal raid following Jehoiakim’s rebellion in 601 <span>BC<\/span> (2 Kgs 24:1-4), Jerusalem was captured (596 <span>BC<\/span>) and many of the temple treasures were transported to Babylon (2 Chr 36:7). The temple itself appears to have escaped damage, but when Judah again rebelled under Zedekiah (597–586 <span>BC<\/span>), the temple was demolished (2 Kgs 25:8-10). The remaining temple treasures were taken away.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"ZerubbabelsTemple\">Zerubbabel’s Temple<\/p>\n<h5>Construction<\/h5>\n<p>Although the temple was devastated, the site still remained as a place of pilgrimage during the exile (Jer 41:4-5). In 538 <span>BC<\/span> the Persian king, Cyrus, in pursuance of a liberal policy diametrically opposed to that of the earlier empires, permitted the Jews to return from exile. And he authorized the rebuilding of the temple, financing it from the Persian treasury.<\/p>\n<p>In the book of Ezra, the decree of authorization has been preserved in two forms: the general proclamation (Ezr 1:2-4) and a more prosaic memorandum in the national archives indicating the main temple specifications and the amount of promised Persian help (6:1-5). Probably only a minority of the Jews opted to leave the relative comforts of Mesopotamia for the dangers of a long journey to their desolated homeland. According to the book of Ezra, 42,360 dedicated individuals and their servants (2:64-65) responded under the leadership of Sheshbazzar (1:8-11; 5:14-16) and Zerubbabel (2:2; 3:2, 8; 4:2). With great enthusiasm, the altar was rebuilt on the temple site and the traditional pattern of worship reestablished (3:1-6). Utilizing the grant from Persia as well as their own freewill gifts (2:68-69; 3:7), the Jews began to plan the second temple and lay its foundations (3:7-13). The initial impetus quickly died as a result of local opposition (4:1-4, 24), selfish preoccupation, and crop failures (Hg 1:2-11). In 520 <span>BC<\/span> (Ezr 4:24; Hg 1:1; Zec 1:1), inspired by the prophets Haggai and Zechariah, the Jews under Zerubbabel and Joshua the high priest commenced rebuilding. Work continued in spite of official suspicion, if not direct opposition, and the temple was completed and dedicated in 515 <span>BC<\/span> (Ezr 5:1–6:22).<\/p>\n<p>Little is known of the physical features of Zerubbabel’s temple. The inference that it was vastly inferior to Solomon’s temple (Hg 2:3) probably relates to an early stage in the building operation. In fact, the second temple stood for over 500 years. The dimensions noted in Ezra 6:3 are incomplete; the new temple was no doubt about the same size as its predecessor and was probably built on the same foundation. The construction technique appears to have followed the method of the original, with layers of timber providing a framework for sections of masonry (v 4). Clearly, there was auxiliary accommodation, probably like the side rooms of Solomon’s temple (Ezr 8:29; Neh 12:44; 13:4-5). If Persian aid was forthcoming as promised (Ezr 6:8-12), the second temple was a more splendid, substantial structure than is generally supposed.<\/p>\n<h5>Later History<\/h5>\n<p>Several references in the Apocrypha, pseudepigrapha, rabbinic writings, and the historian Josephus help to illumine the history of the temple and give more detail on its structure and furnishings. Josephus, quoting from Hecateus of Abdera (fourth century <span>BC<\/span>), states that the temple was a large building in an enclosure about 500 feet by 150 feet (152.4 meters by 45.7 meters), surrounded by a stone wall, with an altar of unhewn stones the same size as Solomon’s bronze altar (cf. 2 Chr 4:1). Within the sanctuary was a golden altar of incense and a lampstand, the flame of which burned continually. Josephus also notes that Antiochus III (223–187 <span>BC<\/span>) financially supported the temple when the Seleucids displaced the Ptolemies as masters of Jerusalem.<\/p>\n<p>Ben Sirach, early in the second century <span>BC<\/span>, commended Simon, the son of Onias the high priest, for his work in fortifying and repairing the temple area. First Maccabees provides valuable evidence of the fate of the temple during the oppression under Antiochus IV Epiphanes (175–164 <span>BC<\/span>). The books of the Maccabees recount the defilement of the altar of burnt offering (1 Macc 1:54) and the plundering of the golden lampstand, altar of incense, table of offering, veil, and other treasures (2 Macc 5:15-16; 6:2-4). When the temple was recaptured and restored, the victorious Maccabees replaced the items taken by the Seleucids, except for the altar of sacrifice, which was considered so polluted that it was dismantled and replaced by a new one constructed of unhewn stone (1 Macc 4:36-61; 2 Macc 10:1-9). Clearly the temple area was used as a fortress, both in opposition to the Seleucid garrison that was maintained in Jerusalem in the Maccabean period and in the conflicts of the later Hasmonean period. When Pompey captured Jerusalem about 63 <span>BC<\/span>, he entered the temple to assert his authority but took no plunder, thus showing respect for it.<\/p>\n<p>The history of Zerubbabel’s temple closed when Herod, having carefully preserved it from any major damage when he gained control of Jerusalem with Roman aid in 37 <span>BC<\/span>, began to dismantle it about 21 <span>BC<\/span> in preparation for the construction of his own grand temple.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"HerodsTemple\">Herod’s Temple<\/p>\n<p>Apart from over 100 references in the NT, our main sources of information about Herod’s temple come from the Jewish historian Josephus and from the Middoth (a section of the Jewish rabbinic writings). There are considerable differences in detail between the two, which rules out any dogmatic interpretation in attempted reconstructions. Since Josephus was contemporary with the temple (he was born about <span>AD<\/span> 37 and died early in the second century), he is probably more reliable than the Middoth, which, dating from about <span>AD<\/span> 150, appears to exaggerate occasionally. Archaeological research has been helpful in determining the positions of the outer walls and gates.<\/p>\n<p>Herod’s motive in building his temple was political rather than religious. As an Idumean, he wished to placate his Jewish subjects by constructing a sanctuary as magnificent as Solomon’s. Possible fears that the site might be profaned, or that the existing temple might be demolished and never rebuilt, were allayed by the training of 1,000 priests as masons and the amassing of materials before the work commenced. Herod’s temple followed the tripartite plan of its predecessors, although its porch was much larger. It was built in the contemporary Greco-Roman architectural style and must therefore be regarded as distinct from Zerubbabel’s temple. Work began in 20 <span>BC<\/span>, and while the main sanctuary was quickly erected (it was in full operation within ten years), the total project was not completed until <span>AD<\/span> 64, only six years before it was destroyed by the Romans.<\/p>\n<p>Herod first prepared the site by clearing and leveling an area approximately 500 yards (457.2 meters) from north to south and about 325 yards (297.2 meters) from east to west. This involved cutting away sections of rock in some areas and building up with rubble in others. Considerable sections of the enclosing wall, constructed on stone blocks averaging about 15 feet (4.6 meters) long by 4 feet (1.2 meters) high, still survive. Some of the stones in the corners of the south wall weigh up to 70 tons (63.5 metric tons).<\/p>\n<p>The sanctuary itself seems to have been based on the same dimensions as Solomon’s temple. It was divided into the Holy Place, which was 60 feet (18.3 meters) long, 30 feet (9.1 meters) wide, and 60 feet high, and the Holy of Holies, which was 30 feet square. There was no furniture within the Holy of Holies, which was separated by a veil from the Holy Place. The Holy Place contained the seven-branch lampstand, the table for the bread of the Presence, and the incense altar. The main divergence from Solomon’s temple was the imposing porch, 150 feet (45.7 meters) in width and height. Outside was a doorway approximately 30 feet (9.1 meters) wide by 40 feet (12.2 meters) high, with an inner doorway about half that size leading into the sanctuary. By allowing empty rooms over the Holy of Holies and the Holy Place, there was a uniform roof height of 150 feet (45.7 meters). Golden spikes on the roof discouraged birds from alighting and defiling the structure. Like its predecessors, the temple was oriented toward the east and was surrounded on the other sides by three stories of rooms rising to a height of 60 feet (18.3 meters). The stone used was the local white stone, cut in huge blocks and highly polished.<\/p>\n<p>Access to the porch was by a flight of 12 steps from the Court of the Priests. Centrally placed before the porch and 33 feet (10.1 meters) away was the altar of sacrifice. Made of unhewn stone, it was a multilevel construction 15 feet (4.6 meters) high and about 48 feet (14.6 meters) square at its base. Male Israelites were allowed into this area once a year, during the Feast of the Tabernacles, to walk around the altar of sacrifice. Otherwise, they were restricted to the Court of Israel. To the east of the Court of Israel, and separated from it by a flight of 15 steps and by the ornate Great Gate, made of Corinthian bronze, was the Court of the Women. Here the offertory chests for temple expenses were located (Mk 12:41-44). The next court was the large, lower, outer Court of the Gentiles, which surrounded the inner courts and was separated from them by a balustrade and a series of warning notices. Two of these have been excavated, written in Latin and Greek and forbidding trespass by Gentiles into the inner areas, on pain of death. This outer court was widely used. Immediately inside its walls was a portico, supported by four rows of columns almost 40 feet (12.2 meters) high on the south side (the Royal Porch), and two rows on the other sides, the eastern portico known as “Solomon’s Porch” or “Solomon’s Colonnade.” Here is the area where the stalls of the money changers and merchants were set up, where the Sanhedrin met, and where Christ and the scribes taught and debated (Mk 11:27; Lk 2:46; 19:47; Jn 10:23). Here, too, the infant church met before it was rejected by a hostile Judaism (Acts 3:11; 5:12). Just to the northwest of the temple enclosure was the Fortress of Antonia, where the Roman governor resided while in Jerusalem, and where a Roman garrison was on hand to deal with disturbances (Acts 21:31-40). Overlooking the temple area, it was separated from it by a wide moat. The high priest’s vestments were stored in the fortress as a symbol of Roman authority. Access to the Court of the Gentiles was by four gates in the west wall; two in the south wall, where the ground fell away steeply into the valley, a site often identified as the pinnacle of the temple (Mt 4:5; Lk 4:9); and one gate in each of the east and north walls.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"SignificanceoftheTempleintheOldTestament\">Significance of the Temple in the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>The temple in Jerusalem functioned as the focal point of the tribal confederation. In spite of the attempt of Jeroboam I, the first king of the northern kingdom, to divert attention from Jerusalem by establishing shrines at Bethel and Dan (1 Kgs 12:26-30), Jerusalem never lost its preeminence. Naturally, both Hezekiah and Josiah sought to extend their reformation into the area of the northern tribes (2 Chr 30:1-12; 34:6-7), and Jerusalem was a pilgrimage center for those areas even after its destruction (Jer 41:5). The prophets foretold its destiny as the focal point of universal worship (Is 2:1-4).<\/p>\n<p>The temple was God’s dwelling place among his people. God’s presence, symbolized in the shekinah glory and the pillar of cloud, was associated with the tent of meeting (Ex 33:9-11), with the tabernacle (40:34-38), and finally with the temple (1 Kgs 8:10-11). The paradox is that while God is completely unrestricted, the temple was considered a place for God to live forever (vv 13, 27). God had chosen Zion, as he had chosen David (Pss 68:15-18; 76:2; 78:67-72), so the temple was regarded as God’s house (27:4; 42:4; 84:1-4).<\/p>\n<h5>Ezekiel’s Temple<\/h5>\n<p>Ezekiel’s detailed description of the ideal temple (Ez 40–48) was not used as the blueprint for Zerubbabel’s temple. In fact, since Ezekiel must have been familiar with Solomon’s temple before his deportation in 597 <span>BC<\/span>, his description is of greater help in determining uncertain details of the first temple. Ezekiel’s concern was to show the nature of pure worship, safeguarded from all contamination. This worship would allow the glory of God, which had departed from corrupted Solomon’s temple (9:3; 10:4, 18-19: 11:22-23), to return so that Jerusalem could again be named “the Lord is there” (43:1-5; 48:35). This thought, linked with Ezekiel’s vital concept of God’s Spirit indwelling his faithful worshipers (36:24-28), anticipated the NT teaching of the believers becoming God’s temple.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"SignificanceoftheTempleintheNewTestament\">Significance of the Temple in the New Testament<\/p>\n<h5>Christ and the Temple<\/h5>\n<p>Christ showed considerable respect for the temple. When he was 12 years old, he entered into the rabbinic discussions in its porticoes and described it as his Father’s house (Lk 2:41-50). To him “the house of God” was indwelt by God (Mt 12:4; 23:21). Although he twice cleansed it in righteous anger (Mt 21:12-13; Jn 2:13-16), he wept over the impending destruction of the city and temple (Lk 19:41-44). He often taught there, but he was “greater than the temple” (Mt 12:6). When his presentation to Jerusalem as the predicted Messiah was rejected, in spite of attendant miracles, he foretold its inevitable destruction (Mt 21:9-15; 24:1-2). For a brief period after Pentecost, the early church used the temple as its meeting place, until mounting opposition drove believers from Jerusalem (Acts 5:12, 21, 42; 8:1).<\/p>\n<h5>The Church as the Temple<\/h5>\n<p>The NT writers used two different Greek words to describe the temple: <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">naos<\/span> and <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">hieron<\/span><em>.<\/em> <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">Naos<\/span> refers to the actual sanctuary of the temple, the place of God’s dwelling. <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">Hieron<\/span> refers to the temple precincts as well as to the sanctuary. Generally speaking, <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">naos<\/span> was used to designate the inner section of the temple known as the Holy Place and the Holy of Holies, whereas <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">hieron<\/span> included the outer court and the temple proper.<\/p>\n<p>In Paul’s epistles the word <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">naos<\/span> appears six times (1 Cor 3:16-17; 6:19; 2 Cor 6:16; Eph 2:21; 2 Thes 2:4) and <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">hieron<\/span> once (1 Cor 9:13). In these verses Paul maintains the distinction of definition noted above. When speaking of the actual physical temple, he used the word <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">hieron<\/span> to indicate the place where the priests offered up animal sacrifices on the altar (1 Cor 9:13), which was situated in the outer court (see Ex 27–29, 40). And when Paul referred to the abominable act of the lawless one in usurping God’s place in the temple, he used the word <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">naos<\/span>—the word that designates the place of deity’s presence (2 Thes 2:4).<\/p>\n<p>In all the other Pauline passages, <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">naos<\/span> is used metaphorically—to depict a human habitation for the divine Spirit. In one instance the sanctuary image is used to describe the individual believer’s body (1 Cor 6:19); in every other instance the sanctuary depicts Christ’s body, the church (1 Cor 3:16-17; 2 Cor 6:16; Eph 2:21). Mistakenly, many readers think 1 Corinthians 3:16-17 speaks of the individual, but according to the Greek text, it is unquestionably clear that Paul was speaking about the collective church (specifically, the church in Corinth).<\/p>\n<p>When Paul told the church in Corinth that it was God’s sanctuary, they would have understood the image from their knowledge of pagan temples. But Paul probably had in mind the one temple in Jerusalem. The Gentiles had many gods with many temples in one city; the Jews had one God with only one temple in all of Israel. This helped to preserve unity among the Israelites. The Corinthians needed spiritual unity; they were fragmented due to their individual preferences (see 1 Cor 1:10-13).<\/p>\n<p>In Ephesians, Paul’s masterpiece on the church, he speaks of the local churches as living, organic entities that are all (compositely speaking) growing into a holy sanctuary in the Lord (Eph 2:21). Paul pictured each local church as providing God with a spiritual habitation in that locality (v 22) and as growing together with all the other churches into one holy, universal sanctuary for the Lord’s indwelling.<\/p>\n<h5>The Temple in John’s Revelation<\/h5>\n<p>In John’s revelation there is no material temple, even though he continues to use the imagery of Jerusalem and Mt Zion (Rv 3:12; 14:1; 21:2, 10, 22). Three interrelated ideas dominate. First is the concept of the church made up of martyrs, whose faithful members are God’s temple (3:12; 14:1). This temple grows gradually as the number of martyrs increases (6:11). Another aspect is the temple as the place of judgment (11:19; 14:15; 15:5–16:1). Finally, any temple in the new age is unnecessary, “for its temple is the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb” (21:22). The ultimate state will be God’s dwelling with his people—the eternal, spritual temple.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Altar; Ark of the Covenant; Bread of the Presence; David; Feasts and Festivals of Israel; First Jewish Revolt; Judaism; Mercy Seat; Offerings and Sacrifices; Priests and Levites; Sanctuary; Singers in the Temple; Solomon (Person).<\/p>","summary_ro":"TEMPLE Preview • Background • Solomon’s Temple • Zerubbabel’s Temple • Herod’s Temple • Significance of the Temple in the Old Testament • Significance of the Temple in the New Testament Background David’s capture of Jerusalem (2 Sm 5:6-9) and his designation of it as the nation’s capital is one of the great masterstrokes of history. Occupied by the Jebusites, it was a pocket of neutral territory between the northern and southern sections of David’s united kingdom and was politically acceptabl...","summary_en":"TEMPLE Preview • Background • Solomon’s Temple • Zerubbabel’s Temple • Herod’s Temple • Significance of the Temple in the Old Testament • Significance of the Temple in the New Testament Background David’s capture of Jerusalem (2 Sm 5:6-9) and his designation of it as the nation’s capital is one of the great masterstrokes of history. Occupied by the Jebusites, it was a pocket of neutral territory between the northern and southern sections of David’s united kingdom and was politically acceptabl...","source":"Articles\/T.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"19":[{"id":47396,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: 2 Împărați 16:19","title_en":"Study Note: 2 Împărați 16:19","content_ro":"<p><strong>16:19<\/strong> <em>The rest of the events in Ahaz’s reign:<\/em> In further rejection of the Lord, Ahaz removed the utensils from the Temple “and broke them into pieces” (2 Chr 28:24). He then closed the Temple and discontinued services there, instead promoting paganism throughout the land (2 Chr 28:25; 29:7). In redefining the worship of Judah so completely, his apostasy was similar to that of Jeroboam I (cp. 2 Kgs 3:3; 13:2; 16:2-4; 17:21; 1 Kgs 12:25-33; 16:26; 22:52)<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>16:19<\/strong> <em>The rest of the events in Ahaz’s reign:<\/em> In further rejection of the Lord, Ahaz removed the utensils from the Temple “and broke them into pieces” (2 Chr 28:24). He then closed the Temple and discontinued services there, instead promoting paganism throughout the land (2 Chr 28:25; 29:7). In redefining the worship of Judah so completely, his apostasy was similar to that of Jeroboam I (cp. 2 Kgs 3:3; 13:2; 16:2-4; 17:21; 1 Kgs 12:25-33; 16:26; 22:52)<\/p>","summary_ro":"16:19 The rest of the events in Ahaz’s reign: In further rejection of the Lord, Ahaz removed the utensils from the Temple “and broke them into pieces” (2 Chr 28:24). He then closed the Temple and discontinued services there, instead promoting paganism throughout the land (2 Chr 28:25; 29:7). In redefining the worship of Judah so completely, his apostasy was similar to that of Jeroboam I (cp. 2 Kgs 3:3; 13:2; 16:2-4; 17:21; 1 Kgs 12:25-33; 16:26; 22:52)","summary_en":"16:19 The rest of the events in Ahaz’s reign: In further rejection of the Lord, Ahaz removed the utensils from the Temple “and broke them into pieces” (2 Chr 28:24). He then closed the Temple and discontinued services there, instead promoting paganism throughout the land (2 Chr 28:25; 29:7). In redefining the worship of Judah so completely, his apostasy was similar to that of Jeroboam I (cp. 2 Kgs 3:3; 13:2; 16:2-4; 17:21; 1 Kgs 12:25-33; 16:26; 22:52)","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":75022,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: 2 Împărați 16:19","title_en":"Study Note: 2 Împărați 16:19","content_ro":"<p><strong>16:19<\/strong> <em>The rest of the events in Ahaz’s reign:<\/em> In further rejection of the Lord, Ahaz removed the utensils from the Temple “and broke them into pieces” (2 Chr 28:24). He then closed the Temple and discontinued services there, instead promoting paganism throughout the land (2 Chr 28:25; 29:7). In redefining the worship of Judah so completely, his apostasy was similar to that of Jeroboam I (cp. 2 Kgs 3:3; 13:2; 16:2-4; 17:21; 1 Kgs 12:25-33; 16:26; 22:52)<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>16:19<\/strong> <em>The rest of the events in Ahaz’s reign:<\/em> In further rejection of the Lord, Ahaz removed the utensils from the Temple “and broke them into pieces” (2 Chr 28:24). He then closed the Temple and discontinued services there, instead promoting paganism throughout the land (2 Chr 28:25; 29:7). In redefining the worship of Judah so completely, his apostasy was similar to that of Jeroboam I (cp. 2 Kgs 3:3; 13:2; 16:2-4; 17:21; 1 Kgs 12:25-33; 16:26; 22:52)<\/p>","summary_ro":"16:19 The rest of the events in Ahaz’s reign: In further rejection of the Lord, Ahaz removed the utensils from the Temple “and broke them into pieces” (2 Chr 28:24). He then closed the Temple and discontinued services there, instead promoting paganism throughout the land (2 Chr 28:25; 29:7). In redefining the worship of Judah so completely, his apostasy was similar to that of Jeroboam I (cp. 2 Kgs 3:3; 13:2; 16:2-4; 17:21; 1 Kgs 12:25-33; 16:26; 22:52)","summary_en":"16:19 The rest of the events in Ahaz’s reign: In further rejection of the Lord, Ahaz removed the utensils from the Temple “and broke them into pieces” (2 Chr 28:24). He then closed the Temple and discontinued services there, instead promoting paganism throughout the land (2 Chr 28:25; 29:7). In redefining the worship of Judah so completely, his apostasy was similar to that of Jeroboam I (cp. 2 Kgs 3:3; 13:2; 16:2-4; 17:21; 1 Kgs 12:25-33; 16:26; 22:52)","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":102648,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: 2 Împărați 16:19","title_en":"Study Note: 2 Împărați 16:19","content_ro":"<p><strong>16:19<\/strong> <em>The rest of the events in Ahaz’s reign:<\/em> In further rejection of the Lord, Ahaz removed the utensils from the Temple “and broke them into pieces” (2 Chr 28:24). He then closed the Temple and discontinued services there, instead promoting paganism throughout the land (2 Chr 28:25; 29:7). In redefining the worship of Judah so completely, his apostasy was similar to that of Jeroboam I (cp. 2 Kgs 3:3; 13:2; 16:2-4; 17:21; 1 Kgs 12:25-33; 16:26; 22:52)<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>16:19<\/strong> <em>The rest of the events in Ahaz’s reign:<\/em> In further rejection of the Lord, Ahaz removed the utensils from the Temple “and broke them into pieces” (2 Chr 28:24). He then closed the Temple and discontinued services there, instead promoting paganism throughout the land (2 Chr 28:25; 29:7). In redefining the worship of Judah so completely, his apostasy was similar to that of Jeroboam I (cp. 2 Kgs 3:3; 13:2; 16:2-4; 17:21; 1 Kgs 12:25-33; 16:26; 22:52)<\/p>","summary_ro":"16:19 The rest of the events in Ahaz’s reign: In further rejection of the Lord, Ahaz removed the utensils from the Temple “and broke them into pieces” (2 Chr 28:24). He then closed the Temple and discontinued services there, instead promoting paganism throughout the land (2 Chr 28:25; 29:7). In redefining the worship of Judah so completely, his apostasy was similar to that of Jeroboam I (cp. 2 Kgs 3:3; 13:2; 16:2-4; 17:21; 1 Kgs 12:25-33; 16:26; 22:52)","summary_en":"16:19 The rest of the events in Ahaz’s reign: In further rejection of the Lord, Ahaz removed the utensils from the Temple “and broke them into pieces” (2 Chr 28:24). He then closed the Temple and discontinued services there, instead promoting paganism throughout the land (2 Chr 28:25; 29:7). In redefining the worship of Judah so completely, his apostasy was similar to that of Jeroboam I (cp. 2 Kgs 3:3; 13:2; 16:2-4; 17:21; 1 Kgs 12:25-33; 16:26; 22:52)","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":130274,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: 2 Împărați 16:19","title_en":"Study Note: 2 Împărați 16:19","content_ro":"<p><strong>16:19<\/strong> <em>The rest of the events in Ahaz’s reign:<\/em> In further rejection of the Lord, Ahaz removed the utensils from the Temple “and broke them into pieces” (2 Chr 28:24). He then closed the Temple and discontinued services there, instead promoting paganism throughout the land (2 Chr 28:25; 29:7). In redefining the worship of Judah so completely, his apostasy was similar to that of Jeroboam I (cp. 2 Kgs 3:3; 13:2; 16:2-4; 17:21; 1 Kgs 12:25-33; 16:26; 22:52)<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>16:19<\/strong> <em>The rest of the events in Ahaz’s reign:<\/em> In further rejection of the Lord, Ahaz removed the utensils from the Temple “and broke them into pieces” (2 Chr 28:24). He then closed the Temple and discontinued services there, instead promoting paganism throughout the land (2 Chr 28:25; 29:7). In redefining the worship of Judah so completely, his apostasy was similar to that of Jeroboam I (cp. 2 Kgs 3:3; 13:2; 16:2-4; 17:21; 1 Kgs 12:25-33; 16:26; 22:52)<\/p>","summary_ro":"16:19 The rest of the events in Ahaz’s reign: In further rejection of the Lord, Ahaz removed the utensils from the Temple “and broke them into pieces” (2 Chr 28:24). He then closed the Temple and discontinued services there, instead promoting paganism throughout the land (2 Chr 28:25; 29:7). In redefining the worship of Judah so completely, his apostasy was similar to that of Jeroboam I (cp. 2 Kgs 3:3; 13:2; 16:2-4; 17:21; 1 Kgs 12:25-33; 16:26; 22:52)","summary_en":"16:19 The rest of the events in Ahaz’s reign: In further rejection of the Lord, Ahaz removed the utensils from the Temple “and broke them into pieces” (2 Chr 28:24). He then closed the Temple and discontinued services there, instead promoting paganism throughout the land (2 Chr 28:25; 29:7). In redefining the worship of Judah so completely, his apostasy was similar to that of Jeroboam I (cp. 2 Kgs 3:3; 13:2; 16:2-4; 17:21; 1 Kgs 12:25-33; 16:26; 22:52)","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"20":[{"id":41650,"type":"profile","type_label":"Profil","type_icon":"👤","type_color":"#f59e0b","title_ro":"Ahaz","title_en":"Ahaz","content_ro":"<h3>Ahaz<\/h3>\n<p>Ahaz reigned in Judah during a turbulent period (743–715 <span>BC<\/span>). His father Jotham (2 Kgs 15:32-38; 2 Chr 27:1-9) and son Hezekiah (2 Kgs 18:1-8) were praised for their obedience to the Lord, but Ahaz was evil, even sacrificing one of his sons to false gods.<\/p>\n<p>Ahaz’s reign was marked with conflict. King Pekah of Israel and King Rezin of Aram (Syria) wanted him to join a coalition against Assyria, but he refused. So Pekah and Rezin turned against Judah and won substantial victories, which severely frightened Ahaz. Isaiah the prophet encouraged Ahaz to rely on the Lord, but Ahaz refused (Isa 7).<\/p>\n<p>Revealing his lack of trust in the true God, Ahaz appealed to Tiglath-pileser III for help (2 Kgs 16:7-9). Ahaz made Judah dangerously dependent on Assyria, and Judah effectively became a vassal state. The Assyrian king subsequently defeated the Arameans in a two-year campaign (734–732 <span>BC<\/span>) and killed Rezin. He subdued Israel and incorporated great tracts of Pekah’s land into the Assyrian Empire (15:29).<\/p>\n<p>Ahaz became an eager servant of Assyria. He adopted many religious innovations based on Assyrian models. Ahaz visited Tiglath-pileser III in Damascus, where he saw an Assyrian altar and sent a model of it to Jerusalem, where a similar altar was built, replacing the original bronze altar (16:10-18). Several other Temple alterations also indicate Ahaz’s defection from faith in the Lord.<\/p>\n<p>Ahaz illustrates why the people of Judah were finally exiled. He did not comport himself appropriately as a king (Deut 17:14-20), and he did not worship the Lord. Upon his death, he was succeeded by his son Hezekiah (2 Kgs 16:20).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>2 Kgs 15:38–16:20; 2 Chr 27:9–28:27; Isa 7:1-25<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Ahaz<\/h3>\n<p>Ahaz reigned in Judah during a turbulent period (743–715 <span>BC<\/span>). His father Jotham (2 Kgs 15:32-38; 2 Chr 27:1-9) and son Hezekiah (2 Kgs 18:1-8) were praised for their obedience to the Lord, but Ahaz was evil, even sacrificing one of his sons to false gods.<\/p>\n<p>Ahaz’s reign was marked with conflict. King Pekah of Israel and King Rezin of Aram (Syria) wanted him to join a coalition against Assyria, but he refused. So Pekah and Rezin turned against Judah and won substantial victories, which severely frightened Ahaz. Isaiah the prophet encouraged Ahaz to rely on the Lord, but Ahaz refused (Isa 7).<\/p>\n<p>Revealing his lack of trust in the true God, Ahaz appealed to Tiglath-pileser III for help (2 Kgs 16:7-9). Ahaz made Judah dangerously dependent on Assyria, and Judah effectively became a vassal state. The Assyrian king subsequently defeated the Arameans in a two-year campaign (734–732 <span>BC<\/span>) and killed Rezin. He subdued Israel and incorporated great tracts of Pekah’s land into the Assyrian Empire (15:29).<\/p>\n<p>Ahaz became an eager servant of Assyria. He adopted many religious innovations based on Assyrian models. Ahaz visited Tiglath-pileser III in Damascus, where he saw an Assyrian altar and sent a model of it to Jerusalem, where a similar altar was built, replacing the original bronze altar (16:10-18). Several other Temple alterations also indicate Ahaz’s defection from faith in the Lord.<\/p>\n<p>Ahaz illustrates why the people of Judah were finally exiled. He did not comport himself appropriately as a king (Deut 17:14-20), and he did not worship the Lord. Upon his death, he was succeeded by his son Hezekiah (2 Kgs 16:20).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>2 Kgs 15:38–16:20; 2 Chr 27:9–28:27; Isa 7:1-25<\/p>","summary_ro":"Ahaz Ahaz reigned in Judah during a turbulent period (743–715 BC). His father Jotham (2 Kgs 15:32-38; 2 Chr 27:1-9) and son Hezekiah (2 Kgs 18:1-8) were praised for their obedience to the Lord, but Ahaz was evil, even sacrificing one of his sons to false gods. Ahaz’s reign was marked with conflict. King Pekah of Israel and King Rezin of Aram (Syria) wanted him to join a coalition against Assyria, but he refused. So Pekah and Rezin turned against Judah and won substantial victories, which seve...","summary_en":"Ahaz Ahaz reigned in Judah during a turbulent period (743–715 BC). His father Jotham (2 Kgs 15:32-38; 2 Chr 27:1-9) and son Hezekiah (2 Kgs 18:1-8) were praised for their obedience to the Lord, but Ahaz was evil, even sacrificing one of his sons to false gods. Ahaz’s reign was marked with conflict. King Pekah of Israel and King Rezin of Aram (Syria) wanted him to join a coalition against Assyria, but he refused. So Pekah and Rezin turned against Judah and won substantial victories, which seve...","source":"Profiles.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":69276,"type":"profile","type_label":"Profil","type_icon":"👤","type_color":"#f59e0b","title_ro":"Ahaz","title_en":"Ahaz","content_ro":"<h3>Ahaz<\/h3>\n<p>Ahaz reigned in Judah during a turbulent period (743–715 <span>BC<\/span>). His father Jotham (2 Kgs 15:32-38; 2 Chr 27:1-9) and son Hezekiah (2 Kgs 18:1-8) were praised for their obedience to the Lord, but Ahaz was evil, even sacrificing one of his sons to false gods.<\/p>\n<p>Ahaz’s reign was marked with conflict. King Pekah of Israel and King Rezin of Aram (Syria) wanted him to join a coalition against Assyria, but he refused. So Pekah and Rezin turned against Judah and won substantial victories, which severely frightened Ahaz. Isaiah the prophet encouraged Ahaz to rely on the Lord, but Ahaz refused (Isa 7).<\/p>\n<p>Revealing his lack of trust in the true God, Ahaz appealed to Tiglath-pileser III for help (2 Kgs 16:7-9). Ahaz made Judah dangerously dependent on Assyria, and Judah effectively became a vassal state. The Assyrian king subsequently defeated the Arameans in a two-year campaign (734–732 <span>BC<\/span>) and killed Rezin. He subdued Israel and incorporated great tracts of Pekah’s land into the Assyrian Empire (15:29).<\/p>\n<p>Ahaz became an eager servant of Assyria. He adopted many religious innovations based on Assyrian models. Ahaz visited Tiglath-pileser III in Damascus, where he saw an Assyrian altar and sent a model of it to Jerusalem, where a similar altar was built, replacing the original bronze altar (16:10-18). Several other Temple alterations also indicate Ahaz’s defection from faith in the Lord.<\/p>\n<p>Ahaz illustrates why the people of Judah were finally exiled. He did not comport himself appropriately as a king (Deut 17:14-20), and he did not worship the Lord. Upon his death, he was succeeded by his son Hezekiah (2 Kgs 16:20).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>2 Kgs 15:38–16:20; 2 Chr 27:9–28:27; Isa 7:1-25<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Ahaz<\/h3>\n<p>Ahaz reigned in Judah during a turbulent period (743–715 <span>BC<\/span>). His father Jotham (2 Kgs 15:32-38; 2 Chr 27:1-9) and son Hezekiah (2 Kgs 18:1-8) were praised for their obedience to the Lord, but Ahaz was evil, even sacrificing one of his sons to false gods.<\/p>\n<p>Ahaz’s reign was marked with conflict. King Pekah of Israel and King Rezin of Aram (Syria) wanted him to join a coalition against Assyria, but he refused. So Pekah and Rezin turned against Judah and won substantial victories, which severely frightened Ahaz. Isaiah the prophet encouraged Ahaz to rely on the Lord, but Ahaz refused (Isa 7).<\/p>\n<p>Revealing his lack of trust in the true God, Ahaz appealed to Tiglath-pileser III for help (2 Kgs 16:7-9). Ahaz made Judah dangerously dependent on Assyria, and Judah effectively became a vassal state. The Assyrian king subsequently defeated the Arameans in a two-year campaign (734–732 <span>BC<\/span>) and killed Rezin. He subdued Israel and incorporated great tracts of Pekah’s land into the Assyrian Empire (15:29).<\/p>\n<p>Ahaz became an eager servant of Assyria. He adopted many religious innovations based on Assyrian models. Ahaz visited Tiglath-pileser III in Damascus, where he saw an Assyrian altar and sent a model of it to Jerusalem, where a similar altar was built, replacing the original bronze altar (16:10-18). Several other Temple alterations also indicate Ahaz’s defection from faith in the Lord.<\/p>\n<p>Ahaz illustrates why the people of Judah were finally exiled. He did not comport himself appropriately as a king (Deut 17:14-20), and he did not worship the Lord. Upon his death, he was succeeded by his son Hezekiah (2 Kgs 16:20).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>2 Kgs 15:38–16:20; 2 Chr 27:9–28:27; Isa 7:1-25<\/p>","summary_ro":"Ahaz Ahaz reigned in Judah during a turbulent period (743–715 BC). His father Jotham (2 Kgs 15:32-38; 2 Chr 27:1-9) and son Hezekiah (2 Kgs 18:1-8) were praised for their obedience to the Lord, but Ahaz was evil, even sacrificing one of his sons to false gods. Ahaz’s reign was marked with conflict. King Pekah of Israel and King Rezin of Aram (Syria) wanted him to join a coalition against Assyria, but he refused. So Pekah and Rezin turned against Judah and won substantial victories, which seve...","summary_en":"Ahaz Ahaz reigned in Judah during a turbulent period (743–715 BC). His father Jotham (2 Kgs 15:32-38; 2 Chr 27:1-9) and son Hezekiah (2 Kgs 18:1-8) were praised for their obedience to the Lord, but Ahaz was evil, even sacrificing one of his sons to false gods. Ahaz’s reign was marked with conflict. King Pekah of Israel and King Rezin of Aram (Syria) wanted him to join a coalition against Assyria, but he refused. So Pekah and Rezin turned against Judah and won substantial victories, which seve...","source":"Profiles.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":96902,"type":"profile","type_label":"Profil","type_icon":"👤","type_color":"#f59e0b","title_ro":"Ahaz","title_en":"Ahaz","content_ro":"<h3>Ahaz<\/h3>\n<p>Ahaz reigned in Judah during a turbulent period (743–715 <span>BC<\/span>). His father Jotham (2 Kgs 15:32-38; 2 Chr 27:1-9) and son Hezekiah (2 Kgs 18:1-8) were praised for their obedience to the Lord, but Ahaz was evil, even sacrificing one of his sons to false gods.<\/p>\n<p>Ahaz’s reign was marked with conflict. King Pekah of Israel and King Rezin of Aram (Syria) wanted him to join a coalition against Assyria, but he refused. So Pekah and Rezin turned against Judah and won substantial victories, which severely frightened Ahaz. Isaiah the prophet encouraged Ahaz to rely on the Lord, but Ahaz refused (Isa 7).<\/p>\n<p>Revealing his lack of trust in the true God, Ahaz appealed to Tiglath-pileser III for help (2 Kgs 16:7-9). Ahaz made Judah dangerously dependent on Assyria, and Judah effectively became a vassal state. The Assyrian king subsequently defeated the Arameans in a two-year campaign (734–732 <span>BC<\/span>) and killed Rezin. He subdued Israel and incorporated great tracts of Pekah’s land into the Assyrian Empire (15:29).<\/p>\n<p>Ahaz became an eager servant of Assyria. He adopted many religious innovations based on Assyrian models. Ahaz visited Tiglath-pileser III in Damascus, where he saw an Assyrian altar and sent a model of it to Jerusalem, where a similar altar was built, replacing the original bronze altar (16:10-18). Several other Temple alterations also indicate Ahaz’s defection from faith in the Lord.<\/p>\n<p>Ahaz illustrates why the people of Judah were finally exiled. He did not comport himself appropriately as a king (Deut 17:14-20), and he did not worship the Lord. Upon his death, he was succeeded by his son Hezekiah (2 Kgs 16:20).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>2 Kgs 15:38–16:20; 2 Chr 27:9–28:27; Isa 7:1-25<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Ahaz<\/h3>\n<p>Ahaz reigned in Judah during a turbulent period (743–715 <span>BC<\/span>). His father Jotham (2 Kgs 15:32-38; 2 Chr 27:1-9) and son Hezekiah (2 Kgs 18:1-8) were praised for their obedience to the Lord, but Ahaz was evil, even sacrificing one of his sons to false gods.<\/p>\n<p>Ahaz’s reign was marked with conflict. King Pekah of Israel and King Rezin of Aram (Syria) wanted him to join a coalition against Assyria, but he refused. So Pekah and Rezin turned against Judah and won substantial victories, which severely frightened Ahaz. Isaiah the prophet encouraged Ahaz to rely on the Lord, but Ahaz refused (Isa 7).<\/p>\n<p>Revealing his lack of trust in the true God, Ahaz appealed to Tiglath-pileser III for help (2 Kgs 16:7-9). Ahaz made Judah dangerously dependent on Assyria, and Judah effectively became a vassal state. The Assyrian king subsequently defeated the Arameans in a two-year campaign (734–732 <span>BC<\/span>) and killed Rezin. He subdued Israel and incorporated great tracts of Pekah’s land into the Assyrian Empire (15:29).<\/p>\n<p>Ahaz became an eager servant of Assyria. He adopted many religious innovations based on Assyrian models. Ahaz visited Tiglath-pileser III in Damascus, where he saw an Assyrian altar and sent a model of it to Jerusalem, where a similar altar was built, replacing the original bronze altar (16:10-18). Several other Temple alterations also indicate Ahaz’s defection from faith in the Lord.<\/p>\n<p>Ahaz illustrates why the people of Judah were finally exiled. He did not comport himself appropriately as a king (Deut 17:14-20), and he did not worship the Lord. Upon his death, he was succeeded by his son Hezekiah (2 Kgs 16:20).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>2 Kgs 15:38–16:20; 2 Chr 27:9–28:27; Isa 7:1-25<\/p>","summary_ro":"Ahaz Ahaz reigned in Judah during a turbulent period (743–715 BC). His father Jotham (2 Kgs 15:32-38; 2 Chr 27:1-9) and son Hezekiah (2 Kgs 18:1-8) were praised for their obedience to the Lord, but Ahaz was evil, even sacrificing one of his sons to false gods. Ahaz’s reign was marked with conflict. King Pekah of Israel and King Rezin of Aram (Syria) wanted him to join a coalition against Assyria, but he refused. So Pekah and Rezin turned against Judah and won substantial victories, which seve...","summary_en":"Ahaz Ahaz reigned in Judah during a turbulent period (743–715 BC). His father Jotham (2 Kgs 15:32-38; 2 Chr 27:1-9) and son Hezekiah (2 Kgs 18:1-8) were praised for their obedience to the Lord, but Ahaz was evil, even sacrificing one of his sons to false gods. Ahaz’s reign was marked with conflict. King Pekah of Israel and King Rezin of Aram (Syria) wanted him to join a coalition against Assyria, but he refused. So Pekah and Rezin turned against Judah and won substantial victories, which seve...","source":"Profiles.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":124528,"type":"profile","type_label":"Profil","type_icon":"👤","type_color":"#f59e0b","title_ro":"Ahaz","title_en":"Ahaz","content_ro":"<h3>Ahaz<\/h3>\n<p>Ahaz reigned in Judah during a turbulent period (743–715 <span>BC<\/span>). His father Jotham (2 Kgs 15:32-38; 2 Chr 27:1-9) and son Hezekiah (2 Kgs 18:1-8) were praised for their obedience to the Lord, but Ahaz was evil, even sacrificing one of his sons to false gods.<\/p>\n<p>Ahaz’s reign was marked with conflict. King Pekah of Israel and King Rezin of Aram (Syria) wanted him to join a coalition against Assyria, but he refused. So Pekah and Rezin turned against Judah and won substantial victories, which severely frightened Ahaz. Isaiah the prophet encouraged Ahaz to rely on the Lord, but Ahaz refused (Isa 7).<\/p>\n<p>Revealing his lack of trust in the true God, Ahaz appealed to Tiglath-pileser III for help (2 Kgs 16:7-9). Ahaz made Judah dangerously dependent on Assyria, and Judah effectively became a vassal state. The Assyrian king subsequently defeated the Arameans in a two-year campaign (734–732 <span>BC<\/span>) and killed Rezin. He subdued Israel and incorporated great tracts of Pekah’s land into the Assyrian Empire (15:29).<\/p>\n<p>Ahaz became an eager servant of Assyria. He adopted many religious innovations based on Assyrian models. Ahaz visited Tiglath-pileser III in Damascus, where he saw an Assyrian altar and sent a model of it to Jerusalem, where a similar altar was built, replacing the original bronze altar (16:10-18). Several other Temple alterations also indicate Ahaz’s defection from faith in the Lord.<\/p>\n<p>Ahaz illustrates why the people of Judah were finally exiled. He did not comport himself appropriately as a king (Deut 17:14-20), and he did not worship the Lord. Upon his death, he was succeeded by his son Hezekiah (2 Kgs 16:20).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>2 Kgs 15:38–16:20; 2 Chr 27:9–28:27; Isa 7:1-25<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Ahaz<\/h3>\n<p>Ahaz reigned in Judah during a turbulent period (743–715 <span>BC<\/span>). His father Jotham (2 Kgs 15:32-38; 2 Chr 27:1-9) and son Hezekiah (2 Kgs 18:1-8) were praised for their obedience to the Lord, but Ahaz was evil, even sacrificing one of his sons to false gods.<\/p>\n<p>Ahaz’s reign was marked with conflict. King Pekah of Israel and King Rezin of Aram (Syria) wanted him to join a coalition against Assyria, but he refused. So Pekah and Rezin turned against Judah and won substantial victories, which severely frightened Ahaz. Isaiah the prophet encouraged Ahaz to rely on the Lord, but Ahaz refused (Isa 7).<\/p>\n<p>Revealing his lack of trust in the true God, Ahaz appealed to Tiglath-pileser III for help (2 Kgs 16:7-9). Ahaz made Judah dangerously dependent on Assyria, and Judah effectively became a vassal state. The Assyrian king subsequently defeated the Arameans in a two-year campaign (734–732 <span>BC<\/span>) and killed Rezin. He subdued Israel and incorporated great tracts of Pekah’s land into the Assyrian Empire (15:29).<\/p>\n<p>Ahaz became an eager servant of Assyria. He adopted many religious innovations based on Assyrian models. Ahaz visited Tiglath-pileser III in Damascus, where he saw an Assyrian altar and sent a model of it to Jerusalem, where a similar altar was built, replacing the original bronze altar (16:10-18). Several other Temple alterations also indicate Ahaz’s defection from faith in the Lord.<\/p>\n<p>Ahaz illustrates why the people of Judah were finally exiled. He did not comport himself appropriately as a king (Deut 17:14-20), and he did not worship the Lord. Upon his death, he was succeeded by his son Hezekiah (2 Kgs 16:20).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>2 Kgs 15:38–16:20; 2 Chr 27:9–28:27; Isa 7:1-25<\/p>","summary_ro":"Ahaz Ahaz reigned in Judah during a turbulent period (743–715 BC). His father Jotham (2 Kgs 15:32-38; 2 Chr 27:1-9) and son Hezekiah (2 Kgs 18:1-8) were praised for their obedience to the Lord, but Ahaz was evil, even sacrificing one of his sons to false gods. Ahaz’s reign was marked with conflict. King Pekah of Israel and King Rezin of Aram (Syria) wanted him to join a coalition against Assyria, but he refused. So Pekah and Rezin turned against Judah and won substantial victories, which seve...","summary_en":"Ahaz Ahaz reigned in Judah during a turbulent period (743–715 BC). His father Jotham (2 Kgs 15:32-38; 2 Chr 27:1-9) and son Hezekiah (2 Kgs 18:1-8) were praised for their obedience to the Lord, but Ahaz was evil, even sacrificing one of his sons to false gods. Ahaz’s reign was marked with conflict. King Pekah of Israel and King Rezin of Aram (Syria) wanted him to join a coalition against Assyria, but he refused. So Pekah and Rezin turned against Judah and won substantial victories, which seve...","source":"Profiles.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}]},"labels":{"article":"Articol","map":"Hartă","chart":"Diagramă","textbox":"Notă explicativă","picture":"Imagine","profile":"Profil","study_note":"Notă de studiu","theme_note":"Temă biblică"},"icons":{"article":"📖","map":"🗺️","chart":"📊","textbox":"💡","picture":"🖼️","profile":"👤","study_note":"📝","theme_note":"🎯"},"typeColors":{"article":"#d4af37","map":"#2d7d46","chart":"#3b82f6","textbox":"#8b5cf6","picture":"#ec4899","profile":"#f59e0b","study_note":"#06b6d4","theme_note":"#ef4444"}}
🔍
Niciun rezultat
Nu am găsit versete care să conțină textul căutat.
2 Împărați 16
— 20 versete
2 Împărați 16
📘 Info carte
Se încarcă...
📖 Resurse