Deuteronom 19
1 Dupăce Domnul, Dumnezeul tău, va nimici toate neamurile acelea a căror ţară ţi-o dă Domnul, Dumnezeul tău, dupăce le vei izgoni şi vei locui în cetăţile şi în casele lor,
2 să desparţi trei cetăţi în mijlocul ţării pe care ţi-o dă în stăpânire Domnul, Dumnezeul tău.
3 Să faci drumuri, şi să împarţi în trei părţi ţinutul ţării pe care ţi-o va da ca moştenire Domnul, Dumnezeul tău. Să faci aşa, pentruca orice ucigaş să poată fugi în cetăţile acestea.
4 Legea aceasta să fie pentru ucigaşul care va fugi acolo ca să-şi scape viaţa, când va omorî fără voie pe aproapele său, fără să-i fi fost vrăjmaş mai înainte.
5 Aşa, de pildă, un om se va duce să taie lemne în pădure cu un alt om; ridică securea cu mâna, ca să taie copacul, ferul scapă din coadă, loveşte pe tovarăşul său, şi-l omoară. Atunci el să fugă într-una din cetăţile acestea ca să-şi scape viaţa;
6 pentru ca nu cumva răsbunătorul sângelui, aprins de mânie şi urmărind pe ucigaş, să-l ajungă, fiind prea lung drumul, şi să lovească de moarte pe cel ce nu era vinovat de moarte, fiindcă mai înainte nu fusese vrăjmaş aproapelui său.
7 De aceea îţi dau porunca aceasta: Să desparţi trei cetăţi.
8 Când Domnul, Dumnezeul tău, îţi va lărgi hotarele, cum a jurat părinţilor tăi, şi-ţi va da toată ţara pe care a făgăduit părinţilor tăi că ţi-o va da,
9 -numai să păzeşti şi să împlineşti toate aceste porunci pe cari ţi le dau astăzi, ca să iubeşti pe Domnul, Dumnezeul tău, şi să umbli totdeauna pe căile Lui-atunci să mai adaugi trei cetăţi la cele trei,
10 pentruca să nu fie vărsat sângele celui nevinovat în mijlocul ţării pe care ţi-o dă de moştenire Domnul, Dumnezeul tău, şi astfel să fii vinovat de omor.
11 Dar dacă un om fuge într-una din aceste cetăţi, dupăce a întins laţuri aproapelui său din vrăjmăşie împotriva lui, dupăce s-a aruncat asupra lui şi l-a lovit aşa încât i-a pricinuit moartea,
12 bătrânii din cetatea lui să trimeată să-l prindă şi să-l dea în mânile răzbunătorului sângelui, ca să moară.
13 Să n-ai milă de el, şi să ştergi din Israel sângele celui nevinovat, ca să fii fericit.
14 Să nu muţi hotarele aproapelui tău, puse de strămoşii tăi, în moştenirea pe care vei avea-o în ţara pe care ţi-o dă în stăpânire Domnul, Dumnezeul tău.
15 Un singur martur nu va fi deajuns împotriva unui om, ca să adeverească vreo nelegiuire sau vreun păcat oarecare; un fapt nu va putea fi întemeiat decât pe mărturia a doi sau trei marturi.
16 Când un martor mincinos se va ridica împotriva cuiva ca să-l învinuiască de vreo nelegiuire,
17 cei doi oameni cu pricina să se înfăţişeze înaintea Domnului, înaintea preoţilor şi judecătorilor cari vor fi atunci în slujbă.
18 Judecătorii să facă cercetări amănunţite. Dacă se va afla că martorul acela este un martor mincinos, şi că a făcut o mărturisire mincinoasă împotriva fratelui său,
19 atunci să-i faceţi cum avea el de gând să facă fratelui său. Să scoţi astfel răul din mijlocul tău.
20 În felul acesta, ceilalţi vor auzi şi se vor teme, şi nu se va mai face o faptă aşa de nelegiuită în mijlocul tău.
21 Să n-ai nici o milă, ci să ceri: viaţă pentru viaţă, ochi pentru ochi, dinte pentru dinte, mână pentru mână, picior pentru picior.
{"verseMap":{"1":[{"id":7292,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Commandments, the Ten","title_en":"Commandments, the Ten","content_ro":"<h3>COMMANDMENTS, The Ten<\/h3>\n<p>List of commands given by God to Moses. The Ten Commandments are stated twice in the OT; first in the book of Exodus (20:2-17), in a passage describing God’s gift of the commandments to Israel, and second in Deuteronomy (5:6-21), in the context of a covenant renewal ceremony. Moses reminds his people of the substance and meaning of the commandments, as they renew their covenant allegiance to God. In the original language, the commandments are called the “Ten Words” (from which comes the name Decalogue). According to the biblical text, they are “words,” or laws, spoken by God, not the result of human legislative process. The commandments are said to have been written on two tablets. This does not mean that five commandments were written on each tablet; rather, all ten were written on each tablet, the first tablet belonging to God the lawgiver, the second tablet belonging to Israel the recipient. The commandments pertain to two basic areas of human living: the first five concern relationships with God, the last five, relationships between human beings. The commandments were given first to Israel in the making of the covenant at Mt Sinai, shortly after the exodus from Egypt. Though the date of the Sinai covenant cannot be fixed with certainty, it was probably around 1290 <span>BC<\/span>. In order to understand the commandments, it is necessary first to understand the context in which they were given.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• The Context of the Commandments<\/p>\n<p>• The Meaning of the Commandments<\/p>\n<p>• The Principle of the Commandments<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheContextoftheCommandments\">The Context of the Commandments<\/p>\n<p>The commandments are inseparable from the covenant. The making of a covenant between God and Israel at Sinai was the formation of a particular relationship. God made certain commitments to Israel and in return imposed certain obligations upon Israel. Although Israel’s obligations are expressed in detail in a mass of precise legal material, they are given their most precise and succinct expression in the Ten Commandments. The commandments set down the most fundamental principles of all Hebrew law, and the detailed laws contained in the Pentateuch are for the most part applications of the principles to particular situations. Thus, the role of the Ten Commandments in ancient Israel was to give direction to a relationship. They were not to be obeyed simply for the sake of obedience, as though obedience accumulated some kind of credit. Rather, they were to be obeyed in order to discover the fullness and richness of life in a relationship with God.<\/p>\n<p>The commandments in ancient Israel were not an ethical code or compilation of advice on the fundamentals of morality. The covenant was between God and a nation; the commandments were directed toward the life of that nation and its citizens. Consequently, the initial role of the commandments was similar to that of criminal law in a modern state. Israel was a theocracy, a state whose king was God (Dt 33:5). The commandments provided guidance to the citizens of that state. In addition, to break a commandment was to commit a crime against the state and the ruler of that state, God. Thus, the penalties were severe, for the breaking of the commandments threatened the covenant relationship and the continued existence of the state. This state context is important for understanding the commandments in their initial form.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheMeaningoftheCommandments\">The Meaning of the Commandments<\/p>\n<p>The commandments begin with a preface (Ex 20:2; Dt 5:6) that identifies the lawgiver, God, who gave the commandments to a people with whom he already had a relationship. The lawgiver is the God of the exodus, who redeemed his people from slavery and granted them freedom. The preface is vital, for it indicates that God’s gift of law was preceded by an act of love and grace. The commandments were given to a people who had been redeemed; they were not given in order to achieve redemption. There are some variations in the manner of numbering the commandments. According to some systems, the preface is identified with the first commandments. It seems preferable, however, to understand the opening words as a preface to all ten commandments. In the notes on the Ten Commandments that follow, there is first an explanation of the original meaning, then some indication of the contemporary meaning.<\/p>\n<h5>First Commandment: Prohibition of Worshiping Gods Other Than the Lord (Ex 20:3; Dt 5:7)<\/h5>\n<p>The first commandment is in negative form and expressly prohibits the Israelites engaging in the worship of foreign deities. The significance of the commandment lies in the nature of the covenant. The essence of the covenant was a relationship, and the essence of relationship, from the biblical perspective, is faithfulness. God’s faithfulness to his people had already been demonstrated in the exodus, as indicated in the preface to the commandments. In turn, God required of his people, more than anything else, a faithfulness in their relationship with him. Thus, though the commandment is stated negatively, it is full of positive implications. And its position as first of the ten is significant, for this commandment establishes a principle that is particularly prominent in the social commandments (six through ten).<\/p>\n<p>The contemporary significance of the commandment is in the context of faithfulness in relationship. At the heart of human life, there must be a relationship with God. Anything in life that disrupts that primary relationship breaks the commandment. Foreign “gods” are thus persons, or even things, that would disrupt the primacy of the relationship with God.<\/p>\n<h5>Second Commandment: Prohibition of Making Images (Ex 20:4-6; Dt 5:8-10)<\/h5>\n<p>The second commandment prohibits the Israelites from making images of the Lord. To make an image of God, in the shape or form of anything in this world, is to reduce the Creator to something less than his creation and to worship the created instead of the Creator. The temptation for Israel to worship God in the form of an image must have been enormous, for images and idols flourished in all the religions of the ancient Near East. But the God of Israel was a transcendent and infinite being, and could not be reduced to the limitations of an image or form within creation. Any such reduction of God would be so radical a misunderstanding that the “god” worshiped would no longer be the God of the universe.<\/p>\n<p>In the modern world, the shape of the temptation has changed. Few are tempted to take power tools and shape from wood an image of God. Nevertheless, the commandment is still applicable and the danger against which it guards is always present.<\/p>\n<h5>Third Commandment: Prohibition of the Improper Use of God’s Name (Ex 20:7; Dt 5:11)<\/h5>\n<p>There is a popular understanding that the third commandment prohibits bad language or blasphemy; however, it is concerned with the use of God’s name. God had granted to Israel an extraordinary privilege; he had revealed to them his personal name. The name, in Hebrew, is represented by four letters, <em>YHWH,<\/em> which are variously rendered in English Bibles as <span>Lord<\/span>, Yahweh, or Jehovah. The knowledge of the divine name was a privilege, for it meant that Israel did not worship an anonymous and distant deity but a being with a personal name. Yet the privilege was accompanied by the danger that the knowledge of God’s personal name could be abused. In ancient Near Eastern religions, magic was a common practice. Magic involved the use of a god’s name, which was believed to control a god’s power, in certain kinds of activity designed to harness it for human purposes. Thus, the kind of activity that is prohibited by the third commandment is magic, namely, attempting to control God’s power, through his name, for a personal and worthless purpose. God may give, but must not be manipulated or controlled.<\/p>\n<p>Within Christianity, the name of God is equally important. Through God’s name is access to God in prayer. The abuse of the privilege of prayer, involving calling upon the name of God for some selfish or worthless purpose or swearing falsely by it, is tantamount to the magic of the ancient world. In both, God’s name is abused and the third commandment is broken. Positively, the third commandment is a reminder of the enormous privilege of knowing God’s name, a privilege not to be taken lightly or abused.<\/p>\n<h5>Fourth Commandment: Requirement to Observe the Sabbath (Ex 20:8-11; Dt 5:12-15)<\/h5>\n<p>This commandment, once again, has no parallels in ancient Near Eastern religions; furthermore, it is the first of the commandments to be expressed in a positive form. While most of life was characterized by work, the seventh day was to be set aside. Work was to cease and the day was to be kept holy. The holiness of the day is related to the reason for its establishment. Two reasons are given, and though at first they appear different, there is a common theme linking them. In the first version of the commandment (Ex 20:11), the Sabbath is kept in commemoration of Creation; God created in six days and rested on the seventh day. In the second version (Dt 5:15), the Sabbath is observed in commemoration of the exodus from Egypt. The theme linking the two versions is creation: God not only created the world but also “created” his people, Israel, in redeeming them from Egyptian slavery. Thus, every seventh day throughout the passage of time, the Hebrew people were to reflect upon Creation; in so doing, they were reflecting upon the meaning of their existence.<\/p>\n<p>For most of Christianity, the concept of “sabbath” has been moved from the seventh to the first day of the week, namely Sunday. The move is related to a change in Christian thought, which is identified in the resurrection of Jesus Christ on a Sunday morning. The change is appropriate, for Christians now reflect each Sunday, or “Sabbath,” on a third act of divine creation, namely the “new creation” that is established in the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead.<\/p>\n<h5>Fifth Commandment: Requirement to Honor Parents (Ex 20:12; Dt 5:16)<\/h5>\n<p>The fifth commandment forms a bridge between the first four, concerned primarily with God, and the last five, concerned primarily with human relationships. On first reading, it appears to be concerned with family relationships only: children are to honor their parents. Although the commandment establishes a principle of honor or respect in family relationships, it is probably also related to the responsibility of parents to instruct their children in the faith of the covenant (Dt 6:7), so that the religion could be passed on from one generation to another. But instruction in the faith required an attitude of honor and respect from those who were being instructed. Thus, the fifth commandment is concerned not only with family harmony but also with the transmission of faith in God throughout subsequent generations.<\/p>\n<p>With the fifth commandment, there is little need to convert its meaning into contemporary relevance. At a time in which so much education is undertaken beyond the confines of the family unit, the commandment serves a solemn reminder, not only of the need for harmonious family life, but also of the responsibilities of religious education which rest upon both parents and children.<\/p>\n<h5>Sixth Commandment: Prohibition of Murder (Ex 20:13; Dt 5:17).<\/h5>\n<p>The wording of this commandment simply prohibits “killing”; the meaning of the word, however, implies the prohibition of murder. The word used in the commandment is not related primarily to killing in warfare or to capital punishment, both of which are dealt with in other portions of the Mosaic law. The word could be used to designate both murder and manslaughter. Since manslaughter involves accidental killing, it cannot be sensibly prohibited; it, too, is dealt with in other legislation (Dt 19:1-13). Thus, the sixth commandment prohibits murder, the taking of another person’s life for personal and selfish gain. Stated positively, the sixth commandment preserves for each member of the covenant community the right to live.<\/p>\n<p>In the modern world, a similar statute prohibiting murder exists in almost all legal codes, having become a part of state law, in addition to purely religious or moral law. Jesus, however, pointed to the deeper meaning implicit in the commandment. It is not only the act, but also the sentiment underlying the act, that is evil (Mt 5:21-22).<\/p>\n<h5>Seventh Commandment: Prohibition of Adultery (Ex 20:14; Dt 5:18)<\/h5>\n<p>The act of adultery is fundamentally an act of unfaithfulness. One or both persons in an adulterous act are being unfaithful to another person or persons. Of all such crimes, the worst is that which signifies unfaithfulness. It is for this reason that adultery is included in the Ten Commandments while other sins or crimes pertaining to sexuality are not included. Thus, the seventh commandment is the social parallel to the first commandment. Just as the first commandment requires absolute faithfulness in the relationship with the one God, so the seventh requires a similar relationship of faithfulness within the covenant of marriage.<\/p>\n<p>The relevance of the commandment is apparent, but again Jesus points to the implications of the commandment for the mental life (Mt 5:27-28).<\/p>\n<h5>Eighth Commandment: Prohibition of Theft (Ex 20:15; Dt 5:19)<\/h5>\n<p>The eighth commandment establishes a principle within the covenant community concerning possessions and property; a person had a right to certain things, which could not be violated by a fellow citizen for his or her personal advantage. But while the commandment is concerned with property, its most fundamental concern is human liberty. The worst form of theft is “manstealing” (somewhat equivalent to modern kidnapping)—that is, taking a person (presumably by force) and selling him or her into slavery. The crime and the related law are stated more fully in Deuteronomy 24:7. The commandment is thus not only concerned with the preservation of private property but is more fundamentally concerned with the preservation of human liberty, freedom from such things as slavery and exile. It prohibits a person from manipulating or exploiting the lives of others for personal gain.<\/p>\n<p>Just as the sixth commandment prohibits murder, so the eighth prohibits what might be called “social murder,” that is, the cutting off of a man or woman from a life of freedom within the community of God’s people.<\/p>\n<h5>Ninth Commandment: Prohibition of False Witnessing (Ex 20:16; Dt 5:20)<\/h5>\n<p>The commandment is not a general prohibition against lies. The wording of the original commandment sets it firmly in the context of Israel’s legal system. It prohibits perjury, or the giving of false testimony within the proceedings of the law court. Thus, it establishes a principle of truthfulness and carries implications with respect to false statements in any context. Within any nation, the courts of law must be able to operate on the basis of true information. If law is not based on truth and righteousness, then the very foundations of life and liberty are undermined. If legal testimony is true, there can be no miscarriage of justice; if it is false, the most fundamental of human liberties are lost. Thus, the commandment sought to preserve the integrity of Israel’s legal system while guarding against encroachments on personal liberties.<\/p>\n<p>The principle is maintained in most modern legal systems—for example, in the taking of an oath before giving evidence in court. But in the last resort, the commandment points to the essential nature of truthfulness in all interpersonal relationships.<\/p>\n<h5>Tenth Commandment: Prohibition of Coveting (Ex 20:17; Dt 5:21)<\/h5>\n<p>The tenth commandment is curious in its initial context. It prohibits the coveting, or desiring, of persons or things belonging to a neighbor (that is, a fellow Israelite). To find such a commandment in a code of criminal law is unusual. The first nine commandments prohibited acts, and a criminal act can be followed by prosecution and legal process if detected. But the tenth commandment, in contrast, prohibits <em>desires,<\/em> or covetous feelings. Under human law, it is not possible to prosecute upon the basis of desire, since proof would be impossible. While the crime involved in the tenth commandment could not be prosecuted within the limitations of the Hebrew system, it was nevertheless known by God, the “Chief Judge.” The genius of the commandment lies in its therapeutic nature. It is not enough merely to deal with crime once it has been committed; the law must also attempt to attack the roots of crime.<\/p>\n<p>The root of almost all evil and crime lies within the self, in the desires of the individual. Thus evil desires are prohibited. If covetous desires are gradually eliminated, then natural desires may be directed toward God.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"ThePrincipleoftheCommandments\">The Principle of the Commandments<\/p>\n<p>The relevance of each commandment is understood in the underlying principle of the whole Decalogue. The principle of the whole is the principle of love, the heart of Israel’s religion. God loved Israel and called them in love. In return, he imposed one commandment upon Israel that superseded all others: “You shall love the <span>Lord<\/span> your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your might” (Dt 6:5, <span>rsv<\/span>). That is the central commandment of Israel’s religion. How to love the invisible, intangible God is partly explained in the Decalogue. For the person who loves God, the Ten Commandments provide guidance; they point to a way of life that, if lived, reflects love for God and leads to a deeper experience of God’s love. Therefore, the Ten Commandments continue to be a central part of Christianity. Jesus repeated the commandment to love from Deuteronomy 6:5 and he called it “the first and greatest commandment” (Mt 22:37-38). Consequently, the Ten Commandments still serve as a guide for the Christian community.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Civil Law and Justice; Law, Biblical Concept of.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>COMMANDMENTS, The Ten<\/h3>\n<p>List of commands given by God to Moses. The Ten Commandments are stated twice in the OT; first in the book of Exodus (20:2-17), in a passage describing God’s gift of the commandments to Israel, and second in Deuteronomy (5:6-21), in the context of a covenant renewal ceremony. Moses reminds his people of the substance and meaning of the commandments, as they renew their covenant allegiance to God. In the original language, the commandments are called the “Ten Words” (from which comes the name Decalogue). According to the biblical text, they are “words,” or laws, spoken by God, not the result of human legislative process. The commandments are said to have been written on two tablets. This does not mean that five commandments were written on each tablet; rather, all ten were written on each tablet, the first tablet belonging to God the lawgiver, the second tablet belonging to Israel the recipient. The commandments pertain to two basic areas of human living: the first five concern relationships with God, the last five, relationships between human beings. The commandments were given first to Israel in the making of the covenant at Mt Sinai, shortly after the exodus from Egypt. Though the date of the Sinai covenant cannot be fixed with certainty, it was probably around 1290 <span>BC<\/span>. In order to understand the commandments, it is necessary first to understand the context in which they were given.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• The Context of the Commandments<\/p>\n<p>• The Meaning of the Commandments<\/p>\n<p>• The Principle of the Commandments<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheContextoftheCommandments\">The Context of the Commandments<\/p>\n<p>The commandments are inseparable from the covenant. The making of a covenant between God and Israel at Sinai was the formation of a particular relationship. God made certain commitments to Israel and in return imposed certain obligations upon Israel. Although Israel’s obligations are expressed in detail in a mass of precise legal material, they are given their most precise and succinct expression in the Ten Commandments. The commandments set down the most fundamental principles of all Hebrew law, and the detailed laws contained in the Pentateuch are for the most part applications of the principles to particular situations. Thus, the role of the Ten Commandments in ancient Israel was to give direction to a relationship. They were not to be obeyed simply for the sake of obedience, as though obedience accumulated some kind of credit. Rather, they were to be obeyed in order to discover the fullness and richness of life in a relationship with God.<\/p>\n<p>The commandments in ancient Israel were not an ethical code or compilation of advice on the fundamentals of morality. The covenant was between God and a nation; the commandments were directed toward the life of that nation and its citizens. Consequently, the initial role of the commandments was similar to that of criminal law in a modern state. Israel was a theocracy, a state whose king was God (Dt 33:5). The commandments provided guidance to the citizens of that state. In addition, to break a commandment was to commit a crime against the state and the ruler of that state, God. Thus, the penalties were severe, for the breaking of the commandments threatened the covenant relationship and the continued existence of the state. This state context is important for understanding the commandments in their initial form.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheMeaningoftheCommandments\">The Meaning of the Commandments<\/p>\n<p>The commandments begin with a preface (Ex 20:2; Dt 5:6) that identifies the lawgiver, God, who gave the commandments to a people with whom he already had a relationship. The lawgiver is the God of the exodus, who redeemed his people from slavery and granted them freedom. The preface is vital, for it indicates that God’s gift of law was preceded by an act of love and grace. The commandments were given to a people who had been redeemed; they were not given in order to achieve redemption. There are some variations in the manner of numbering the commandments. According to some systems, the preface is identified with the first commandments. It seems preferable, however, to understand the opening words as a preface to all ten commandments. In the notes on the Ten Commandments that follow, there is first an explanation of the original meaning, then some indication of the contemporary meaning.<\/p>\n<h5>First Commandment: Prohibition of Worshiping Gods Other Than the Lord (Ex 20:3; Dt 5:7)<\/h5>\n<p>The first commandment is in negative form and expressly prohibits the Israelites engaging in the worship of foreign deities. The significance of the commandment lies in the nature of the covenant. The essence of the covenant was a relationship, and the essence of relationship, from the biblical perspective, is faithfulness. God’s faithfulness to his people had already been demonstrated in the exodus, as indicated in the preface to the commandments. In turn, God required of his people, more than anything else, a faithfulness in their relationship with him. Thus, though the commandment is stated negatively, it is full of positive implications. And its position as first of the ten is significant, for this commandment establishes a principle that is particularly prominent in the social commandments (six through ten).<\/p>\n<p>The contemporary significance of the commandment is in the context of faithfulness in relationship. At the heart of human life, there must be a relationship with God. Anything in life that disrupts that primary relationship breaks the commandment. Foreign “gods” are thus persons, or even things, that would disrupt the primacy of the relationship with God.<\/p>\n<h5>Second Commandment: Prohibition of Making Images (Ex 20:4-6; Dt 5:8-10)<\/h5>\n<p>The second commandment prohibits the Israelites from making images of the Lord. To make an image of God, in the shape or form of anything in this world, is to reduce the Creator to something less than his creation and to worship the created instead of the Creator. The temptation for Israel to worship God in the form of an image must have been enormous, for images and idols flourished in all the religions of the ancient Near East. But the God of Israel was a transcendent and infinite being, and could not be reduced to the limitations of an image or form within creation. Any such reduction of God would be so radical a misunderstanding that the “god” worshiped would no longer be the God of the universe.<\/p>\n<p>In the modern world, the shape of the temptation has changed. Few are tempted to take power tools and shape from wood an image of God. Nevertheless, the commandment is still applicable and the danger against which it guards is always present.<\/p>\n<h5>Third Commandment: Prohibition of the Improper Use of God’s Name (Ex 20:7; Dt 5:11)<\/h5>\n<p>There is a popular understanding that the third commandment prohibits bad language or blasphemy; however, it is concerned with the use of God’s name. God had granted to Israel an extraordinary privilege; he had revealed to them his personal name. The name, in Hebrew, is represented by four letters, <em>YHWH,<\/em> which are variously rendered in English Bibles as <span>Lord<\/span>, Yahweh, or Jehovah. The knowledge of the divine name was a privilege, for it meant that Israel did not worship an anonymous and distant deity but a being with a personal name. Yet the privilege was accompanied by the danger that the knowledge of God’s personal name could be abused. In ancient Near Eastern religions, magic was a common practice. Magic involved the use of a god’s name, which was believed to control a god’s power, in certain kinds of activity designed to harness it for human purposes. Thus, the kind of activity that is prohibited by the third commandment is magic, namely, attempting to control God’s power, through his name, for a personal and worthless purpose. God may give, but must not be manipulated or controlled.<\/p>\n<p>Within Christianity, the name of God is equally important. Through God’s name is access to God in prayer. The abuse of the privilege of prayer, involving calling upon the name of God for some selfish or worthless purpose or swearing falsely by it, is tantamount to the magic of the ancient world. In both, God’s name is abused and the third commandment is broken. Positively, the third commandment is a reminder of the enormous privilege of knowing God’s name, a privilege not to be taken lightly or abused.<\/p>\n<h5>Fourth Commandment: Requirement to Observe the Sabbath (Ex 20:8-11; Dt 5:12-15)<\/h5>\n<p>This commandment, once again, has no parallels in ancient Near Eastern religions; furthermore, it is the first of the commandments to be expressed in a positive form. While most of life was characterized by work, the seventh day was to be set aside. Work was to cease and the day was to be kept holy. The holiness of the day is related to the reason for its establishment. Two reasons are given, and though at first they appear different, there is a common theme linking them. In the first version of the commandment (Ex 20:11), the Sabbath is kept in commemoration of Creation; God created in six days and rested on the seventh day. In the second version (Dt 5:15), the Sabbath is observed in commemoration of the exodus from Egypt. The theme linking the two versions is creation: God not only created the world but also “created” his people, Israel, in redeeming them from Egyptian slavery. Thus, every seventh day throughout the passage of time, the Hebrew people were to reflect upon Creation; in so doing, they were reflecting upon the meaning of their existence.<\/p>\n<p>For most of Christianity, the concept of “sabbath” has been moved from the seventh to the first day of the week, namely Sunday. The move is related to a change in Christian thought, which is identified in the resurrection of Jesus Christ on a Sunday morning. The change is appropriate, for Christians now reflect each Sunday, or “Sabbath,” on a third act of divine creation, namely the “new creation” that is established in the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead.<\/p>\n<h5>Fifth Commandment: Requirement to Honor Parents (Ex 20:12; Dt 5:16)<\/h5>\n<p>The fifth commandment forms a bridge between the first four, concerned primarily with God, and the last five, concerned primarily with human relationships. On first reading, it appears to be concerned with family relationships only: children are to honor their parents. Although the commandment establishes a principle of honor or respect in family relationships, it is probably also related to the responsibility of parents to instruct their children in the faith of the covenant (Dt 6:7), so that the religion could be passed on from one generation to another. But instruction in the faith required an attitude of honor and respect from those who were being instructed. Thus, the fifth commandment is concerned not only with family harmony but also with the transmission of faith in God throughout subsequent generations.<\/p>\n<p>With the fifth commandment, there is little need to convert its meaning into contemporary relevance. At a time in which so much education is undertaken beyond the confines of the family unit, the commandment serves a solemn reminder, not only of the need for harmonious family life, but also of the responsibilities of religious education which rest upon both parents and children.<\/p>\n<h5>Sixth Commandment: Prohibition of Murder (Ex 20:13; Dt 5:17).<\/h5>\n<p>The wording of this commandment simply prohibits “killing”; the meaning of the word, however, implies the prohibition of murder. The word used in the commandment is not related primarily to killing in warfare or to capital punishment, both of which are dealt with in other portions of the Mosaic law. The word could be used to designate both murder and manslaughter. Since manslaughter involves accidental killing, it cannot be sensibly prohibited; it, too, is dealt with in other legislation (Dt 19:1-13). Thus, the sixth commandment prohibits murder, the taking of another person’s life for personal and selfish gain. Stated positively, the sixth commandment preserves for each member of the covenant community the right to live.<\/p>\n<p>In the modern world, a similar statute prohibiting murder exists in almost all legal codes, having become a part of state law, in addition to purely religious or moral law. Jesus, however, pointed to the deeper meaning implicit in the commandment. It is not only the act, but also the sentiment underlying the act, that is evil (Mt 5:21-22).<\/p>\n<h5>Seventh Commandment: Prohibition of Adultery (Ex 20:14; Dt 5:18)<\/h5>\n<p>The act of adultery is fundamentally an act of unfaithfulness. One or both persons in an adulterous act are being unfaithful to another person or persons. Of all such crimes, the worst is that which signifies unfaithfulness. It is for this reason that adultery is included in the Ten Commandments while other sins or crimes pertaining to sexuality are not included. Thus, the seventh commandment is the social parallel to the first commandment. Just as the first commandment requires absolute faithfulness in the relationship with the one God, so the seventh requires a similar relationship of faithfulness within the covenant of marriage.<\/p>\n<p>The relevance of the commandment is apparent, but again Jesus points to the implications of the commandment for the mental life (Mt 5:27-28).<\/p>\n<h5>Eighth Commandment: Prohibition of Theft (Ex 20:15; Dt 5:19)<\/h5>\n<p>The eighth commandment establishes a principle within the covenant community concerning possessions and property; a person had a right to certain things, which could not be violated by a fellow citizen for his or her personal advantage. But while the commandment is concerned with property, its most fundamental concern is human liberty. The worst form of theft is “manstealing” (somewhat equivalent to modern kidnapping)—that is, taking a person (presumably by force) and selling him or her into slavery. The crime and the related law are stated more fully in Deuteronomy 24:7. The commandment is thus not only concerned with the preservation of private property but is more fundamentally concerned with the preservation of human liberty, freedom from such things as slavery and exile. It prohibits a person from manipulating or exploiting the lives of others for personal gain.<\/p>\n<p>Just as the sixth commandment prohibits murder, so the eighth prohibits what might be called “social murder,” that is, the cutting off of a man or woman from a life of freedom within the community of God’s people.<\/p>\n<h5>Ninth Commandment: Prohibition of False Witnessing (Ex 20:16; Dt 5:20)<\/h5>\n<p>The commandment is not a general prohibition against lies. The wording of the original commandment sets it firmly in the context of Israel’s legal system. It prohibits perjury, or the giving of false testimony within the proceedings of the law court. Thus, it establishes a principle of truthfulness and carries implications with respect to false statements in any context. Within any nation, the courts of law must be able to operate on the basis of true information. If law is not based on truth and righteousness, then the very foundations of life and liberty are undermined. If legal testimony is true, there can be no miscarriage of justice; if it is false, the most fundamental of human liberties are lost. Thus, the commandment sought to preserve the integrity of Israel’s legal system while guarding against encroachments on personal liberties.<\/p>\n<p>The principle is maintained in most modern legal systems—for example, in the taking of an oath before giving evidence in court. But in the last resort, the commandment points to the essential nature of truthfulness in all interpersonal relationships.<\/p>\n<h5>Tenth Commandment: Prohibition of Coveting (Ex 20:17; Dt 5:21)<\/h5>\n<p>The tenth commandment is curious in its initial context. It prohibits the coveting, or desiring, of persons or things belonging to a neighbor (that is, a fellow Israelite). To find such a commandment in a code of criminal law is unusual. The first nine commandments prohibited acts, and a criminal act can be followed by prosecution and legal process if detected. But the tenth commandment, in contrast, prohibits <em>desires,<\/em> or covetous feelings. Under human law, it is not possible to prosecute upon the basis of desire, since proof would be impossible. While the crime involved in the tenth commandment could not be prosecuted within the limitations of the Hebrew system, it was nevertheless known by God, the “Chief Judge.” The genius of the commandment lies in its therapeutic nature. It is not enough merely to deal with crime once it has been committed; the law must also attempt to attack the roots of crime.<\/p>\n<p>The root of almost all evil and crime lies within the self, in the desires of the individual. Thus evil desires are prohibited. If covetous desires are gradually eliminated, then natural desires may be directed toward God.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"ThePrincipleoftheCommandments\">The Principle of the Commandments<\/p>\n<p>The relevance of each commandment is understood in the underlying principle of the whole Decalogue. The principle of the whole is the principle of love, the heart of Israel’s religion. God loved Israel and called them in love. In return, he imposed one commandment upon Israel that superseded all others: “You shall love the <span>Lord<\/span> your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your might” (Dt 6:5, <span>rsv<\/span>). That is the central commandment of Israel’s religion. How to love the invisible, intangible God is partly explained in the Decalogue. For the person who loves God, the Ten Commandments provide guidance; they point to a way of life that, if lived, reflects love for God and leads to a deeper experience of God’s love. Therefore, the Ten Commandments continue to be a central part of Christianity. Jesus repeated the commandment to love from Deuteronomy 6:5 and he called it “the first and greatest commandment” (Mt 22:37-38). Consequently, the Ten Commandments still serve as a guide for the Christian community.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Civil Law and Justice; Law, Biblical Concept of.<\/p>","summary_ro":"COMMANDMENTS, The Ten List of commands given by God to Moses. The Ten Commandments are stated twice in the OT; first in the book of Exodus (20:2-17), in a passage describing God’s gift of the commandments to Israel, and second in Deuteronomy (5:6-21), in the context of a covenant renewal ceremony. Moses reminds his people of the substance and meaning of the commandments, as they renew their covenant allegiance to God. In the original language, the commandments are called the “Ten Words” (from...","summary_en":"COMMANDMENTS, The Ten List of commands given by God to Moses. The Ten Commandments are stated twice in the OT; first in the book of Exodus (20:2-17), in a passage describing God’s gift of the commandments to Israel, and second in Deuteronomy (5:6-21), in the context of a covenant renewal ceremony. Moses reminds his people of the substance and meaning of the commandments, as they renew their covenant allegiance to God. In the original language, the commandments are called the “Ten Words” (from...","source":"Articles\/C.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":7811,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Courts and Trials","title_en":"Courts and Trials","content_ro":"<h3>COURTS AND TRIALS<\/h3>\n<p>Legal disputes were as much a part of life in Bible times as they are today. The ways that courts operated and trials were conducted, however, were quite different. Unless those customs are understood, modern readers of the Bible, thinking of contemporary legal procedures, may misunderstand the judicial accounts contained in the Bible.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"OldTestamentLegalProcedures\">Old Testament Legal Procedures<\/p>\n<h5>Exodus to Deuteronomy<\/h5>\n<p>The books of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy contain most of the law in the OT, plus much other information about courts and legal procedures. Those books reveal how trials were conducted before Israel had kings. Certain changes in the legal system occurring after the establishment of the monarchy (c. 1000 <span>BC<\/span>) are described in other OT books.<\/p>\n<p>The OT depicts God as supreme lawgiver and judge, with Moses and later the kings as God’s deputies. But Moses did not create the law or decide the most difficult cases, which were referred directly to God for the decision (see Lv 24:10-23; Nm 15:32-36; 27:1-11). When disputes arose between Israel’s leaders, God intervened, judging the guilty party directly (Nm 16–17). Thus law is seen in the OT as a divine revelation, not a human creation, as it was regarded in ancient Babylon.<\/p>\n<p>Usually it was not necessary to seek God’s direct guidance; precedent was sufficient. Elders were appointed in Israel to serve as judges of all but the most serious cases, relieving Moses of the burden of judging all the people himself (Ex 18:13-27). Deuteronomy 16:18 specifies that “judges” be appointed in every town; in other passages those responsible for punishing criminals are called “the elders” (Dt 19:12). The local judges were obviously nonprofessionals selected from the most respected members of each tribe or village. Difficult cases were referred to a central court of justice to be decided by the priests and, in the period of the judges, by the civil and military leader (17:8-12). Deborah and Samuel were both examples of such “judges of Israel.” Samuel even conducted a circuit court in a number of different centers (Jgs 4:4-5; 1 Sm 7:15-17).<\/p>\n<p>In Israel, as in other ancient societies, private prosecution was the norm. An individual with a grievance had to bring the case before the court. Only in situations of idolatry or other serious religious crimes were public prosecutions instituted (Dt 13; 17:2-7). Even in murder cases prosecution was left in the hands of the victim’s relatives. One relative, called the “avenger of blood,” had to pursue the alleged murderer to the nearest city of refuge, where a trial was held (Nm 35:10-34; Dt 19:1-13).<\/p>\n<p>Trials were held in a public place, such as the open space near a city gate (Dt 21:19). During the trial, the judges were seated, but the parties to the dispute and the witnesses stood. At least two witnesses were required to convict (19:15). They had to be eyewitnesses who had caught the accused red-handed. Where such clear-cut evidence was lacking (for example in disputes over ownership), the litigants could take an oath to demonstrate their honesty (Ex 22:8-13). If a husband suspected his wife of infidelity but had no proof, he could require her to undergo an ordeal of drinking “bitter water” to demonstrate her innocence (Nm 5:6-31).<\/p>\n<p>When all the evidence had been presented, the judges gave their verdict. Those who had brought the accusation had the duty of enforcing the court’s sentence. Thus, a witness of idolatry had to throw the first stone at the guilty person’s execution (Dt 17:7). Certain administrative officials may have had the job of writing down the court’s decision and seeing that it was enforced (16:18). At times it may have been difficult for people to uphold their legal rights if their opponent came from a strong and wealthy family.<\/p>\n<h5>Other Old Testament Books<\/h5>\n<p>When Israel became a kingdom, certain changes were made in its judicial system. Most obviously, the king became the supreme judge who dealt with the most difficult cases. Solomon demonstrated his great wisdom in adjudicating between two women who both claimed to be the mother of a particular baby (1 Kgs 3:16-28). Kings, who had all the power necessary to enforce their decisions, were expected to use it to help the weak members of society, such as orphans and widows (Ps 72:12).<\/p>\n<p>In practice, however, Israel’s kings did not always live up to that ideal. Absalom sowed the seeds of a revolution by telling those who came to the royal court that his father, King David, did not administer justice well (2 Sm 15:1-6). One notable trial in the OT illustrates how royal judicial powers could be completely misused by unscrupulous rulers. Naboth was put to death on a trumped-up charge of blasphemy so that King Ahab could extend his palace grounds by taking over Naboth’s vineyard. Though the charge was false, the trial followed correct legal procedures. Two scoundrels were found to give evidence that they had heard Naboth curse God and the king (1 Kgs 21:10); one witness would have been insufficient to secure conviction. Naboth was tried by the elders of the city in a public place. After being convicted he was taken outside the city and executed (vv 11-13). In other trials the prophet Jeremiah was charged with subversive activities more than once (Jer 26; 37:11–38:28).<\/p>\n<p>The prophets sometimes pictured God as taking Israel to court to answer for the nation’s misdeeds. God would list Israel’s sins and invite the people to explain their behavior. Sometimes heaven and earth, or the mountains, were called to be witnesses confirming the truth of God’s accusations. Finally judgment was pronounced (e.g., Is 1:2-26; 43; Jer 2:4-37; Mi 6).<\/p>\n<p>A theme running through the book of Job is Job’s request for a trial. Job thought that if he were given a fair hearing, his innocence would be demonstrated and God would stop causing him so much suffering (cf. Jb 13:23). Eventually God heeded Job’s request and a long cross-examination began, finally reducing Job to silence (42:1-6).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"NewTestamentLegalProcedures\">New Testament Legal Procedures<\/p>\n<p>Numerous trials occur in the NT. Jesus was tried by the Sanhedrin (the supreme Jewish religious court) and also by the Roman governor. The book of Acts mentions various court actions designed to stop the spread of Christianity. Luke, the author of Acts, presents a vivid and accurate description of how courts operated in provinces of the Roman Empire. Acts reaches a climax with Paul traveling to Rome to have his case heard by the Roman emperor Nero. Legal procedures in Roman courts were governed by complicated rules broadly resembling modern judicial technicalities. Serious crime was handled by public prosecutors, and trials were usually conducted by one judge. There were lawyers for the prosecution and lawyers for the defense.<\/p>\n<p>In Judea and other provinces of the empire, the local legal system was not suppressed. Traditional Jewish courts were allowed to try minor and religious offenses (Acts 4; 6:12–7:60) but were not permitted to handle serious cases where the death penalty might be involved. For that reason, when the Sanhedrin found Jesus guilty of blasphemy for claiming to be the Son of God and the Messiah, they had to transfer the case to Pontius Pilate, the Roman procurator (governor) of Judea. The Jews considered blasphemy worthy of death, but as they admitted to Pilate, “It is not lawful for us to put any man to death” (Jn 18:31, <span>rsv<\/span>). The rule throughout the Roman Empire was that only governors could pronounce the death sentence. Execution of the apostle James by Jewish authorities, mentioned by the Jewish historian Josephus, took place during an interregnum between two governors. The stoning of Stephen was done in haste, without the consent of Pilate (Acts 7).<\/p>\n<h5>The Trials of Jesus<\/h5>\n<p>Jesus was first tried by the Sanhedrin, presided over by the high priest. By later standards of Jewish legal practice, that trial was somewhat irregular. For example, it seems to have been held both at night and on the eve of a festival. Criminal trials were not supposed to take place at such times. It is uncertain that those rules existed in Jesus’ day, but even if they did, little can be made of that technicality since the Jewish court had no power to carry out its sentence.<\/p>\n<p>After conviction by the Sanhedrin, Jesus was taken to Pilate, whose Jerusalem residence, the old royal palace called the Praetorium, was on the western side of the city near the modern Jaffa Gate. The Romans were unlikely to sentence anyone to death in a religious matter, so the Jewish authorities presented their charges against Jesus in political language: he violated the law by “forbidding us to give tribute to Caesar, and saying that he himself is Christ a king” (Lk 23:2, <span>rsv<\/span>). Perhaps sensing something false about those charges (they were actually religious rather than political), Pilate sent Jesus to Herod, the ruler of Galilee, who was in Jerusalem at the time. Pilate, who did not have to send Galileans to Herod for trial, probably saw this as a means of avoiding an uncomfortable decision. Herod, however, pronounced Jesus innocent and returned him to Pilate.<\/p>\n<p>Pilate offered to give Jesus a disciplinary beating traditionally given to troublemakers as a warning to behave themselves in the future (Lk 23:16). But that did not satisfy Jesus’ accusers, who pressed the charge of insurrection, threatening to report Pilate to the emperor if he did not convict Jesus. Pilate, who had not been a very successful governor, feared official complaints about his administration, so the threat worked. He sentenced Jesus to be crucified on the charge of being king of the Jews. The heavy scourging that preceded the Crucifixion was never a punishment by itself but was a frequent accompaniment to other punishments. Another feature of Roman legal practice illustrated in the Gospels was the division of Jesus’ clothes among the soldiers; executioners were allowed to keep such personal effects as a fringe benefit.<\/p>\n<h5>The Trials of the Apostle Paul<\/h5>\n<p>Paul’s trials recorded in the book of Acts also reflect the division between Jewish and Roman authority in legal matters. When arrested, Paul had a preliminary hearing before the Sanhedrin (Acts 23). He was then transferred to the governor for a formal trial in Caesarea, the governor’s usual headquarters. There he was tried before Felix, who adjourned the case for two years until a new governor could be appointed. Luke reported that Felix (another unpopular governor) did that to please the Jews, but it was quite common for governors to leave cases to be dealt with by their successors.<\/p>\n<p>When Festus, the new governor, arrived, he suggested that Paul be tried in Jerusalem. Paul, disliking the prospect of being tried there, exercised his right as a Roman citizen to be tried in Rome before the emperor (Acts 25:1-20). The rest of the book of Acts tells how Paul eventually reached Rome and had to wait another two years before his case was heard. No details of Paul’s trial in Rome are known, but Nero, who was emperor when Paul arrived, tried very few cases himself. He appointed judges to handle appeals cases such as Paul’s, so it is unlikely that Paul was actually tried by Nero.<\/p>\n<p>The right of appeal to the emperor was not the only legal right possessed by Roman citizens. They were also protected from being beaten without a trial, a right asserted by Paul in Philippi and Jerusalem (Acts 16:37; 22:24-29).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Avenger of Blood; Cities of Refuge; Civil Law and Justice; Criminal Law and Punishment; Sanhedrin.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>COURTS AND TRIALS<\/h3>\n<p>Legal disputes were as much a part of life in Bible times as they are today. The ways that courts operated and trials were conducted, however, were quite different. Unless those customs are understood, modern readers of the Bible, thinking of contemporary legal procedures, may misunderstand the judicial accounts contained in the Bible.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"OldTestamentLegalProcedures\">Old Testament Legal Procedures<\/p>\n<h5>Exodus to Deuteronomy<\/h5>\n<p>The books of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy contain most of the law in the OT, plus much other information about courts and legal procedures. Those books reveal how trials were conducted before Israel had kings. Certain changes in the legal system occurring after the establishment of the monarchy (c. 1000 <span>BC<\/span>) are described in other OT books.<\/p>\n<p>The OT depicts God as supreme lawgiver and judge, with Moses and later the kings as God’s deputies. But Moses did not create the law or decide the most difficult cases, which were referred directly to God for the decision (see Lv 24:10-23; Nm 15:32-36; 27:1-11). When disputes arose between Israel’s leaders, God intervened, judging the guilty party directly (Nm 16–17). Thus law is seen in the OT as a divine revelation, not a human creation, as it was regarded in ancient Babylon.<\/p>\n<p>Usually it was not necessary to seek God’s direct guidance; precedent was sufficient. Elders were appointed in Israel to serve as judges of all but the most serious cases, relieving Moses of the burden of judging all the people himself (Ex 18:13-27). Deuteronomy 16:18 specifies that “judges” be appointed in every town; in other passages those responsible for punishing criminals are called “the elders” (Dt 19:12). The local judges were obviously nonprofessionals selected from the most respected members of each tribe or village. Difficult cases were referred to a central court of justice to be decided by the priests and, in the period of the judges, by the civil and military leader (17:8-12). Deborah and Samuel were both examples of such “judges of Israel.” Samuel even conducted a circuit court in a number of different centers (Jgs 4:4-5; 1 Sm 7:15-17).<\/p>\n<p>In Israel, as in other ancient societies, private prosecution was the norm. An individual with a grievance had to bring the case before the court. Only in situations of idolatry or other serious religious crimes were public prosecutions instituted (Dt 13; 17:2-7). Even in murder cases prosecution was left in the hands of the victim’s relatives. One relative, called the “avenger of blood,” had to pursue the alleged murderer to the nearest city of refuge, where a trial was held (Nm 35:10-34; Dt 19:1-13).<\/p>\n<p>Trials were held in a public place, such as the open space near a city gate (Dt 21:19). During the trial, the judges were seated, but the parties to the dispute and the witnesses stood. At least two witnesses were required to convict (19:15). They had to be eyewitnesses who had caught the accused red-handed. Where such clear-cut evidence was lacking (for example in disputes over ownership), the litigants could take an oath to demonstrate their honesty (Ex 22:8-13). If a husband suspected his wife of infidelity but had no proof, he could require her to undergo an ordeal of drinking “bitter water” to demonstrate her innocence (Nm 5:6-31).<\/p>\n<p>When all the evidence had been presented, the judges gave their verdict. Those who had brought the accusation had the duty of enforcing the court’s sentence. Thus, a witness of idolatry had to throw the first stone at the guilty person’s execution (Dt 17:7). Certain administrative officials may have had the job of writing down the court’s decision and seeing that it was enforced (16:18). At times it may have been difficult for people to uphold their legal rights if their opponent came from a strong and wealthy family.<\/p>\n<h5>Other Old Testament Books<\/h5>\n<p>When Israel became a kingdom, certain changes were made in its judicial system. Most obviously, the king became the supreme judge who dealt with the most difficult cases. Solomon demonstrated his great wisdom in adjudicating between two women who both claimed to be the mother of a particular baby (1 Kgs 3:16-28). Kings, who had all the power necessary to enforce their decisions, were expected to use it to help the weak members of society, such as orphans and widows (Ps 72:12).<\/p>\n<p>In practice, however, Israel’s kings did not always live up to that ideal. Absalom sowed the seeds of a revolution by telling those who came to the royal court that his father, King David, did not administer justice well (2 Sm 15:1-6). One notable trial in the OT illustrates how royal judicial powers could be completely misused by unscrupulous rulers. Naboth was put to death on a trumped-up charge of blasphemy so that King Ahab could extend his palace grounds by taking over Naboth’s vineyard. Though the charge was false, the trial followed correct legal procedures. Two scoundrels were found to give evidence that they had heard Naboth curse God and the king (1 Kgs 21:10); one witness would have been insufficient to secure conviction. Naboth was tried by the elders of the city in a public place. After being convicted he was taken outside the city and executed (vv 11-13). In other trials the prophet Jeremiah was charged with subversive activities more than once (Jer 26; 37:11–38:28).<\/p>\n<p>The prophets sometimes pictured God as taking Israel to court to answer for the nation’s misdeeds. God would list Israel’s sins and invite the people to explain their behavior. Sometimes heaven and earth, or the mountains, were called to be witnesses confirming the truth of God’s accusations. Finally judgment was pronounced (e.g., Is 1:2-26; 43; Jer 2:4-37; Mi 6).<\/p>\n<p>A theme running through the book of Job is Job’s request for a trial. Job thought that if he were given a fair hearing, his innocence would be demonstrated and God would stop causing him so much suffering (cf. Jb 13:23). Eventually God heeded Job’s request and a long cross-examination began, finally reducing Job to silence (42:1-6).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"NewTestamentLegalProcedures\">New Testament Legal Procedures<\/p>\n<p>Numerous trials occur in the NT. Jesus was tried by the Sanhedrin (the supreme Jewish religious court) and also by the Roman governor. The book of Acts mentions various court actions designed to stop the spread of Christianity. Luke, the author of Acts, presents a vivid and accurate description of how courts operated in provinces of the Roman Empire. Acts reaches a climax with Paul traveling to Rome to have his case heard by the Roman emperor Nero. Legal procedures in Roman courts were governed by complicated rules broadly resembling modern judicial technicalities. Serious crime was handled by public prosecutors, and trials were usually conducted by one judge. There were lawyers for the prosecution and lawyers for the defense.<\/p>\n<p>In Judea and other provinces of the empire, the local legal system was not suppressed. Traditional Jewish courts were allowed to try minor and religious offenses (Acts 4; 6:12–7:60) but were not permitted to handle serious cases where the death penalty might be involved. For that reason, when the Sanhedrin found Jesus guilty of blasphemy for claiming to be the Son of God and the Messiah, they had to transfer the case to Pontius Pilate, the Roman procurator (governor) of Judea. The Jews considered blasphemy worthy of death, but as they admitted to Pilate, “It is not lawful for us to put any man to death” (Jn 18:31, <span>rsv<\/span>). The rule throughout the Roman Empire was that only governors could pronounce the death sentence. Execution of the apostle James by Jewish authorities, mentioned by the Jewish historian Josephus, took place during an interregnum between two governors. The stoning of Stephen was done in haste, without the consent of Pilate (Acts 7).<\/p>\n<h5>The Trials of Jesus<\/h5>\n<p>Jesus was first tried by the Sanhedrin, presided over by the high priest. By later standards of Jewish legal practice, that trial was somewhat irregular. For example, it seems to have been held both at night and on the eve of a festival. Criminal trials were not supposed to take place at such times. It is uncertain that those rules existed in Jesus’ day, but even if they did, little can be made of that technicality since the Jewish court had no power to carry out its sentence.<\/p>\n<p>After conviction by the Sanhedrin, Jesus was taken to Pilate, whose Jerusalem residence, the old royal palace called the Praetorium, was on the western side of the city near the modern Jaffa Gate. The Romans were unlikely to sentence anyone to death in a religious matter, so the Jewish authorities presented their charges against Jesus in political language: he violated the law by “forbidding us to give tribute to Caesar, and saying that he himself is Christ a king” (Lk 23:2, <span>rsv<\/span>). Perhaps sensing something false about those charges (they were actually religious rather than political), Pilate sent Jesus to Herod, the ruler of Galilee, who was in Jerusalem at the time. Pilate, who did not have to send Galileans to Herod for trial, probably saw this as a means of avoiding an uncomfortable decision. Herod, however, pronounced Jesus innocent and returned him to Pilate.<\/p>\n<p>Pilate offered to give Jesus a disciplinary beating traditionally given to troublemakers as a warning to behave themselves in the future (Lk 23:16). But that did not satisfy Jesus’ accusers, who pressed the charge of insurrection, threatening to report Pilate to the emperor if he did not convict Jesus. Pilate, who had not been a very successful governor, feared official complaints about his administration, so the threat worked. He sentenced Jesus to be crucified on the charge of being king of the Jews. The heavy scourging that preceded the Crucifixion was never a punishment by itself but was a frequent accompaniment to other punishments. Another feature of Roman legal practice illustrated in the Gospels was the division of Jesus’ clothes among the soldiers; executioners were allowed to keep such personal effects as a fringe benefit.<\/p>\n<h5>The Trials of the Apostle Paul<\/h5>\n<p>Paul’s trials recorded in the book of Acts also reflect the division between Jewish and Roman authority in legal matters. When arrested, Paul had a preliminary hearing before the Sanhedrin (Acts 23). He was then transferred to the governor for a formal trial in Caesarea, the governor’s usual headquarters. There he was tried before Felix, who adjourned the case for two years until a new governor could be appointed. Luke reported that Felix (another unpopular governor) did that to please the Jews, but it was quite common for governors to leave cases to be dealt with by their successors.<\/p>\n<p>When Festus, the new governor, arrived, he suggested that Paul be tried in Jerusalem. Paul, disliking the prospect of being tried there, exercised his right as a Roman citizen to be tried in Rome before the emperor (Acts 25:1-20). The rest of the book of Acts tells how Paul eventually reached Rome and had to wait another two years before his case was heard. No details of Paul’s trial in Rome are known, but Nero, who was emperor when Paul arrived, tried very few cases himself. He appointed judges to handle appeals cases such as Paul’s, so it is unlikely that Paul was actually tried by Nero.<\/p>\n<p>The right of appeal to the emperor was not the only legal right possessed by Roman citizens. They were also protected from being beaten without a trial, a right asserted by Paul in Philippi and Jerusalem (Acts 16:37; 22:24-29).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Avenger of Blood; Cities of Refuge; Civil Law and Justice; Criminal Law and Punishment; Sanhedrin.<\/p>","summary_ro":"COURTS AND TRIALS Legal disputes were as much a part of life in Bible times as they are today. The ways that courts operated and trials were conducted, however, were quite different. Unless those customs are understood, modern readers of the Bible, thinking of contemporary legal procedures, may misunderstand the judicial accounts contained in the Bible. Old Testament Legal Procedures Exodus to Deuteronomy The books of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy contain most of the law in the ...","summary_en":"COURTS AND TRIALS Legal disputes were as much a part of life in Bible times as they are today. The ways that courts operated and trials were conducted, however, were quite different. Unless those customs are understood, modern readers of the Bible, thinking of contemporary legal procedures, may misunderstand the judicial accounts contained in the Bible. Old Testament Legal Procedures Exodus to Deuteronomy The books of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy contain most of the law in the ...","source":"Articles\/C.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":20856,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Book of Joshua","title_en":"Book of Joshua","content_ro":"<h3>JOSHUA, Book of<\/h3>\n<p>First of the historical books in the English Bible and the first of the Former Prophets (including Judges, the books of Samuel, and the books of Kings) in the Hebrew Bible. It begins with the Lord’s commission of Joshua (Jos 1:1-9) and concludes with the burial of Joshua, Eleazar, and the bones of Joseph (24:29-33). The purpose of the book is to show how Joshua continued in the footsteps of Moses, how the Lord gave the land to Israel, and how Israel might prosper in the land.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Author and Date<\/p>\n<p>• Problems of Interpretation<\/p>\n<p>• Purpose<\/p>\n<p>• Content<\/p>\n\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"AuthorandDate\">Author and Date<\/p>\n<p>According to the Talmud, Joshua wrote the book. This ancient tradition is possibly based on the brief statement that Joshua “recorded these things in the Book of the Law of God” (24:26, <span>nlt<\/span>). However, this applies only to the renewal of the covenant (ch 24). The issue of authorship is tied up with the dating of the book. Since the book has no unambiguous markers on date and authorship, neither critics nor conservative scholars have been able to come to any agreement on these issues. According to a conservative analysis of Joshua, the book was written between 1375 <span>BC<\/span> and 1045 <span>BC<\/span> (premonarchic). The argument is based on the references to the migration of Dan (19:47; cf. Jgs 18:27-31), to Jerusalem as a Jebusite city (Jos 15:8, 63; 18:16, 28), to Sidon rather than Tyre as the prominent Phoenician city (11:8; 13:4-6; 19:28), and also on the eyewitness style (5:1, 6—in the MT). But critical scholars have raised issues that they considered could best be resolved by positing a seventh-century <span>BC<\/span> or even an exilic date.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"ProblemsofInterpretation\">Problems of Interpretation<\/p>\n<h5>Holy War<\/h5>\n<p>The morality of the Conquest may be explained by the concept of holy war. The holy war motif would explain why Israel was to destroy the indigenous population (Dt 7:16; 20:16-18; Jos 6:21; 8:24-26; 10:10, 28-30, 35-42; 11:11). The justification may lie in the concept that Israel was God’s instrument of judgment on the Canaanite nations. This argument is related to the mention of the wickedness of the Canaanites (Gn 15:16; Dt 7:2-5, 25-26; 12:30-31; Jos 23:7; Jgs 2:11). However, the canonical narrative of the progression of the Conquest puts the responsibility on the Canaanites. They marched and fought against Israel (Nm 21:21-35; Jos 7:4-5; 8:5, 16-17; 9:1-2; 10:1-6; 11:1-5; 24:11). Therefore, it could be argued that in the process of war a sincere invitation to make peace was given to the kings (cf. Nm 21:21-22; Dt 20:10-11) but was refused. Instead, the kings took the initiative in battle. The responsibility for the destruction of the native population thus lay with the leadership. Yet all this was evidence of God’s working in human affairs, which the Bible simply states, “For it was the <span>Lord<\/span> himself who hardened their hearts to wage war against Israel, so that he might destroy them totally, exterminating them without mercy, as the <span>Lord<\/span> had commanded Moses” (Jos 11:20, <span>niv<\/span>). Even as Pharaoh, whose heart the Lord hardened, was responsible for the plagues in Egypt, so the Canaanite rulers were responsible for the extermination of their populations. The biblical account of the Conquest affirms the mystery of human responsibility and divine sovereignty without explaining it.<\/p>\n<h5>Nature of the Conquest<\/h5>\n<p>Various explanations of the nature of the Conquest have been given. The traditional view of a blitzkrieg type of conquest, which resulted in a complete occupation of the whole land (cf. Jos 10:40; 11:1-3, 16-19), does not fit within the whole picture of the book. The book presents a realistic description of the areas that still had to be conquered (13:1-7) and of the military strength of the indigenous population (cf. 13:13; 15:63; 16:10; 17:12-18; 19:47). Moreover, Joshua promised that the Lord would continue to help Israel to occupy the land, as its population and needs developed (23:5). The occupation of Canaan was in two stages: conquest and gradual occupation (cf. Ex 23:29-30; Dt 7:22).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Purpose\">Purpose<\/p>\n<p>The role of the final (canonical) form of the book is to present Joshua’s obedience to the law of Moses. Victory and defeat are illustrations of obedience and disobedience. Of course, there is tension in this because the descriptions of the Conquest are complete and yet incomplete. The tension is a dynamic device to show that the Conquest and enjoyment of the land depend wholly on obedience. The period of Joshua is viewed as a paradigm of obedient Israel. Thus, a holistic reading of the book presents an appeal to covenant loyalty directed to future generations.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Content\">Content<\/p>\n<h5>Conquest of the Land, 1:1–12:24<\/h5>\n<h6>The Lord’s Commission of Joshua, 1:1-9<\/h6>\n<p>With the death of Moses (Jos 1:1), the Lord himself confirms Moses’ ordination of Joshua (Dt 34:9). He charges him with leadership in the conquest of Canaan (Jos 1:2-3), defines the geographical boundaries of the land (v 4), encourages him with his continued presence (vv 5, 9), and expects him to devoutly follow in “the law of Moses” (i.e., the law given in Dt; cf. Dt 31:9, 24-26; Jos 23:6), so that he may succeed in his mission (1:7-8). The original mission, as well as the ministry of Moses, find their continuity in Joshua.<\/p>\n<h6>Crossing the Jordan, 1:10–5:12<\/h6>\n<p>The first stage calls for the preparation of Israel. As their leader, Joshua must demonstrate to the people that he follows in the footsteps of Moses. He does this by reminding the Transjordan tribes to demonstrate loyalty to the command of Moses by joining with the other tribes in the conquest of Canaan (1:13-15; cf. Nm 32:20-27). They submitted to Joshua’s authority as to Moses’ (Jos 1:16-18). He demonstrates his military leadership in sending the two spies to Jericho (ch 2). His authority is accepted by priests (3:6; 4:10) and people (3:5-9) as they cross the Jordan. The crossing of the Jordan marks the public recognition of Joshua as a leader like Moses (4:14).<\/p>\n<p>The account of the crossing marks an important transition from the era of the exodus\/wilderness to the era of the Conquest. On the one hand, the story of Rahab illustrates how the Canaanites had heard about the Lord’s mighty acts (2:10-11) and reacted with great fear (cf. Ex 15:15; 23:27-28; Dt 2:25; 7:23; 11:25; 32:30). Rahab’s expression of faith in Israel’s God (2:11) anticipates the inclusion of the Gentiles in the covenant community as promised to the patriarchs (Gn 12:3). By faith Rahab was included in the covenant and was richly rewarded by the inclusion of her name in the lineage of Jesus (Mt 1:5).<\/p>\n<p>The Israelites crossed the Jordan with the knowledge that the fear of God had come on the Canaanites (Jos 2:24). However, they were also instructed to show their reverence for the Lord by keeping a safe distance between themselves and the ark of the covenant (3:4) and by consecrating themselves (v 5). The “living God” was among them and required holiness and reverence from his people (v 10). He, in turn, would demonstrate his loyalty in the marvelous passage through the Jordan River (v 13) and in the conquest of the land (3:10). After the tribes had crossed the river (4:1), each leader of the 12 tribes took up a stone out of the dried-up riverbed and set up a memorial at Gilgal (vv 1-9, 20). Thus, Israel was to remember that the stones, taken from the place where the priests who carried the ark had stood, were reminders of the majestic presence of God. Future generations who were to hear this report (vv 21-24) were hereby encouraged because the fear of God would fall on all the peoples of the land (v 24).<\/p>\n<p>The consecration before the conquest of Jericho is also symbolized by the act of circumcision (5:1-9) and by the celebration of the Passover (vv 10-12). The events are not necessarily chronologically related but were selected as examples of Israel’s responsiveness to Joshua’s ministry. Moses’ appeal to the new generation had its effect (cf. Dt 4:4-14; 6:1-5). The new generation served the Lord as long as Joshua and the elders were alive (Jos 24:31). Physical circumcision, neglected during the wilderness journey (5:5) due to unbelief, was a sign of spiritual responsiveness. The responsive nation received the external sign of the covenant with the anticipation that the Lord of the covenant would bless his people in giving them victory and the fruit of the land. Their reproach was rolled away (v 9). The covenant continuity is also brought out in the brief mention of the Passover celebration. The newness is their eating the fruit of the land. With the taste of the food of Canaan, the manna stopped. The desert experience was over. A new era was ushered in with their presence in the Promised Land (vv 11-12).<\/p>\n<h6>Conquest of Jericho, 5:13–6:27<\/h6>\n<p>The victory is the Lord’s. This is the message with which the battle of Jericho begins. The holy God who appeared to Moses in the burning bush (Ex 3:2–4:17) appeared to Joshua as the commander of the Lord’s army (Jos 5:14-15) with a message from the Lord (6:2). The city of Jericho will fall without a siege and ensuing battle. Israel’s response to Jericho’s preparedness for war (cf. 24:11) was strange, but the presence of the ark and the blowing of the trumpets symbolized that the Lord would fight for Israel, even as he had promised. However, Israel could not take any of the spoil. Because Yahweh fought for Israel, everything was to be devoted to him (6:17). The Lord honored the vow to Rahab, made by the spies, so that she and her family were kept alive (vv 17, 25), but they were temporarily placed outside the camp (v 23). The valuable metals were placed into the treasury (vv 19, 24), whereas everything else was burned by fire (v 24). Nothing was to be taken for personal gain; otherwise God’s judgment would rest on Israel (v 18). In order to emphasize God’s absolute ownership of Jericho, Joshua put a curse on anyone who would attempt to rebuild the city (6:26; cf. 1 Kgs 16:34). The rumors of Jericho’s destruction spread, and the peoples of Canaan knew that the Lord was with Joshua (Jos 6:27; cf. 1:5, 9).<\/p>\n<h6>Tragedy and Triumph at Ai, 7:1–8:29<\/h6>\n<p>Victory was short-lived because Achan defied God’s “ban,” took some of the objects, hid them in the ground under his tent (7:21), and brought God’s wrath on all of Israel (v 1). Israel was stunned by their defeat at Ai (vv 2-5). Joshua and the elders responded to the disaster by fasting and lamenting (vv 6-9). What a contrast between the reports of victory spread through the land and the anguished cry of God’s servant, fearful that the Canaanites would amass strength and wipe out Israel (v 9). Only after the people had consecrated themselves (v 13) and Achan was exposed and his memory removed (vv 25b-26) could they renew the attack on Ai with the encouraging promise of God’s presence and victory (8:1-2). Ai, too, was taken (vv 3-19) and the population execrated (vv 20-26), but Israel enjoyed the spoils by direct permission from the Lord (v 27). The ruins of Ai, the pile of stones covering the body of Ai’s king (vv 28-29), and the heap of rocks over Achan’s body were sobering reminders to Israel that God’s faithfulness requires absolute loyalty from his people.<\/p>\n<h6>Renewal of the Covenant, 8:30-35<\/h6>\n<p>Joshua led Israel in a ceremonial covenant renewal at Shechem, as Moses had instructed (Jos 8:31; cf. Dt 11:29; 27). Joshua took care in the proper preparation of the altar (cf. Ex 20:25) on which dedicatory and communal offerings were presented. He copied the law as a symbol of his royal leadership and his devotion to the Lord (Jos 8:32; cf. Dt 17:18). All Israel (officers and people, aliens and native-born Israelites) together presented themselves for the reading of the blessings and the curses (Jos 8:33-35). The whole book of Deuteronomy (i.e., “the Book of the Law,” cf. Dt 31:26) was read in their presence. Half the tribes stood on Mt Gerizim and said “Amen” to the blessings, and the other six stood on Mt Ebal, saying “Amen” to the curses (cf. Dt 27:9-26).<\/p>\n<h6>Covenant with the Gibeonites, 9:1-27<\/h6>\n<p>The rumors of God’s mighty acts had brought fear on the Canaanite kings (cf. Jos 2:8-11, 24; 5:1; 6:27). The first defeat at Ai had given them a ray of hope that Israel could be put down. Rather than submit themselves to Israel and suffer from humiliation as servants of Israel, they joined forces against Joshua and Israel (9:1-2).<\/p>\n<p>The Hivites from Gibeon, Kephirah, Beeroth, and Kiriath-jearim (9:7, 17) did not join with their fellow Canaanites. Instead, they developed an intricate plan to deceive Israel and to sue for full treaty status. The purpose of the treaty was that of friendship (namely, “peace”), promising each other to be of mutual assistance in case of attack. The concern was with the preservation of life (vv 15, 24). Their deception included a ruse about the great distance they had traveled (vv 11-14) and a false report of Israel’s victories in Transjordan with no mention of their crossing the Jordan (9:9-10; cf. 5:1). The law permitted the submissive city to subject its population to a type of suzerainty treaty, in which Israel defined the terms and expected the subjugated populace to serve as its forced laborers (Dt 20:11; cf. Jgs 1:28-35; 1 Kgs 9:15-21). However, the treaty permitted the Hivites to maintain their way of life with the advantage of Israel’s military protection.<\/p>\n<h6>The Southern Campaign, 10:1-43<\/h6>\n<p>The king of Jerusalem, Adoni-zedek, led the cities of Hebron, Jarmuth, Lachish, and Eglon in an alliance against Gibeon as a military ploy to take a stand against Israel (Jos 10:1-5). The Gibeonites appealed to Israel for help based on their covenantal relationship (v 6). Joshua led Israel on a 25-mile (40-kilometer) hike through the wilderness from Gilgal up to Gibeon during one night (vv 7-9). The Israelite attack surprised the Canaanites, who were already frightened of the Israelites. The camp of the Canaanites was thrown into confusion, and the soldiers fled the hill country via the road of Beth-horon to Azekah and Makkedah (v 10). But while running, they were tormented with large hailstones (v 11). The victory was the Lord’s. Miraculously, Israel could push the Canaanites farther from the hill country because of the long day (vv 12-14). The marvel of this day was long remembered in the Book of Jashar (cf. 2 Sm 1:18), because on it the Lord listened to a man, namely Joshua (Jos 10:14).<\/p>\n<p>The five kings hidden in a cave at Makkedah were discovered, killed, hanged on trees, and buried in the cave (10:16-27). Their foolish attempt to make war on Israel came to a quick end. Since the coalition of large cities had been put down, Joshua led Israel in a rapid campaign of the other southern cities (vv 29-43). The region was taken in one campaign with the Lord’s help (v 42).<\/p>\n<h6>The Northern Campaign, 11:1-15<\/h6>\n<p>The Israelites were again forced into battle, this time by the leadership of Jabin, king of Hazor. Jabin rallied the kings of the northern cities who assembled their troops and horses by the waters of Merom for battle against Israel (11:1-5). The similarity to the southern campaign is a literary way to demonstrate that the kings of the south and north initiated the war and were consequently defeated. So it was with the northern kings, who were routed as far as the region of Sidon in Phoenicia (v 8). Their horses were hamstrung and their chariots burned (v 9), as the Lord had instructed (v 6). Israel was to depend on the Lord (cf. Ps 20:7). Hazor, the great and ancient city, the center of Canaanite power in the north, was completely destroyed (Jos 11:10-13). The burning of Jericho, Ai, and Hazor were exceptions, because Israel had been promised Canaanite houses, wells, and cities (Dt 6:10-11; cf. Jos 24:13). The campaign narrative stresses again the absolute loyalty of Joshua to the Lord and to Moses, the servant of the Lord (Jos 11:9-15).<\/p>\n<h6>Summary of the Campaigns, 11:16–12:24<\/h6>\n<p>Joshua led Israel in victory and rest because of his careful adherence to the Lord’s directions to Moses. Moses had described the land to be conquered in detail (Dt 1:7), and Joshua took the regions of which Moses had spoken. Though the cities could have sued for a peaceable arrangement under which they would have been forced laborers (Dt 20:11), none of the cities recognized Israel. In fear they plotted and schemed how to destroy Israel. They were the aggressors. God had hardened their hearts (Jos 11:20). The theological reason is a mystery, as it was in the case of Pharaoh. But the net result was that Canaan was conquered and the population exterminated, except for the Hivites at Gibeon and their surrounding cities (vv 19-20). Even the Anakites, who had brought fear on Israel some 40 years before (Nm 13:33; cf. Dt 2:10, 21), were execrated (Jos 11:21). Yet it is already apparent that not every square mile of land was taken (v 22), even though in a sense the entire land was Israel’s, because major centers of Canaanite resistance had been broken. The tension between fulfillment and complete fulfillment is apparent in these verses.<\/p>\n<p>The listing of defeated kings (ch 12) includes the victories over Sihon and Og under Moses’ leadership. Their juxtaposition with the list of kings conquered under Joshua demonstrates the continuity of leadership and purpose—two leaders, many campaigns, but one battle. The Land of Promise is now a fulfillment. Through the campaigns the borders of the land of inheritance were now more apparent. In Transjordan the limits are from the Arnon to Mt Hermon (vv 2-5). In Canaan the boundary extends from the region south of Sidon to the Negev (vv 7-8).<\/p>\n<h5>The Division of the Land, 13:1–22:34<\/h5>\n<h6>The Command to Divide the Land, 13:1-7<\/h6>\n<p>Because of Joshua’s advanced age, the “whole” land was not taken. Moses had forewarned Israel that the inheritance would result from conquest as well as from gradual extension of Israel’s narrow boundaries. Slowly Israel was to inherit the whole land, lest it be overwhelmed by the size and be unable to use it properly (Ex 23:29-30; Dt 7:22). The areas still to be occupied were: the region to the north of Galilee, Mt Hermon (east of the Sea of Galilee), the area occupied by the Philistines, and regional Canaanite enclaves (Jos 13:2-7; cf. Jgs 1). Israel was not to be concerned with the future rights of occupation, because the Lord promised to help them (Jos 13:6).<\/p>\n<h6>Division of Transjordan, 13:8-33<\/h6>\n<p>Joshua did not alter the Mosaic arrangement concerning the allotments to the tribes of Manasseh, Reuben, and Gad (Jos 13:8, 32-33; cf. Nm 32; Dt 3:12-17). Their territory also excluded certain regions still occupied by Canaanites (Jos 13:13). The clans of Reuben had received the territory from the Arnon River north to Heshbon (vv 15-23). The clans of Gad had received the territory of Gilead, south of the Jabbok River to Heshbon (vv 24-28). Several clans of Manasseh received the region south of the Wadi Yarmuk to the Jabbok (vv 29-31). The Levitical towns are not listed here, but a reference is made to them as not receiving a patrimony, because they were to live off the offerings and sacrifices made to the Lord (Jos 13:14; cf. Nm 18:20-24; 35:1-8).<\/p>\n<h6>The Tribal Divisions in Canaan, 14:1–19:51<\/h6>\n<p>Eleazar, the high priest, and Joshua together cast lots to determine the boundaries, size, and allocation for the remaining nine and a half tribes. Again the exclusion of the tribe of Levi is mentioned (Jos 14:4), because their cities will be dealt with in chapters 20–21. Another literary device is special mention of the inheritance of Caleb in the beginning (14:6-15) and of Joshua at the conclusion (19:49-50). These two were the only ones who had left Egypt as adults, had been faithful spies, and had entered into the Promised Land (Nm 14:24, 30; Dt 1:36-38).<\/p>\n<h6>Judah, 15:1-63 (cf. Jgs 1:10-15, 20)<\/h6>\n<p>The boundaries of Judah extended from the Dead Sea westward to the Mediterranean (Jos 15:2-12). The cities of Judah are listed in its four regions: 29 in the Negev (vv 21-32), 42 cities in the Shephelah (or western foothills) and coastal plains (vv 33-47), 38 cities in the hill country (15:48-60), and 6 cities in the desert (vv 61-62). Judah was unable to take Jerusalem (v 63) until David made it his capital (cf. Jgs 1:21; 2 Sm 5:6-16).<\/p>\n<h6>Ephraim and Manasseh, 16:1–17:18<\/h6>\n<p>These two tribes, descended from Joseph, were richly blessed (cf. Gn 48; 49:22-26; Dt 33:13-17) and had obtained prominence among the tribes. They received one allotment as “the allotment for Joseph” (Jos 16:1). Part of Manasseh had already received a patrimony east of the Jordan (13:29-31). The limits for Ephraim and the west half of Manasseh were from Bethel to Mt Gilboa in the north and from the Jordan to the Mediterranean (16:1-3). Ephraim received the smaller portion in the south (vv 5-9) but was unable to drive the Canaanites out of Gezer. The clans of Manasseh are given, including Zelophehad (17:3-6; cf. Nm 27:1-11; 36:1-12), in order to clearly distinguish them from the clans of Manasseh in Transjordan. The region of west Manasseh extended from Shechem to Mt Gilboa (Jos 17:7-11); but Manasseh, also, was incapable of driving out the Canaanites completely (vv 12-13).<\/p>\n<p>Though they had received the largest portion of the land (more than a third), the tribes of Joseph complained. They knew that the Lord had blessed them (17:14), and they expected to get more cultivable land. But Joshua urged them to use the available land by cutting down the forests (vv 15-18). When they expressed realistic concern about Canaanite military power, Joshua called on them to do their share in occupying the land.<\/p>\n<h6>Seven Tribes, 18:1–19:51<\/h6>\n<p>The Israelites assembled at Shiloh to set up the tabernacle (cf. 1 Sm 1). At that point seven tribes had not yet received their patrimony. Joshua called for each tribe to commission three men to survey the land. When they returned, Joshua cast lots at the tabernacle in Shiloh and divided the land (Jos 18:3-10). The territory of Benjamin was between Judah and Ephraim (vv 11-28). Simeon’s allotment was in southern Judah (19:1-9), resulting in its absorption into Judah (cf. Gn 49:7). Zebulun (Jos 19:10-16), Issachar (vv 17-23), Asher (vv 24-31), and Naphtali (vv 32-39) received a portion north of Manasseh in the region of Galilee. Dan received the seventh lot and suffered subsequently, when it could not maintain the allotted territory because of the pressure of Judah on the east and the Philistines to the west (vv 40-48). They migrated northward and found the sources of the Jordan to be a fruitful region (Jos 19:47; cf. Jgs 18).<\/p>\n<h6>Conclusion, 19:49-51<\/h6>\n<p>The conclusion is symmetric with the beginning (Jos 14:1-14) in that Joshua also received a gift. Again, mention is made that all divisions were in the presence of the Lord, witnessed to and executed by the high priest Eleazar and Joshua (19:51; cf. 14:1).<\/p>\n<h6>Cities of Refuge and the Levitical Cities, 20:1–21:45<\/h6>\n<p>According to the instructions of Moses, six Levitical cities were set apart, three on each side of the Jordan, as cities of refuge (Nm 35:9-34; Dt 4:41-43; 19:1-10). The purpose was to provide “refuge” (asylum) for those who were guilty of manslaughter but had not intentionally killed someone. This practice was not to provide a way out for someone who was guilty, but to allow for the legal process to be completed (Jos 20).<\/p>\n<p>The Levites received by clan a total of 48 cities, six of which also served as cities of refuge (21:1-42). The Levites could not cultivate the soil because they were dependent on the tithes of the people (Nm 18:21-24), but they were permitted to have land for grazing. The dimensions of the land are given in Numbers 35:4-5. A special allocation is made to the descendants of Aaron (Jos 21:9-19), because they served as priests and their 13 cities were in the Judah-Simeon region, in proximity to the Jerusalem temple of the Solomonic era.<\/p>\n<p>With the allocation of the Levitical cities, the division of the land is concluded. The promise of the land is fulfilled (21:43-45). God is faithful! This section emphasizes the fulfillment, the power, and the grace of God, by which Israel entered into its rest. However, the book of Joshua also hints of the struggle that is still ahead of the Israelites and of the test that ultimately they will fail (cf. Ps 95:11; Heb 3:7-11).<\/p>\n<h6>Return of the Transjordan Tribes, 22:1-34<\/h6>\n<p>Joshua dismissed the two and a half tribes with a commendation for their loyalty to the other tribes and to the Lord (Jos 22:1-4), with a warning not to succumb to idolatry but to love the Lord in accordance with the Deuteronomic law, and with a blessing (vv 5-8). However, as they returned they set up a large altar by the Jordan on the western side. The other tribes heard about it and met at Shiloh (v 12). They wisely commissioned Phinehas, the son of the high priest, with ten representatives of the tribes, to investigate the matter. The commission charged the Transjordan tribes with treachery (Jos 22:15-20; cf. Nm 25; Jos 7).<\/p>\n<p>The response of the Transjordan tribes demonstrated their concern for the unity of the tribes and for the worship of God. These tribes feared being excluded from the fellowship of God’s people and had purposefully constructed an altar, identical to that prescribed in the law, in order to demonstrate their common heritage (Jos 22:21-30). The altar was not for sacrifice or worship but functioned as a symbol of the covenantal unity of the people of God.<\/p>\n<p>Phinehas and the tribal representatives were pleased with the response and left with the assurance of God’s presence (22:30-31). Their report to the tribes led to reconciliation of all the tribes on this matter. The narrative concludes with a mention of the name given to the altar: “A witness between us and them that the <span>Lord<\/span> is our God, too” (v 34, <span>nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\n<h5>Epilogue: The Land Is a Sacred Trust, 23:1–24:33<\/h5>\n<p>The last two chapters contain Joshua’s farewell speeches to all the leaders and to all Israel.<\/p>\n<h6>Address to the Leaders, 23:1-16<\/h6>\n<p>Joshua reviews what the Lord has done for Israel in giving the land to the tribes. He has demonstrated his loyalty. And he will continue to be with his people so that no enemy can stand against them. He will fulfill every outstanding promise, even as he had already fulfilled promises. However, they must persevere in their loyalty to the Lord. Loyalty to the Lord is not apart from loyalty to the law of Moses. Apostasy will be severely punished, first by leaving the nations to ensnare Israel, and then by consuming them in his wrath.<\/p>\n<h6>Address to Israel, 24:1-28<\/h6>\n<p>The address ends with a covenant renewal at Shechem (Jos 24:1, 25-28; cf. 8:30-35). In the ancient Near East it was common when making a treaty (covenant) to give a brief historical summary of the relationship of the parties involved. Joshua reviewed Israel’s history from the patriarchs to their generation: patriarchs (24:2-4), exodus (vv 5-7), and conquest (vv 8-13).<\/p>\n<p>The goodness, presence, and loyalty of Yahweh was evident to them. Yahweh also expected “faithfulness” from his people in the form of whole allegiance, without any form of idolatry (Jos 24:14-15). As the head of his family, Joshua vowed to be loyal (v 15). The people responded by giving reasons for being loyal to the Lord (vv 16-18). But Joshua pushed them to a deeper commitment by challenging their profession (vv 19-20), then recording their vow and setting up a stone of witness against them (vv 25-27).<\/p>\n<h6>End of an Era, 24:29-33<\/h6>\n<p>The book began with a reference to the death of Moses (1:1-2) and concludes with the death and burial of Joshua (24:29-30) and of Eleazar the high priest (v 33). This marks the end of an era. The burial of Joseph’s bones (Jos 24:32; cf. Gn 50:25; Ex 13:19) in a plot purchased by Jacob (Gn 33:19) brings together the hope characteristic of the epoch of Moses and Joshua.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Cities of Refuge; Conquest and Allotment of the Land; Israel, History of; Joshua (Person) #1; Levitical Cities.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>JOSHUA, Book of<\/h3>\n<p>First of the historical books in the English Bible and the first of the Former Prophets (including Judges, the books of Samuel, and the books of Kings) in the Hebrew Bible. It begins with the Lord’s commission of Joshua (Jos 1:1-9) and concludes with the burial of Joshua, Eleazar, and the bones of Joseph (24:29-33). The purpose of the book is to show how Joshua continued in the footsteps of Moses, how the Lord gave the land to Israel, and how Israel might prosper in the land.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Author and Date<\/p>\n<p>• Problems of Interpretation<\/p>\n<p>• Purpose<\/p>\n<p>• Content<\/p>\n\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"AuthorandDate\">Author and Date<\/p>\n<p>According to the Talmud, Joshua wrote the book. This ancient tradition is possibly based on the brief statement that Joshua “recorded these things in the Book of the Law of God” (24:26, <span>nlt<\/span>). However, this applies only to the renewal of the covenant (ch 24). The issue of authorship is tied up with the dating of the book. Since the book has no unambiguous markers on date and authorship, neither critics nor conservative scholars have been able to come to any agreement on these issues. According to a conservative analysis of Joshua, the book was written between 1375 <span>BC<\/span> and 1045 <span>BC<\/span> (premonarchic). The argument is based on the references to the migration of Dan (19:47; cf. Jgs 18:27-31), to Jerusalem as a Jebusite city (Jos 15:8, 63; 18:16, 28), to Sidon rather than Tyre as the prominent Phoenician city (11:8; 13:4-6; 19:28), and also on the eyewitness style (5:1, 6—in the MT). But critical scholars have raised issues that they considered could best be resolved by positing a seventh-century <span>BC<\/span> or even an exilic date.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"ProblemsofInterpretation\">Problems of Interpretation<\/p>\n<h5>Holy War<\/h5>\n<p>The morality of the Conquest may be explained by the concept of holy war. The holy war motif would explain why Israel was to destroy the indigenous population (Dt 7:16; 20:16-18; Jos 6:21; 8:24-26; 10:10, 28-30, 35-42; 11:11). The justification may lie in the concept that Israel was God’s instrument of judgment on the Canaanite nations. This argument is related to the mention of the wickedness of the Canaanites (Gn 15:16; Dt 7:2-5, 25-26; 12:30-31; Jos 23:7; Jgs 2:11). However, the canonical narrative of the progression of the Conquest puts the responsibility on the Canaanites. They marched and fought against Israel (Nm 21:21-35; Jos 7:4-5; 8:5, 16-17; 9:1-2; 10:1-6; 11:1-5; 24:11). Therefore, it could be argued that in the process of war a sincere invitation to make peace was given to the kings (cf. Nm 21:21-22; Dt 20:10-11) but was refused. Instead, the kings took the initiative in battle. The responsibility for the destruction of the native population thus lay with the leadership. Yet all this was evidence of God’s working in human affairs, which the Bible simply states, “For it was the <span>Lord<\/span> himself who hardened their hearts to wage war against Israel, so that he might destroy them totally, exterminating them without mercy, as the <span>Lord<\/span> had commanded Moses” (Jos 11:20, <span>niv<\/span>). Even as Pharaoh, whose heart the Lord hardened, was responsible for the plagues in Egypt, so the Canaanite rulers were responsible for the extermination of their populations. The biblical account of the Conquest affirms the mystery of human responsibility and divine sovereignty without explaining it.<\/p>\n<h5>Nature of the Conquest<\/h5>\n<p>Various explanations of the nature of the Conquest have been given. The traditional view of a blitzkrieg type of conquest, which resulted in a complete occupation of the whole land (cf. Jos 10:40; 11:1-3, 16-19), does not fit within the whole picture of the book. The book presents a realistic description of the areas that still had to be conquered (13:1-7) and of the military strength of the indigenous population (cf. 13:13; 15:63; 16:10; 17:12-18; 19:47). Moreover, Joshua promised that the Lord would continue to help Israel to occupy the land, as its population and needs developed (23:5). The occupation of Canaan was in two stages: conquest and gradual occupation (cf. Ex 23:29-30; Dt 7:22).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Purpose\">Purpose<\/p>\n<p>The role of the final (canonical) form of the book is to present Joshua’s obedience to the law of Moses. Victory and defeat are illustrations of obedience and disobedience. Of course, there is tension in this because the descriptions of the Conquest are complete and yet incomplete. The tension is a dynamic device to show that the Conquest and enjoyment of the land depend wholly on obedience. The period of Joshua is viewed as a paradigm of obedient Israel. Thus, a holistic reading of the book presents an appeal to covenant loyalty directed to future generations.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Content\">Content<\/p>\n<h5>Conquest of the Land, 1:1–12:24<\/h5>\n<h6>The Lord’s Commission of Joshua, 1:1-9<\/h6>\n<p>With the death of Moses (Jos 1:1), the Lord himself confirms Moses’ ordination of Joshua (Dt 34:9). He charges him with leadership in the conquest of Canaan (Jos 1:2-3), defines the geographical boundaries of the land (v 4), encourages him with his continued presence (vv 5, 9), and expects him to devoutly follow in “the law of Moses” (i.e., the law given in Dt; cf. Dt 31:9, 24-26; Jos 23:6), so that he may succeed in his mission (1:7-8). The original mission, as well as the ministry of Moses, find their continuity in Joshua.<\/p>\n<h6>Crossing the Jordan, 1:10–5:12<\/h6>\n<p>The first stage calls for the preparation of Israel. As their leader, Joshua must demonstrate to the people that he follows in the footsteps of Moses. He does this by reminding the Transjordan tribes to demonstrate loyalty to the command of Moses by joining with the other tribes in the conquest of Canaan (1:13-15; cf. Nm 32:20-27). They submitted to Joshua’s authority as to Moses’ (Jos 1:16-18). He demonstrates his military leadership in sending the two spies to Jericho (ch 2). His authority is accepted by priests (3:6; 4:10) and people (3:5-9) as they cross the Jordan. The crossing of the Jordan marks the public recognition of Joshua as a leader like Moses (4:14).<\/p>\n<p>The account of the crossing marks an important transition from the era of the exodus\/wilderness to the era of the Conquest. On the one hand, the story of Rahab illustrates how the Canaanites had heard about the Lord’s mighty acts (2:10-11) and reacted with great fear (cf. Ex 15:15; 23:27-28; Dt 2:25; 7:23; 11:25; 32:30). Rahab’s expression of faith in Israel’s God (2:11) anticipates the inclusion of the Gentiles in the covenant community as promised to the patriarchs (Gn 12:3). By faith Rahab was included in the covenant and was richly rewarded by the inclusion of her name in the lineage of Jesus (Mt 1:5).<\/p>\n<p>The Israelites crossed the Jordan with the knowledge that the fear of God had come on the Canaanites (Jos 2:24). However, they were also instructed to show their reverence for the Lord by keeping a safe distance between themselves and the ark of the covenant (3:4) and by consecrating themselves (v 5). The “living God” was among them and required holiness and reverence from his people (v 10). He, in turn, would demonstrate his loyalty in the marvelous passage through the Jordan River (v 13) and in the conquest of the land (3:10). After the tribes had crossed the river (4:1), each leader of the 12 tribes took up a stone out of the dried-up riverbed and set up a memorial at Gilgal (vv 1-9, 20). Thus, Israel was to remember that the stones, taken from the place where the priests who carried the ark had stood, were reminders of the majestic presence of God. Future generations who were to hear this report (vv 21-24) were hereby encouraged because the fear of God would fall on all the peoples of the land (v 24).<\/p>\n<p>The consecration before the conquest of Jericho is also symbolized by the act of circumcision (5:1-9) and by the celebration of the Passover (vv 10-12). The events are not necessarily chronologically related but were selected as examples of Israel’s responsiveness to Joshua’s ministry. Moses’ appeal to the new generation had its effect (cf. Dt 4:4-14; 6:1-5). The new generation served the Lord as long as Joshua and the elders were alive (Jos 24:31). Physical circumcision, neglected during the wilderness journey (5:5) due to unbelief, was a sign of spiritual responsiveness. The responsive nation received the external sign of the covenant with the anticipation that the Lord of the covenant would bless his people in giving them victory and the fruit of the land. Their reproach was rolled away (v 9). The covenant continuity is also brought out in the brief mention of the Passover celebration. The newness is their eating the fruit of the land. With the taste of the food of Canaan, the manna stopped. The desert experience was over. A new era was ushered in with their presence in the Promised Land (vv 11-12).<\/p>\n<h6>Conquest of Jericho, 5:13–6:27<\/h6>\n<p>The victory is the Lord’s. This is the message with which the battle of Jericho begins. The holy God who appeared to Moses in the burning bush (Ex 3:2–4:17) appeared to Joshua as the commander of the Lord’s army (Jos 5:14-15) with a message from the Lord (6:2). The city of Jericho will fall without a siege and ensuing battle. Israel’s response to Jericho’s preparedness for war (cf. 24:11) was strange, but the presence of the ark and the blowing of the trumpets symbolized that the Lord would fight for Israel, even as he had promised. However, Israel could not take any of the spoil. Because Yahweh fought for Israel, everything was to be devoted to him (6:17). The Lord honored the vow to Rahab, made by the spies, so that she and her family were kept alive (vv 17, 25), but they were temporarily placed outside the camp (v 23). The valuable metals were placed into the treasury (vv 19, 24), whereas everything else was burned by fire (v 24). Nothing was to be taken for personal gain; otherwise God’s judgment would rest on Israel (v 18). In order to emphasize God’s absolute ownership of Jericho, Joshua put a curse on anyone who would attempt to rebuild the city (6:26; cf. 1 Kgs 16:34). The rumors of Jericho’s destruction spread, and the peoples of Canaan knew that the Lord was with Joshua (Jos 6:27; cf. 1:5, 9).<\/p>\n<h6>Tragedy and Triumph at Ai, 7:1–8:29<\/h6>\n<p>Victory was short-lived because Achan defied God’s “ban,” took some of the objects, hid them in the ground under his tent (7:21), and brought God’s wrath on all of Israel (v 1). Israel was stunned by their defeat at Ai (vv 2-5). Joshua and the elders responded to the disaster by fasting and lamenting (vv 6-9). What a contrast between the reports of victory spread through the land and the anguished cry of God’s servant, fearful that the Canaanites would amass strength and wipe out Israel (v 9). Only after the people had consecrated themselves (v 13) and Achan was exposed and his memory removed (vv 25b-26) could they renew the attack on Ai with the encouraging promise of God’s presence and victory (8:1-2). Ai, too, was taken (vv 3-19) and the population execrated (vv 20-26), but Israel enjoyed the spoils by direct permission from the Lord (v 27). The ruins of Ai, the pile of stones covering the body of Ai’s king (vv 28-29), and the heap of rocks over Achan’s body were sobering reminders to Israel that God’s faithfulness requires absolute loyalty from his people.<\/p>\n<h6>Renewal of the Covenant, 8:30-35<\/h6>\n<p>Joshua led Israel in a ceremonial covenant renewal at Shechem, as Moses had instructed (Jos 8:31; cf. Dt 11:29; 27). Joshua took care in the proper preparation of the altar (cf. Ex 20:25) on which dedicatory and communal offerings were presented. He copied the law as a symbol of his royal leadership and his devotion to the Lord (Jos 8:32; cf. Dt 17:18). All Israel (officers and people, aliens and native-born Israelites) together presented themselves for the reading of the blessings and the curses (Jos 8:33-35). The whole book of Deuteronomy (i.e., “the Book of the Law,” cf. Dt 31:26) was read in their presence. Half the tribes stood on Mt Gerizim and said “Amen” to the blessings, and the other six stood on Mt Ebal, saying “Amen” to the curses (cf. Dt 27:9-26).<\/p>\n<h6>Covenant with the Gibeonites, 9:1-27<\/h6>\n<p>The rumors of God’s mighty acts had brought fear on the Canaanite kings (cf. Jos 2:8-11, 24; 5:1; 6:27). The first defeat at Ai had given them a ray of hope that Israel could be put down. Rather than submit themselves to Israel and suffer from humiliation as servants of Israel, they joined forces against Joshua and Israel (9:1-2).<\/p>\n<p>The Hivites from Gibeon, Kephirah, Beeroth, and Kiriath-jearim (9:7, 17) did not join with their fellow Canaanites. Instead, they developed an intricate plan to deceive Israel and to sue for full treaty status. The purpose of the treaty was that of friendship (namely, “peace”), promising each other to be of mutual assistance in case of attack. The concern was with the preservation of life (vv 15, 24). Their deception included a ruse about the great distance they had traveled (vv 11-14) and a false report of Israel’s victories in Transjordan with no mention of their crossing the Jordan (9:9-10; cf. 5:1). The law permitted the submissive city to subject its population to a type of suzerainty treaty, in which Israel defined the terms and expected the subjugated populace to serve as its forced laborers (Dt 20:11; cf. Jgs 1:28-35; 1 Kgs 9:15-21). However, the treaty permitted the Hivites to maintain their way of life with the advantage of Israel’s military protection.<\/p>\n<h6>The Southern Campaign, 10:1-43<\/h6>\n<p>The king of Jerusalem, Adoni-zedek, led the cities of Hebron, Jarmuth, Lachish, and Eglon in an alliance against Gibeon as a military ploy to take a stand against Israel (Jos 10:1-5). The Gibeonites appealed to Israel for help based on their covenantal relationship (v 6). Joshua led Israel on a 25-mile (40-kilometer) hike through the wilderness from Gilgal up to Gibeon during one night (vv 7-9). The Israelite attack surprised the Canaanites, who were already frightened of the Israelites. The camp of the Canaanites was thrown into confusion, and the soldiers fled the hill country via the road of Beth-horon to Azekah and Makkedah (v 10). But while running, they were tormented with large hailstones (v 11). The victory was the Lord’s. Miraculously, Israel could push the Canaanites farther from the hill country because of the long day (vv 12-14). The marvel of this day was long remembered in the Book of Jashar (cf. 2 Sm 1:18), because on it the Lord listened to a man, namely Joshua (Jos 10:14).<\/p>\n<p>The five kings hidden in a cave at Makkedah were discovered, killed, hanged on trees, and buried in the cave (10:16-27). Their foolish attempt to make war on Israel came to a quick end. Since the coalition of large cities had been put down, Joshua led Israel in a rapid campaign of the other southern cities (vv 29-43). The region was taken in one campaign with the Lord’s help (v 42).<\/p>\n<h6>The Northern Campaign, 11:1-15<\/h6>\n<p>The Israelites were again forced into battle, this time by the leadership of Jabin, king of Hazor. Jabin rallied the kings of the northern cities who assembled their troops and horses by the waters of Merom for battle against Israel (11:1-5). The similarity to the southern campaign is a literary way to demonstrate that the kings of the south and north initiated the war and were consequently defeated. So it was with the northern kings, who were routed as far as the region of Sidon in Phoenicia (v 8). Their horses were hamstrung and their chariots burned (v 9), as the Lord had instructed (v 6). Israel was to depend on the Lord (cf. Ps 20:7). Hazor, the great and ancient city, the center of Canaanite power in the north, was completely destroyed (Jos 11:10-13). The burning of Jericho, Ai, and Hazor were exceptions, because Israel had been promised Canaanite houses, wells, and cities (Dt 6:10-11; cf. Jos 24:13). The campaign narrative stresses again the absolute loyalty of Joshua to the Lord and to Moses, the servant of the Lord (Jos 11:9-15).<\/p>\n<h6>Summary of the Campaigns, 11:16–12:24<\/h6>\n<p>Joshua led Israel in victory and rest because of his careful adherence to the Lord’s directions to Moses. Moses had described the land to be conquered in detail (Dt 1:7), and Joshua took the regions of which Moses had spoken. Though the cities could have sued for a peaceable arrangement under which they would have been forced laborers (Dt 20:11), none of the cities recognized Israel. In fear they plotted and schemed how to destroy Israel. They were the aggressors. God had hardened their hearts (Jos 11:20). The theological reason is a mystery, as it was in the case of Pharaoh. But the net result was that Canaan was conquered and the population exterminated, except for the Hivites at Gibeon and their surrounding cities (vv 19-20). Even the Anakites, who had brought fear on Israel some 40 years before (Nm 13:33; cf. Dt 2:10, 21), were execrated (Jos 11:21). Yet it is already apparent that not every square mile of land was taken (v 22), even though in a sense the entire land was Israel’s, because major centers of Canaanite resistance had been broken. The tension between fulfillment and complete fulfillment is apparent in these verses.<\/p>\n<p>The listing of defeated kings (ch 12) includes the victories over Sihon and Og under Moses’ leadership. Their juxtaposition with the list of kings conquered under Joshua demonstrates the continuity of leadership and purpose—two leaders, many campaigns, but one battle. The Land of Promise is now a fulfillment. Through the campaigns the borders of the land of inheritance were now more apparent. In Transjordan the limits are from the Arnon to Mt Hermon (vv 2-5). In Canaan the boundary extends from the region south of Sidon to the Negev (vv 7-8).<\/p>\n<h5>The Division of the Land, 13:1–22:34<\/h5>\n<h6>The Command to Divide the Land, 13:1-7<\/h6>\n<p>Because of Joshua’s advanced age, the “whole” land was not taken. Moses had forewarned Israel that the inheritance would result from conquest as well as from gradual extension of Israel’s narrow boundaries. Slowly Israel was to inherit the whole land, lest it be overwhelmed by the size and be unable to use it properly (Ex 23:29-30; Dt 7:22). The areas still to be occupied were: the region to the north of Galilee, Mt Hermon (east of the Sea of Galilee), the area occupied by the Philistines, and regional Canaanite enclaves (Jos 13:2-7; cf. Jgs 1). Israel was not to be concerned with the future rights of occupation, because the Lord promised to help them (Jos 13:6).<\/p>\n<h6>Division of Transjordan, 13:8-33<\/h6>\n<p>Joshua did not alter the Mosaic arrangement concerning the allotments to the tribes of Manasseh, Reuben, and Gad (Jos 13:8, 32-33; cf. Nm 32; Dt 3:12-17). Their territory also excluded certain regions still occupied by Canaanites (Jos 13:13). The clans of Reuben had received the territory from the Arnon River north to Heshbon (vv 15-23). The clans of Gad had received the territory of Gilead, south of the Jabbok River to Heshbon (vv 24-28). Several clans of Manasseh received the region south of the Wadi Yarmuk to the Jabbok (vv 29-31). The Levitical towns are not listed here, but a reference is made to them as not receiving a patrimony, because they were to live off the offerings and sacrifices made to the Lord (Jos 13:14; cf. Nm 18:20-24; 35:1-8).<\/p>\n<h6>The Tribal Divisions in Canaan, 14:1–19:51<\/h6>\n<p>Eleazar, the high priest, and Joshua together cast lots to determine the boundaries, size, and allocation for the remaining nine and a half tribes. Again the exclusion of the tribe of Levi is mentioned (Jos 14:4), because their cities will be dealt with in chapters 20–21. Another literary device is special mention of the inheritance of Caleb in the beginning (14:6-15) and of Joshua at the conclusion (19:49-50). These two were the only ones who had left Egypt as adults, had been faithful spies, and had entered into the Promised Land (Nm 14:24, 30; Dt 1:36-38).<\/p>\n<h6>Judah, 15:1-63 (cf. Jgs 1:10-15, 20)<\/h6>\n<p>The boundaries of Judah extended from the Dead Sea westward to the Mediterranean (Jos 15:2-12). The cities of Judah are listed in its four regions: 29 in the Negev (vv 21-32), 42 cities in the Shephelah (or western foothills) and coastal plains (vv 33-47), 38 cities in the hill country (15:48-60), and 6 cities in the desert (vv 61-62). Judah was unable to take Jerusalem (v 63) until David made it his capital (cf. Jgs 1:21; 2 Sm 5:6-16).<\/p>\n<h6>Ephraim and Manasseh, 16:1–17:18<\/h6>\n<p>These two tribes, descended from Joseph, were richly blessed (cf. Gn 48; 49:22-26; Dt 33:13-17) and had obtained prominence among the tribes. They received one allotment as “the allotment for Joseph” (Jos 16:1). Part of Manasseh had already received a patrimony east of the Jordan (13:29-31). The limits for Ephraim and the west half of Manasseh were from Bethel to Mt Gilboa in the north and from the Jordan to the Mediterranean (16:1-3). Ephraim received the smaller portion in the south (vv 5-9) but was unable to drive the Canaanites out of Gezer. The clans of Manasseh are given, including Zelophehad (17:3-6; cf. Nm 27:1-11; 36:1-12), in order to clearly distinguish them from the clans of Manasseh in Transjordan. The region of west Manasseh extended from Shechem to Mt Gilboa (Jos 17:7-11); but Manasseh, also, was incapable of driving out the Canaanites completely (vv 12-13).<\/p>\n<p>Though they had received the largest portion of the land (more than a third), the tribes of Joseph complained. They knew that the Lord had blessed them (17:14), and they expected to get more cultivable land. But Joshua urged them to use the available land by cutting down the forests (vv 15-18). When they expressed realistic concern about Canaanite military power, Joshua called on them to do their share in occupying the land.<\/p>\n<h6>Seven Tribes, 18:1–19:51<\/h6>\n<p>The Israelites assembled at Shiloh to set up the tabernacle (cf. 1 Sm 1). At that point seven tribes had not yet received their patrimony. Joshua called for each tribe to commission three men to survey the land. When they returned, Joshua cast lots at the tabernacle in Shiloh and divided the land (Jos 18:3-10). The territory of Benjamin was between Judah and Ephraim (vv 11-28). Simeon’s allotment was in southern Judah (19:1-9), resulting in its absorption into Judah (cf. Gn 49:7). Zebulun (Jos 19:10-16), Issachar (vv 17-23), Asher (vv 24-31), and Naphtali (vv 32-39) received a portion north of Manasseh in the region of Galilee. Dan received the seventh lot and suffered subsequently, when it could not maintain the allotted territory because of the pressure of Judah on the east and the Philistines to the west (vv 40-48). They migrated northward and found the sources of the Jordan to be a fruitful region (Jos 19:47; cf. Jgs 18).<\/p>\n<h6>Conclusion, 19:49-51<\/h6>\n<p>The conclusion is symmetric with the beginning (Jos 14:1-14) in that Joshua also received a gift. Again, mention is made that all divisions were in the presence of the Lord, witnessed to and executed by the high priest Eleazar and Joshua (19:51; cf. 14:1).<\/p>\n<h6>Cities of Refuge and the Levitical Cities, 20:1–21:45<\/h6>\n<p>According to the instructions of Moses, six Levitical cities were set apart, three on each side of the Jordan, as cities of refuge (Nm 35:9-34; Dt 4:41-43; 19:1-10). The purpose was to provide “refuge” (asylum) for those who were guilty of manslaughter but had not intentionally killed someone. This practice was not to provide a way out for someone who was guilty, but to allow for the legal process to be completed (Jos 20).<\/p>\n<p>The Levites received by clan a total of 48 cities, six of which also served as cities of refuge (21:1-42). The Levites could not cultivate the soil because they were dependent on the tithes of the people (Nm 18:21-24), but they were permitted to have land for grazing. The dimensions of the land are given in Numbers 35:4-5. A special allocation is made to the descendants of Aaron (Jos 21:9-19), because they served as priests and their 13 cities were in the Judah-Simeon region, in proximity to the Jerusalem temple of the Solomonic era.<\/p>\n<p>With the allocation of the Levitical cities, the division of the land is concluded. The promise of the land is fulfilled (21:43-45). God is faithful! This section emphasizes the fulfillment, the power, and the grace of God, by which Israel entered into its rest. However, the book of Joshua also hints of the struggle that is still ahead of the Israelites and of the test that ultimately they will fail (cf. Ps 95:11; Heb 3:7-11).<\/p>\n<h6>Return of the Transjordan Tribes, 22:1-34<\/h6>\n<p>Joshua dismissed the two and a half tribes with a commendation for their loyalty to the other tribes and to the Lord (Jos 22:1-4), with a warning not to succumb to idolatry but to love the Lord in accordance with the Deuteronomic law, and with a blessing (vv 5-8). However, as they returned they set up a large altar by the Jordan on the western side. The other tribes heard about it and met at Shiloh (v 12). They wisely commissioned Phinehas, the son of the high priest, with ten representatives of the tribes, to investigate the matter. The commission charged the Transjordan tribes with treachery (Jos 22:15-20; cf. Nm 25; Jos 7).<\/p>\n<p>The response of the Transjordan tribes demonstrated their concern for the unity of the tribes and for the worship of God. These tribes feared being excluded from the fellowship of God’s people and had purposefully constructed an altar, identical to that prescribed in the law, in order to demonstrate their common heritage (Jos 22:21-30). The altar was not for sacrifice or worship but functioned as a symbol of the covenantal unity of the people of God.<\/p>\n<p>Phinehas and the tribal representatives were pleased with the response and left with the assurance of God’s presence (22:30-31). Their report to the tribes led to reconciliation of all the tribes on this matter. The narrative concludes with a mention of the name given to the altar: “A witness between us and them that the <span>Lord<\/span> is our God, too” (v 34, <span>nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\n<h5>Epilogue: The Land Is a Sacred Trust, 23:1–24:33<\/h5>\n<p>The last two chapters contain Joshua’s farewell speeches to all the leaders and to all Israel.<\/p>\n<h6>Address to the Leaders, 23:1-16<\/h6>\n<p>Joshua reviews what the Lord has done for Israel in giving the land to the tribes. He has demonstrated his loyalty. And he will continue to be with his people so that no enemy can stand against them. He will fulfill every outstanding promise, even as he had already fulfilled promises. However, they must persevere in their loyalty to the Lord. Loyalty to the Lord is not apart from loyalty to the law of Moses. Apostasy will be severely punished, first by leaving the nations to ensnare Israel, and then by consuming them in his wrath.<\/p>\n<h6>Address to Israel, 24:1-28<\/h6>\n<p>The address ends with a covenant renewal at Shechem (Jos 24:1, 25-28; cf. 8:30-35). In the ancient Near East it was common when making a treaty (covenant) to give a brief historical summary of the relationship of the parties involved. Joshua reviewed Israel’s history from the patriarchs to their generation: patriarchs (24:2-4), exodus (vv 5-7), and conquest (vv 8-13).<\/p>\n<p>The goodness, presence, and loyalty of Yahweh was evident to them. Yahweh also expected “faithfulness” from his people in the form of whole allegiance, without any form of idolatry (Jos 24:14-15). As the head of his family, Joshua vowed to be loyal (v 15). The people responded by giving reasons for being loyal to the Lord (vv 16-18). But Joshua pushed them to a deeper commitment by challenging their profession (vv 19-20), then recording their vow and setting up a stone of witness against them (vv 25-27).<\/p>\n<h6>End of an Era, 24:29-33<\/h6>\n<p>The book began with a reference to the death of Moses (1:1-2) and concludes with the death and burial of Joshua (24:29-30) and of Eleazar the high priest (v 33). This marks the end of an era. The burial of Joseph’s bones (Jos 24:32; cf. Gn 50:25; Ex 13:19) in a plot purchased by Jacob (Gn 33:19) brings together the hope characteristic of the epoch of Moses and Joshua.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Cities of Refuge; Conquest and Allotment of the Land; Israel, History of; Joshua (Person) #1; Levitical Cities.<\/p>","summary_ro":"JOSHUA, Book of First of the historical books in the English Bible and the first of the Former Prophets (including Judges, the books of Samuel, and the books of Kings) in the Hebrew Bible. It begins with the Lord’s commission of Joshua (Jos 1:1-9) and concludes with the burial of Joshua, Eleazar, and the bones of Joseph (24:29-33). The purpose of the book is to show how Joshua continued in the footsteps of Moses, how the Lord gave the land to Israel, and how Israel might prosper in the land. ...","summary_en":"JOSHUA, Book of First of the historical books in the English Bible and the first of the Former Prophets (including Judges, the books of Samuel, and the books of Kings) in the Hebrew Bible. It begins with the Lord’s commission of Joshua (Jos 1:1-9) and concludes with the burial of Joshua, Eleazar, and the bones of Joseph (24:29-33). The purpose of the book is to show how Joshua continued in the footsteps of Moses, how the Lord gave the land to Israel, and how Israel might prosper in the land. ...","source":"Articles\/J.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":45084,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Deuteronomul 19:1","title_en":"Study Note: Deuteronomul 19:1","content_ro":"<p><strong>19:1-13<\/strong> <em>Cities of refuge<\/em> (19:2) were strategically located throughout the land so those accused of homicide could find protective sanctuary until their cases came to trial (see 4:41; Num 35:6-29).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>19:1-13<\/strong> <em>Cities of refuge<\/em> (19:2) were strategically located throughout the land so those accused of homicide could find protective sanctuary until their cases came to trial (see 4:41; Num 35:6-29).<\/p>","summary_ro":"19:1-13 Cities of refuge (19:2) were strategically located throughout the land so those accused of homicide could find protective sanctuary until their cases came to trial (see 4:41; Num 35:6-29).","summary_en":"19:1-13 Cities of refuge (19:2) were strategically located throughout the land so those accused of homicide could find protective sanctuary until their cases came to trial (see 4:41; Num 35:6-29).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":72710,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Deuteronomul 19:1","title_en":"Study Note: Deuteronomul 19:1","content_ro":"<p><strong>19:1-13<\/strong> <em>Cities of refuge<\/em> (19:2) were strategically located throughout the land so those accused of homicide could find protective sanctuary until their cases came to trial (see 4:41; Num 35:6-29).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>19:1-13<\/strong> <em>Cities of refuge<\/em> (19:2) were strategically located throughout the land so those accused of homicide could find protective sanctuary until their cases came to trial (see 4:41; Num 35:6-29).<\/p>","summary_ro":"19:1-13 Cities of refuge (19:2) were strategically located throughout the land so those accused of homicide could find protective sanctuary until their cases came to trial (see 4:41; Num 35:6-29).","summary_en":"19:1-13 Cities of refuge (19:2) were strategically located throughout the land so those accused of homicide could find protective sanctuary until their cases came to trial (see 4:41; Num 35:6-29).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":100336,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Deuteronomul 19:1","title_en":"Study Note: Deuteronomul 19:1","content_ro":"<p><strong>19:1-13<\/strong> <em>Cities of refuge<\/em> (19:2) were strategically located throughout the land so those accused of homicide could find protective sanctuary until their cases came to trial (see 4:41; Num 35:6-29).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>19:1-13<\/strong> <em>Cities of refuge<\/em> (19:2) were strategically located throughout the land so those accused of homicide could find protective sanctuary until their cases came to trial (see 4:41; Num 35:6-29).<\/p>","summary_ro":"19:1-13 Cities of refuge (19:2) were strategically located throughout the land so those accused of homicide could find protective sanctuary until their cases came to trial (see 4:41; Num 35:6-29).","summary_en":"19:1-13 Cities of refuge (19:2) were strategically located throughout the land so those accused of homicide could find protective sanctuary until their cases came to trial (see 4:41; Num 35:6-29).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":127962,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Deuteronomul 19:1","title_en":"Study Note: Deuteronomul 19:1","content_ro":"<p><strong>19:1-13<\/strong> <em>Cities of refuge<\/em> (19:2) were strategically located throughout the land so those accused of homicide could find protective sanctuary until their cases came to trial (see 4:41; Num 35:6-29).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>19:1-13<\/strong> <em>Cities of refuge<\/em> (19:2) were strategically located throughout the land so those accused of homicide could find protective sanctuary until their cases came to trial (see 4:41; Num 35:6-29).<\/p>","summary_ro":"19:1-13 Cities of refuge (19:2) were strategically located throughout the land so those accused of homicide could find protective sanctuary until their cases came to trial (see 4:41; Num 35:6-29).","summary_en":"19:1-13 Cities of refuge (19:2) were strategically located throughout the land so those accused of homicide could find protective sanctuary until their cases came to trial (see 4:41; Num 35:6-29).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":60927,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"The Cities of Refuge","title_en":"The Cities of Refuge","content_ro":"<h3>The Cities of Refuge<\/h3>\n<p>The cities of refuge were built to protect innocent people from blood revenge. An avenger had the legal right to put a murderer to death (Num 35:19; see Gen 9:6). If a person caused someone’s death accidentally, the slayer fled to a city of refuge to find temporary safety while awaiting trial (Num 35:22-28). The six cities of refuge were distributed across Hebrew territory so that any Israelite could seek asylum.<\/p>\n<p>If, after trial, the fugitive was convicted of murder (instead of involuntary manslaughter), he was turned over to the avenger and received his due punishment (Deut 19:12). If he was found innocent of murder, the slayer remained in the city of refuge, where he was granted asylum. When the high priest died, the slayer was free to return home and was no longer subject to blood revenge. This merciful legal arrangement protected the land from further pollution by innocent blood (see Num 35:33).<\/p>\n<p>It was not acceptable to pay a fine to atone for the death of another human being, even if that death was not premeditated (Num 35:31-33). Human life was too precious to be ransomed with a simple payment. When a human being was killed, whether deliberately or by accident, it resulted in alienation or exile.<\/p>\n<p>Atonement does not come easily, whether in ancient Israelite times or in our own day; each person is in need of atonement to restore their relationship with God (see Rom 3:23-26). Jesus, the Son of God, provides this reconciliation through his work as the Great High Priest who offered himself as the ultimate sacrifice (see Heb 4:14–10:18).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Num 35:6-34; Deut 19:1-13; Josh 20:1-9; 21:13, 21, 27, 32, 38; 1 Kgs 1:50-53; 2:28-34<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>The Cities of Refuge<\/h3>\n<p>The cities of refuge were built to protect innocent people from blood revenge. An avenger had the legal right to put a murderer to death (Num 35:19; see Gen 9:6). If a person caused someone’s death accidentally, the slayer fled to a city of refuge to find temporary safety while awaiting trial (Num 35:22-28). The six cities of refuge were distributed across Hebrew territory so that any Israelite could seek asylum.<\/p>\n<p>If, after trial, the fugitive was convicted of murder (instead of involuntary manslaughter), he was turned over to the avenger and received his due punishment (Deut 19:12). If he was found innocent of murder, the slayer remained in the city of refuge, where he was granted asylum. When the high priest died, the slayer was free to return home and was no longer subject to blood revenge. This merciful legal arrangement protected the land from further pollution by innocent blood (see Num 35:33).<\/p>\n<p>It was not acceptable to pay a fine to atone for the death of another human being, even if that death was not premeditated (Num 35:31-33). Human life was too precious to be ransomed with a simple payment. When a human being was killed, whether deliberately or by accident, it resulted in alienation or exile.<\/p>\n<p>Atonement does not come easily, whether in ancient Israelite times or in our own day; each person is in need of atonement to restore their relationship with God (see Rom 3:23-26). Jesus, the Son of God, provides this reconciliation through his work as the Great High Priest who offered himself as the ultimate sacrifice (see Heb 4:14–10:18).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Num 35:6-34; Deut 19:1-13; Josh 20:1-9; 21:13, 21, 27, 32, 38; 1 Kgs 1:50-53; 2:28-34<\/p>","summary_ro":"The Cities of Refuge The cities of refuge were built to protect innocent people from blood revenge. An avenger had the legal right to put a murderer to death (Num 35:19; see Gen 9:6). If a person caused someone’s death accidentally, the slayer fled to a city of refuge to find temporary safety while awaiting trial (Num 35:22-28). The six cities of refuge were distributed across Hebrew territory so that any Israelite could seek asylum. If, after trial, the fugitive was convicted of murder (inst...","summary_en":"The Cities of Refuge The cities of refuge were built to protect innocent people from blood revenge. An avenger had the legal right to put a murderer to death (Num 35:19; see Gen 9:6). If a person caused someone’s death accidentally, the slayer fled to a city of refuge to find temporary safety while awaiting trial (Num 35:22-28). The six cities of refuge were distributed across Hebrew territory so that any Israelite could seek asylum. If, after trial, the fugitive was convicted of murder (inst...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":60956,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Shechem","title_en":"Shechem","content_ro":"<h3>Shechem<\/h3>\n<p>Shechem was strategically located at the entrance to the pass between Mount Ebal and Mount Gerizim, where it could control several key roads through the central hill country. Jacob bought land near Shechem (Gen 33:18-19). While there, Jacob’s daughter, Dinah, was raped by the prince of the area (whose name was Shechem); in response, two of Dinah’s brothers, Simeon and Levi, killed all the men of the land (Gen 34). Later, the town of Shechem became part of Joseph’s inheritance (Josh 24:32) and one of the cities of refuge (see Deut 19:1-13; Josh 20:7).<\/p>\n<p>During the period of the judges, Gideon’s son Abimelech ruled from Shechem (Judg 9). Solomon later fortified Shechem as a provincial capital, but it was sacked soon after, probably by Shishak of Egypt when he invaded Israel in 926 <span>BC<\/span> (see 1 Kgs 14:25). Jeroboam I then refortified the city and made it the capital of the kingdom of Israel (1 Kgs 12:25). Shechem was again destroyed, this time by the Assyrian king Shalmaneser V, in 724 <span>BC<\/span>, shortly before the destruction of Samaria, and the ruins were virtually uninhabited for about four hundred years.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 33:18-19; Josh 8:30-35; 20:7; 24:1-32; Judg 9:1-56; 1 Kgs 12:1, 25; John 4:5<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Shechem<\/h3>\n<p>Shechem was strategically located at the entrance to the pass between Mount Ebal and Mount Gerizim, where it could control several key roads through the central hill country. Jacob bought land near Shechem (Gen 33:18-19). While there, Jacob’s daughter, Dinah, was raped by the prince of the area (whose name was Shechem); in response, two of Dinah’s brothers, Simeon and Levi, killed all the men of the land (Gen 34). Later, the town of Shechem became part of Joseph’s inheritance (Josh 24:32) and one of the cities of refuge (see Deut 19:1-13; Josh 20:7).<\/p>\n<p>During the period of the judges, Gideon’s son Abimelech ruled from Shechem (Judg 9). Solomon later fortified Shechem as a provincial capital, but it was sacked soon after, probably by Shishak of Egypt when he invaded Israel in 926 <span>BC<\/span> (see 1 Kgs 14:25). Jeroboam I then refortified the city and made it the capital of the kingdom of Israel (1 Kgs 12:25). Shechem was again destroyed, this time by the Assyrian king Shalmaneser V, in 724 <span>BC<\/span>, shortly before the destruction of Samaria, and the ruins were virtually uninhabited for about four hundred years.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 33:18-19; Josh 8:30-35; 20:7; 24:1-32; Judg 9:1-56; 1 Kgs 12:1, 25; John 4:5<\/p>","summary_ro":"Shechem Shechem was strategically located at the entrance to the pass between Mount Ebal and Mount Gerizim, where it could control several key roads through the central hill country. Jacob bought land near Shechem (Gen 33:18-19). While there, Jacob’s daughter, Dinah, was raped by the prince of the area (whose name was Shechem); in response, two of Dinah’s brothers, Simeon and Levi, killed all the men of the land (Gen 34). Later, the town of Shechem became part of Joseph’s inheritance (Josh 24...","summary_en":"Shechem Shechem was strategically located at the entrance to the pass between Mount Ebal and Mount Gerizim, where it could control several key roads through the central hill country. Jacob bought land near Shechem (Gen 33:18-19). While there, Jacob’s daughter, Dinah, was raped by the prince of the area (whose name was Shechem); in response, two of Dinah’s brothers, Simeon and Levi, killed all the men of the land (Gen 34). Later, the town of Shechem became part of Joseph’s inheritance (Josh 24...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":88553,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"The Cities of Refuge","title_en":"The Cities of Refuge","content_ro":"<h3>The Cities of Refuge<\/h3>\n<p>The cities of refuge were built to protect innocent people from blood revenge. An avenger had the legal right to put a murderer to death (Num 35:19; see Gen 9:6). If a person caused someone’s death accidentally, the slayer fled to a city of refuge to find temporary safety while awaiting trial (Num 35:22-28). The six cities of refuge were distributed across Hebrew territory so that any Israelite could seek asylum.<\/p>\n<p>If, after trial, the fugitive was convicted of murder (instead of involuntary manslaughter), he was turned over to the avenger and received his due punishment (Deut 19:12). If he was found innocent of murder, the slayer remained in the city of refuge, where he was granted asylum. When the high priest died, the slayer was free to return home and was no longer subject to blood revenge. This merciful legal arrangement protected the land from further pollution by innocent blood (see Num 35:33).<\/p>\n<p>It was not acceptable to pay a fine to atone for the death of another human being, even if that death was not premeditated (Num 35:31-33). Human life was too precious to be ransomed with a simple payment. When a human being was killed, whether deliberately or by accident, it resulted in alienation or exile.<\/p>\n<p>Atonement does not come easily, whether in ancient Israelite times or in our own day; each person is in need of atonement to restore their relationship with God (see Rom 3:23-26). Jesus, the Son of God, provides this reconciliation through his work as the Great High Priest who offered himself as the ultimate sacrifice (see Heb 4:14–10:18).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Num 35:6-34; Deut 19:1-13; Josh 20:1-9; 21:13, 21, 27, 32, 38; 1 Kgs 1:50-53; 2:28-34<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>The Cities of Refuge<\/h3>\n<p>The cities of refuge were built to protect innocent people from blood revenge. An avenger had the legal right to put a murderer to death (Num 35:19; see Gen 9:6). If a person caused someone’s death accidentally, the slayer fled to a city of refuge to find temporary safety while awaiting trial (Num 35:22-28). The six cities of refuge were distributed across Hebrew territory so that any Israelite could seek asylum.<\/p>\n<p>If, after trial, the fugitive was convicted of murder (instead of involuntary manslaughter), he was turned over to the avenger and received his due punishment (Deut 19:12). If he was found innocent of murder, the slayer remained in the city of refuge, where he was granted asylum. When the high priest died, the slayer was free to return home and was no longer subject to blood revenge. This merciful legal arrangement protected the land from further pollution by innocent blood (see Num 35:33).<\/p>\n<p>It was not acceptable to pay a fine to atone for the death of another human being, even if that death was not premeditated (Num 35:31-33). Human life was too precious to be ransomed with a simple payment. When a human being was killed, whether deliberately or by accident, it resulted in alienation or exile.<\/p>\n<p>Atonement does not come easily, whether in ancient Israelite times or in our own day; each person is in need of atonement to restore their relationship with God (see Rom 3:23-26). Jesus, the Son of God, provides this reconciliation through his work as the Great High Priest who offered himself as the ultimate sacrifice (see Heb 4:14–10:18).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Num 35:6-34; Deut 19:1-13; Josh 20:1-9; 21:13, 21, 27, 32, 38; 1 Kgs 1:50-53; 2:28-34<\/p>","summary_ro":"The Cities of Refuge The cities of refuge were built to protect innocent people from blood revenge. An avenger had the legal right to put a murderer to death (Num 35:19; see Gen 9:6). If a person caused someone’s death accidentally, the slayer fled to a city of refuge to find temporary safety while awaiting trial (Num 35:22-28). The six cities of refuge were distributed across Hebrew territory so that any Israelite could seek asylum. If, after trial, the fugitive was convicted of murder (inst...","summary_en":"The Cities of Refuge The cities of refuge were built to protect innocent people from blood revenge. An avenger had the legal right to put a murderer to death (Num 35:19; see Gen 9:6). If a person caused someone’s death accidentally, the slayer fled to a city of refuge to find temporary safety while awaiting trial (Num 35:22-28). The six cities of refuge were distributed across Hebrew territory so that any Israelite could seek asylum. If, after trial, the fugitive was convicted of murder (inst...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":88582,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Shechem","title_en":"Shechem","content_ro":"<h3>Shechem<\/h3>\n<p>Shechem was strategically located at the entrance to the pass between Mount Ebal and Mount Gerizim, where it could control several key roads through the central hill country. Jacob bought land near Shechem (Gen 33:18-19). While there, Jacob’s daughter, Dinah, was raped by the prince of the area (whose name was Shechem); in response, two of Dinah’s brothers, Simeon and Levi, killed all the men of the land (Gen 34). Later, the town of Shechem became part of Joseph’s inheritance (Josh 24:32) and one of the cities of refuge (see Deut 19:1-13; Josh 20:7).<\/p>\n<p>During the period of the judges, Gideon’s son Abimelech ruled from Shechem (Judg 9). Solomon later fortified Shechem as a provincial capital, but it was sacked soon after, probably by Shishak of Egypt when he invaded Israel in 926 <span>BC<\/span> (see 1 Kgs 14:25). Jeroboam I then refortified the city and made it the capital of the kingdom of Israel (1 Kgs 12:25). Shechem was again destroyed, this time by the Assyrian king Shalmaneser V, in 724 <span>BC<\/span>, shortly before the destruction of Samaria, and the ruins were virtually uninhabited for about four hundred years.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 33:18-19; Josh 8:30-35; 20:7; 24:1-32; Judg 9:1-56; 1 Kgs 12:1, 25; John 4:5<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Shechem<\/h3>\n<p>Shechem was strategically located at the entrance to the pass between Mount Ebal and Mount Gerizim, where it could control several key roads through the central hill country. Jacob bought land near Shechem (Gen 33:18-19). While there, Jacob’s daughter, Dinah, was raped by the prince of the area (whose name was Shechem); in response, two of Dinah’s brothers, Simeon and Levi, killed all the men of the land (Gen 34). Later, the town of Shechem became part of Joseph’s inheritance (Josh 24:32) and one of the cities of refuge (see Deut 19:1-13; Josh 20:7).<\/p>\n<p>During the period of the judges, Gideon’s son Abimelech ruled from Shechem (Judg 9). Solomon later fortified Shechem as a provincial capital, but it was sacked soon after, probably by Shishak of Egypt when he invaded Israel in 926 <span>BC<\/span> (see 1 Kgs 14:25). Jeroboam I then refortified the city and made it the capital of the kingdom of Israel (1 Kgs 12:25). Shechem was again destroyed, this time by the Assyrian king Shalmaneser V, in 724 <span>BC<\/span>, shortly before the destruction of Samaria, and the ruins were virtually uninhabited for about four hundred years.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 33:18-19; Josh 8:30-35; 20:7; 24:1-32; Judg 9:1-56; 1 Kgs 12:1, 25; John 4:5<\/p>","summary_ro":"Shechem Shechem was strategically located at the entrance to the pass between Mount Ebal and Mount Gerizim, where it could control several key roads through the central hill country. Jacob bought land near Shechem (Gen 33:18-19). While there, Jacob’s daughter, Dinah, was raped by the prince of the area (whose name was Shechem); in response, two of Dinah’s brothers, Simeon and Levi, killed all the men of the land (Gen 34). Later, the town of Shechem became part of Joseph’s inheritance (Josh 24...","summary_en":"Shechem Shechem was strategically located at the entrance to the pass between Mount Ebal and Mount Gerizim, where it could control several key roads through the central hill country. Jacob bought land near Shechem (Gen 33:18-19). While there, Jacob’s daughter, Dinah, was raped by the prince of the area (whose name was Shechem); in response, two of Dinah’s brothers, Simeon and Levi, killed all the men of the land (Gen 34). Later, the town of Shechem became part of Joseph’s inheritance (Josh 24...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":116179,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"The Cities of Refuge","title_en":"The Cities of Refuge","content_ro":"<h3>The Cities of Refuge<\/h3>\n<p>The cities of refuge were built to protect innocent people from blood revenge. An avenger had the legal right to put a murderer to death (Num 35:19; see Gen 9:6). If a person caused someone’s death accidentally, the slayer fled to a city of refuge to find temporary safety while awaiting trial (Num 35:22-28). The six cities of refuge were distributed across Hebrew territory so that any Israelite could seek asylum.<\/p>\n<p>If, after trial, the fugitive was convicted of murder (instead of involuntary manslaughter), he was turned over to the avenger and received his due punishment (Deut 19:12). If he was found innocent of murder, the slayer remained in the city of refuge, where he was granted asylum. When the high priest died, the slayer was free to return home and was no longer subject to blood revenge. This merciful legal arrangement protected the land from further pollution by innocent blood (see Num 35:33).<\/p>\n<p>It was not acceptable to pay a fine to atone for the death of another human being, even if that death was not premeditated (Num 35:31-33). Human life was too precious to be ransomed with a simple payment. When a human being was killed, whether deliberately or by accident, it resulted in alienation or exile.<\/p>\n<p>Atonement does not come easily, whether in ancient Israelite times or in our own day; each person is in need of atonement to restore their relationship with God (see Rom 3:23-26). Jesus, the Son of God, provides this reconciliation through his work as the Great High Priest who offered himself as the ultimate sacrifice (see Heb 4:14–10:18).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Num 35:6-34; Deut 19:1-13; Josh 20:1-9; 21:13, 21, 27, 32, 38; 1 Kgs 1:50-53; 2:28-34<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>The Cities of Refuge<\/h3>\n<p>The cities of refuge were built to protect innocent people from blood revenge. An avenger had the legal right to put a murderer to death (Num 35:19; see Gen 9:6). If a person caused someone’s death accidentally, the slayer fled to a city of refuge to find temporary safety while awaiting trial (Num 35:22-28). The six cities of refuge were distributed across Hebrew territory so that any Israelite could seek asylum.<\/p>\n<p>If, after trial, the fugitive was convicted of murder (instead of involuntary manslaughter), he was turned over to the avenger and received his due punishment (Deut 19:12). If he was found innocent of murder, the slayer remained in the city of refuge, where he was granted asylum. When the high priest died, the slayer was free to return home and was no longer subject to blood revenge. This merciful legal arrangement protected the land from further pollution by innocent blood (see Num 35:33).<\/p>\n<p>It was not acceptable to pay a fine to atone for the death of another human being, even if that death was not premeditated (Num 35:31-33). Human life was too precious to be ransomed with a simple payment. When a human being was killed, whether deliberately or by accident, it resulted in alienation or exile.<\/p>\n<p>Atonement does not come easily, whether in ancient Israelite times or in our own day; each person is in need of atonement to restore their relationship with God (see Rom 3:23-26). Jesus, the Son of God, provides this reconciliation through his work as the Great High Priest who offered himself as the ultimate sacrifice (see Heb 4:14–10:18).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Num 35:6-34; Deut 19:1-13; Josh 20:1-9; 21:13, 21, 27, 32, 38; 1 Kgs 1:50-53; 2:28-34<\/p>","summary_ro":"The Cities of Refuge The cities of refuge were built to protect innocent people from blood revenge. An avenger had the legal right to put a murderer to death (Num 35:19; see Gen 9:6). If a person caused someone’s death accidentally, the slayer fled to a city of refuge to find temporary safety while awaiting trial (Num 35:22-28). The six cities of refuge were distributed across Hebrew territory so that any Israelite could seek asylum. If, after trial, the fugitive was convicted of murder (inst...","summary_en":"The Cities of Refuge The cities of refuge were built to protect innocent people from blood revenge. An avenger had the legal right to put a murderer to death (Num 35:19; see Gen 9:6). If a person caused someone’s death accidentally, the slayer fled to a city of refuge to find temporary safety while awaiting trial (Num 35:22-28). The six cities of refuge were distributed across Hebrew territory so that any Israelite could seek asylum. If, after trial, the fugitive was convicted of murder (inst...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":116208,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Shechem","title_en":"Shechem","content_ro":"<h3>Shechem<\/h3>\n<p>Shechem was strategically located at the entrance to the pass between Mount Ebal and Mount Gerizim, where it could control several key roads through the central hill country. Jacob bought land near Shechem (Gen 33:18-19). While there, Jacob’s daughter, Dinah, was raped by the prince of the area (whose name was Shechem); in response, two of Dinah’s brothers, Simeon and Levi, killed all the men of the land (Gen 34). Later, the town of Shechem became part of Joseph’s inheritance (Josh 24:32) and one of the cities of refuge (see Deut 19:1-13; Josh 20:7).<\/p>\n<p>During the period of the judges, Gideon’s son Abimelech ruled from Shechem (Judg 9). Solomon later fortified Shechem as a provincial capital, but it was sacked soon after, probably by Shishak of Egypt when he invaded Israel in 926 <span>BC<\/span> (see 1 Kgs 14:25). Jeroboam I then refortified the city and made it the capital of the kingdom of Israel (1 Kgs 12:25). Shechem was again destroyed, this time by the Assyrian king Shalmaneser V, in 724 <span>BC<\/span>, shortly before the destruction of Samaria, and the ruins were virtually uninhabited for about four hundred years.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 33:18-19; Josh 8:30-35; 20:7; 24:1-32; Judg 9:1-56; 1 Kgs 12:1, 25; John 4:5<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Shechem<\/h3>\n<p>Shechem was strategically located at the entrance to the pass between Mount Ebal and Mount Gerizim, where it could control several key roads through the central hill country. Jacob bought land near Shechem (Gen 33:18-19). While there, Jacob’s daughter, Dinah, was raped by the prince of the area (whose name was Shechem); in response, two of Dinah’s brothers, Simeon and Levi, killed all the men of the land (Gen 34). Later, the town of Shechem became part of Joseph’s inheritance (Josh 24:32) and one of the cities of refuge (see Deut 19:1-13; Josh 20:7).<\/p>\n<p>During the period of the judges, Gideon’s son Abimelech ruled from Shechem (Judg 9). Solomon later fortified Shechem as a provincial capital, but it was sacked soon after, probably by Shishak of Egypt when he invaded Israel in 926 <span>BC<\/span> (see 1 Kgs 14:25). Jeroboam I then refortified the city and made it the capital of the kingdom of Israel (1 Kgs 12:25). Shechem was again destroyed, this time by the Assyrian king Shalmaneser V, in 724 <span>BC<\/span>, shortly before the destruction of Samaria, and the ruins were virtually uninhabited for about four hundred years.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 33:18-19; Josh 8:30-35; 20:7; 24:1-32; Judg 9:1-56; 1 Kgs 12:1, 25; John 4:5<\/p>","summary_ro":"Shechem Shechem was strategically located at the entrance to the pass between Mount Ebal and Mount Gerizim, where it could control several key roads through the central hill country. Jacob bought land near Shechem (Gen 33:18-19). While there, Jacob’s daughter, Dinah, was raped by the prince of the area (whose name was Shechem); in response, two of Dinah’s brothers, Simeon and Levi, killed all the men of the land (Gen 34). Later, the town of Shechem became part of Joseph’s inheritance (Josh 24...","summary_en":"Shechem Shechem was strategically located at the entrance to the pass between Mount Ebal and Mount Gerizim, where it could control several key roads through the central hill country. Jacob bought land near Shechem (Gen 33:18-19). While there, Jacob’s daughter, Dinah, was raped by the prince of the area (whose name was Shechem); in response, two of Dinah’s brothers, Simeon and Levi, killed all the men of the land (Gen 34). Later, the town of Shechem became part of Joseph’s inheritance (Josh 24...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":143805,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"The Cities of Refuge","title_en":"The Cities of Refuge","content_ro":"<h3>The Cities of Refuge<\/h3>\n<p>The cities of refuge were built to protect innocent people from blood revenge. An avenger had the legal right to put a murderer to death (Num 35:19; see Gen 9:6). If a person caused someone’s death accidentally, the slayer fled to a city of refuge to find temporary safety while awaiting trial (Num 35:22-28). The six cities of refuge were distributed across Hebrew territory so that any Israelite could seek asylum.<\/p>\n<p>If, after trial, the fugitive was convicted of murder (instead of involuntary manslaughter), he was turned over to the avenger and received his due punishment (Deut 19:12). If he was found innocent of murder, the slayer remained in the city of refuge, where he was granted asylum. When the high priest died, the slayer was free to return home and was no longer subject to blood revenge. This merciful legal arrangement protected the land from further pollution by innocent blood (see Num 35:33).<\/p>\n<p>It was not acceptable to pay a fine to atone for the death of another human being, even if that death was not premeditated (Num 35:31-33). Human life was too precious to be ransomed with a simple payment. When a human being was killed, whether deliberately or by accident, it resulted in alienation or exile.<\/p>\n<p>Atonement does not come easily, whether in ancient Israelite times or in our own day; each person is in need of atonement to restore their relationship with God (see Rom 3:23-26). Jesus, the Son of God, provides this reconciliation through his work as the Great High Priest who offered himself as the ultimate sacrifice (see Heb 4:14–10:18).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Num 35:6-34; Deut 19:1-13; Josh 20:1-9; 21:13, 21, 27, 32, 38; 1 Kgs 1:50-53; 2:28-34<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>The Cities of Refuge<\/h3>\n<p>The cities of refuge were built to protect innocent people from blood revenge. An avenger had the legal right to put a murderer to death (Num 35:19; see Gen 9:6). If a person caused someone’s death accidentally, the slayer fled to a city of refuge to find temporary safety while awaiting trial (Num 35:22-28). The six cities of refuge were distributed across Hebrew territory so that any Israelite could seek asylum.<\/p>\n<p>If, after trial, the fugitive was convicted of murder (instead of involuntary manslaughter), he was turned over to the avenger and received his due punishment (Deut 19:12). If he was found innocent of murder, the slayer remained in the city of refuge, where he was granted asylum. When the high priest died, the slayer was free to return home and was no longer subject to blood revenge. This merciful legal arrangement protected the land from further pollution by innocent blood (see Num 35:33).<\/p>\n<p>It was not acceptable to pay a fine to atone for the death of another human being, even if that death was not premeditated (Num 35:31-33). Human life was too precious to be ransomed with a simple payment. When a human being was killed, whether deliberately or by accident, it resulted in alienation or exile.<\/p>\n<p>Atonement does not come easily, whether in ancient Israelite times or in our own day; each person is in need of atonement to restore their relationship with God (see Rom 3:23-26). Jesus, the Son of God, provides this reconciliation through his work as the Great High Priest who offered himself as the ultimate sacrifice (see Heb 4:14–10:18).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Num 35:6-34; Deut 19:1-13; Josh 20:1-9; 21:13, 21, 27, 32, 38; 1 Kgs 1:50-53; 2:28-34<\/p>","summary_ro":"The Cities of Refuge The cities of refuge were built to protect innocent people from blood revenge. An avenger had the legal right to put a murderer to death (Num 35:19; see Gen 9:6). If a person caused someone’s death accidentally, the slayer fled to a city of refuge to find temporary safety while awaiting trial (Num 35:22-28). The six cities of refuge were distributed across Hebrew territory so that any Israelite could seek asylum. If, after trial, the fugitive was convicted of murder (inst...","summary_en":"The Cities of Refuge The cities of refuge were built to protect innocent people from blood revenge. An avenger had the legal right to put a murderer to death (Num 35:19; see Gen 9:6). If a person caused someone’s death accidentally, the slayer fled to a city of refuge to find temporary safety while awaiting trial (Num 35:22-28). The six cities of refuge were distributed across Hebrew territory so that any Israelite could seek asylum. If, after trial, the fugitive was convicted of murder (inst...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":143834,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Shechem","title_en":"Shechem","content_ro":"<h3>Shechem<\/h3>\n<p>Shechem was strategically located at the entrance to the pass between Mount Ebal and Mount Gerizim, where it could control several key roads through the central hill country. Jacob bought land near Shechem (Gen 33:18-19). While there, Jacob’s daughter, Dinah, was raped by the prince of the area (whose name was Shechem); in response, two of Dinah’s brothers, Simeon and Levi, killed all the men of the land (Gen 34). Later, the town of Shechem became part of Joseph’s inheritance (Josh 24:32) and one of the cities of refuge (see Deut 19:1-13; Josh 20:7).<\/p>\n<p>During the period of the judges, Gideon’s son Abimelech ruled from Shechem (Judg 9). Solomon later fortified Shechem as a provincial capital, but it was sacked soon after, probably by Shishak of Egypt when he invaded Israel in 926 <span>BC<\/span> (see 1 Kgs 14:25). Jeroboam I then refortified the city and made it the capital of the kingdom of Israel (1 Kgs 12:25). Shechem was again destroyed, this time by the Assyrian king Shalmaneser V, in 724 <span>BC<\/span>, shortly before the destruction of Samaria, and the ruins were virtually uninhabited for about four hundred years.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 33:18-19; Josh 8:30-35; 20:7; 24:1-32; Judg 9:1-56; 1 Kgs 12:1, 25; John 4:5<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Shechem<\/h3>\n<p>Shechem was strategically located at the entrance to the pass between Mount Ebal and Mount Gerizim, where it could control several key roads through the central hill country. Jacob bought land near Shechem (Gen 33:18-19). While there, Jacob’s daughter, Dinah, was raped by the prince of the area (whose name was Shechem); in response, two of Dinah’s brothers, Simeon and Levi, killed all the men of the land (Gen 34). Later, the town of Shechem became part of Joseph’s inheritance (Josh 24:32) and one of the cities of refuge (see Deut 19:1-13; Josh 20:7).<\/p>\n<p>During the period of the judges, Gideon’s son Abimelech ruled from Shechem (Judg 9). Solomon later fortified Shechem as a provincial capital, but it was sacked soon after, probably by Shishak of Egypt when he invaded Israel in 926 <span>BC<\/span> (see 1 Kgs 14:25). Jeroboam I then refortified the city and made it the capital of the kingdom of Israel (1 Kgs 12:25). Shechem was again destroyed, this time by the Assyrian king Shalmaneser V, in 724 <span>BC<\/span>, shortly before the destruction of Samaria, and the ruins were virtually uninhabited for about four hundred years.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 33:18-19; Josh 8:30-35; 20:7; 24:1-32; Judg 9:1-56; 1 Kgs 12:1, 25; John 4:5<\/p>","summary_ro":"Shechem Shechem was strategically located at the entrance to the pass between Mount Ebal and Mount Gerizim, where it could control several key roads through the central hill country. Jacob bought land near Shechem (Gen 33:18-19). While there, Jacob’s daughter, Dinah, was raped by the prince of the area (whose name was Shechem); in response, two of Dinah’s brothers, Simeon and Levi, killed all the men of the land (Gen 34). Later, the town of Shechem became part of Joseph’s inheritance (Josh 24...","summary_en":"Shechem Shechem was strategically located at the entrance to the pass between Mount Ebal and Mount Gerizim, where it could control several key roads through the central hill country. Jacob bought land near Shechem (Gen 33:18-19). While there, Jacob’s daughter, Dinah, was raped by the prince of the area (whose name was Shechem); in response, two of Dinah’s brothers, Simeon and Levi, killed all the men of the land (Gen 34). Later, the town of Shechem became part of Joseph’s inheritance (Josh 24...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"2":[{"id":45085,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Deuteronomul 19:2","title_en":"Study Note: Deuteronomul 19:2","content_ro":"<p><strong>19:2<\/strong> The <em>three cities<\/em> were those in Canaan, west of the Jordan; there were three more in Transjordan (see Num 35:13-14; Josh 20:7).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>19:2<\/strong> The <em>three cities<\/em> were those in Canaan, west of the Jordan; there were three more in Transjordan (see Num 35:13-14; Josh 20:7).<\/p>","summary_ro":"19:2 The three cities were those in Canaan, west of the Jordan; there were three more in Transjordan (see Num 35:13-14; Josh 20:7).","summary_en":"19:2 The three cities were those in Canaan, west of the Jordan; there were three more in Transjordan (see Num 35:13-14; Josh 20:7).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":72711,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Deuteronomul 19:2","title_en":"Study Note: Deuteronomul 19:2","content_ro":"<p><strong>19:2<\/strong> The <em>three cities<\/em> were those in Canaan, west of the Jordan; there were three more in Transjordan (see Num 35:13-14; Josh 20:7).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>19:2<\/strong> The <em>three cities<\/em> were those in Canaan, west of the Jordan; there were three more in Transjordan (see Num 35:13-14; Josh 20:7).<\/p>","summary_ro":"19:2 The three cities were those in Canaan, west of the Jordan; there were three more in Transjordan (see Num 35:13-14; Josh 20:7).","summary_en":"19:2 The three cities were those in Canaan, west of the Jordan; there were three more in Transjordan (see Num 35:13-14; Josh 20:7).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":100337,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Deuteronomul 19:2","title_en":"Study Note: Deuteronomul 19:2","content_ro":"<p><strong>19:2<\/strong> The <em>three cities<\/em> were those in Canaan, west of the Jordan; there were three more in Transjordan (see Num 35:13-14; Josh 20:7).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>19:2<\/strong> The <em>three cities<\/em> were those in Canaan, west of the Jordan; there were three more in Transjordan (see Num 35:13-14; Josh 20:7).<\/p>","summary_ro":"19:2 The three cities were those in Canaan, west of the Jordan; there were three more in Transjordan (see Num 35:13-14; Josh 20:7).","summary_en":"19:2 The three cities were those in Canaan, west of the Jordan; there were three more in Transjordan (see Num 35:13-14; Josh 20:7).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":127963,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Deuteronomul 19:2","title_en":"Study Note: Deuteronomul 19:2","content_ro":"<p><strong>19:2<\/strong> The <em>three cities<\/em> were those in Canaan, west of the Jordan; there were three more in Transjordan (see Num 35:13-14; Josh 20:7).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>19:2<\/strong> The <em>three cities<\/em> were those in Canaan, west of the Jordan; there were three more in Transjordan (see Num 35:13-14; Josh 20:7).<\/p>","summary_ro":"19:2 The three cities were those in Canaan, west of the Jordan; there were three more in Transjordan (see Num 35:13-14; Josh 20:7).","summary_en":"19:2 The three cities were those in Canaan, west of the Jordan; there were three more in Transjordan (see Num 35:13-14; Josh 20:7).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"4":[{"id":5295,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Bloodguilt*","title_en":"Bloodguilt*","content_ro":"<h3>BLOODGUILT*<\/h3>\n<p>Term used in some English Bibles to translate a Hebrew word meaning “blood” or “bloods” (Ex 22:2-3; Lv 17:4; 1 Sm 25:26, 33; Hos 12:14). The translation “bloodguiltiness” occurs only in Psalm 51:14. The plural form almost invariably means the shedding of blood, but the singular can mean blood itself, bloodshed, or the guilt incurred by bloodshed (i.e., by killing). The idea that killing was punishable by death pervades the Bible; killing was generally done by literally shedding another’s blood.<\/p>\n<p>The first category of bloodshed resulting in bloodguilt was deliberate homicide, murder “in cold blood,” as moderns say, or of “innocent blood,” as the OT says (Jon 1:14). Several passages define the shedding of innocent blood and its punishment (Gn 9:6; Dt 19:11-13; 2 Kgs 24:4; Ez 33:6). The Bible prohibits any ransom for a murderer (Nm 35:31).<\/p>\n<p>Another category was accidental homicide (Nm 35:9-28, Dt 19:4-10). After an accidental killing, the “avenger of blood” might retaliate if he caught the offender outside a city of refuge. If the murderer was unknown, the town nearest the discovered corpse assumed the guilt; Deuteronomy 21:1-9 prescribes a ceremony for removing such guilt.<\/p>\n<p>In ancient Israel it was possible to shed the blood of an animal and incur bloodguilt (Lv 17:3-4, 10-11). An animal that was legally guilty of bloodshed was to be stoned (Ex 21:28-29). Exceptions to bloodguilt were made in the case of self-defense (22:2), capital punishment (Lv 20:9-16), and war (1 Kgs 2:5-6). Frequently the prophets would use the Hebrew word for “bloods” or “blood” to speak of the whole nation’s guilt (Is 1:15; 4:4; Ez 7:23; 9:9; Hos 1:4; 4:2, <span>kjv<\/span>; Mi 3:10; Hb 2:8, 12, 17; and many others). Other crimes beside bloodshed could bring on a death sentence (Lv 20:9-16; Ez 18:10-13). Such crimes included honoring pagan deities, worshiping idols, adultery, robbery, oppressing the poor, breach of promise, and usury.<\/p>\n<p>From the beginning (Gn 4:10-12), through the Prophets (Is 26:21; Ez 24:6-9), and into the NT (Rv 6:10), the Bible supports the idea that God will avenge wrongs and punish those guilty of bloodshed.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Cities of Refuge; Criminal Law and Punishment.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>BLOODGUILT*<\/h3>\n<p>Term used in some English Bibles to translate a Hebrew word meaning “blood” or “bloods” (Ex 22:2-3; Lv 17:4; 1 Sm 25:26, 33; Hos 12:14). The translation “bloodguiltiness” occurs only in Psalm 51:14. The plural form almost invariably means the shedding of blood, but the singular can mean blood itself, bloodshed, or the guilt incurred by bloodshed (i.e., by killing). The idea that killing was punishable by death pervades the Bible; killing was generally done by literally shedding another’s blood.<\/p>\n<p>The first category of bloodshed resulting in bloodguilt was deliberate homicide, murder “in cold blood,” as moderns say, or of “innocent blood,” as the OT says (Jon 1:14). Several passages define the shedding of innocent blood and its punishment (Gn 9:6; Dt 19:11-13; 2 Kgs 24:4; Ez 33:6). The Bible prohibits any ransom for a murderer (Nm 35:31).<\/p>\n<p>Another category was accidental homicide (Nm 35:9-28, Dt 19:4-10). After an accidental killing, the “avenger of blood” might retaliate if he caught the offender outside a city of refuge. If the murderer was unknown, the town nearest the discovered corpse assumed the guilt; Deuteronomy 21:1-9 prescribes a ceremony for removing such guilt.<\/p>\n<p>In ancient Israel it was possible to shed the blood of an animal and incur bloodguilt (Lv 17:3-4, 10-11). An animal that was legally guilty of bloodshed was to be stoned (Ex 21:28-29). Exceptions to bloodguilt were made in the case of self-defense (22:2), capital punishment (Lv 20:9-16), and war (1 Kgs 2:5-6). Frequently the prophets would use the Hebrew word for “bloods” or “blood” to speak of the whole nation’s guilt (Is 1:15; 4:4; Ez 7:23; 9:9; Hos 1:4; 4:2, <span>kjv<\/span>; Mi 3:10; Hb 2:8, 12, 17; and many others). Other crimes beside bloodshed could bring on a death sentence (Lv 20:9-16; Ez 18:10-13). Such crimes included honoring pagan deities, worshiping idols, adultery, robbery, oppressing the poor, breach of promise, and usury.<\/p>\n<p>From the beginning (Gn 4:10-12), through the Prophets (Is 26:21; Ez 24:6-9), and into the NT (Rv 6:10), the Bible supports the idea that God will avenge wrongs and punish those guilty of bloodshed.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Cities of Refuge; Criminal Law and Punishment.<\/p>","summary_ro":"BLOODGUILT* Term used in some English Bibles to translate a Hebrew word meaning “blood” or “bloods” (Ex 22:2-3; Lv 17:4; 1 Sm 25:26, 33; Hos 12:14). The translation “bloodguiltiness” occurs only in Psalm 51:14. The plural form almost invariably means the shedding of blood, but the singular can mean blood itself, bloodshed, or the guilt incurred by bloodshed (i.e., by killing). The idea that killing was punishable by death pervades the Bible; killing was generally done by literally shedding an...","summary_en":"BLOODGUILT* Term used in some English Bibles to translate a Hebrew word meaning “blood” or “bloods” (Ex 22:2-3; Lv 17:4; 1 Sm 25:26, 33; Hos 12:14). The translation “bloodguiltiness” occurs only in Psalm 51:14. The plural form almost invariably means the shedding of blood, but the singular can mean blood itself, bloodshed, or the guilt incurred by bloodshed (i.e., by killing). The idea that killing was punishable by death pervades the Bible; killing was generally done by literally shedding an...","source":"Articles\/B.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":6743,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Cities of Refuge","title_en":"Cities of Refuge","content_ro":"<h3>CITIES OF REFUGE<\/h3>\n<p>Six cities, three in Canaan and three in Transjordan (area east of the Jordan River), designated as places of safety for persons suspected of manslaughter. The six cities were among the 48 assigned to the Levites (Nm 35:6). The three Transjordanian cities were Bezer, Ramoth, and Golan (Dt 4:43; Jos 20:8). The three cities west of the Jordan were Kedesh, Shechem, and Kiriath-arba (that is, Hebron) in the hill country of Judah (Jos 20:7). They were distributed so that east of the Jordan, Golan was located in the north, Ramoth in the center, and Bezer in the south. West of the Jordan, Kedesh, Shechem, and Hebron were located north, center, and south respectively. That made it possible for an accused manslayer to reach a city of refuge quickly.<\/p>\n<p>In ancient Israel the nearest relative of a murder victim was required to take the life of the murderer (Nm 35:19-21). It was his duty to the widow, other family members, and to society. Murderers were not allowed to live, and there was no way to ransom them (v 31).<\/p>\n\n<p>Accidental death, however, was another matter. Manslaughter without malice or premeditation had a special provision in the law of Moses. A man who accidentally killed someone could flee to the nearest city of refuge, where the local authorities would grant him asylum (Dt 19:4-6). When the case came to court, if the man was found guilty of premeditated murder, he was handed over for execution (19:11-12). If the death was deemed accidental, the person was acquitted. Nevertheless, he had to pay a penalty. The manslayer had to stay in the city of refuge as long as the current high priest was in office (Nm 35:22-28). That would be a considerable hardship in some cases. It meant either separation from one’s family or the expense and risk of moving from one’s ancestral land and trying to make a livelihood in a new city.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Asylum; Civil Law and Justice.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>CITIES OF REFUGE<\/h3>\n<p>Six cities, three in Canaan and three in Transjordan (area east of the Jordan River), designated as places of safety for persons suspected of manslaughter. The six cities were among the 48 assigned to the Levites (Nm 35:6). The three Transjordanian cities were Bezer, Ramoth, and Golan (Dt 4:43; Jos 20:8). The three cities west of the Jordan were Kedesh, Shechem, and Kiriath-arba (that is, Hebron) in the hill country of Judah (Jos 20:7). They were distributed so that east of the Jordan, Golan was located in the north, Ramoth in the center, and Bezer in the south. West of the Jordan, Kedesh, Shechem, and Hebron were located north, center, and south respectively. That made it possible for an accused manslayer to reach a city of refuge quickly.<\/p>\n<p>In ancient Israel the nearest relative of a murder victim was required to take the life of the murderer (Nm 35:19-21). It was his duty to the widow, other family members, and to society. Murderers were not allowed to live, and there was no way to ransom them (v 31).<\/p>\n\n<p>Accidental death, however, was another matter. Manslaughter without malice or premeditation had a special provision in the law of Moses. A man who accidentally killed someone could flee to the nearest city of refuge, where the local authorities would grant him asylum (Dt 19:4-6). When the case came to court, if the man was found guilty of premeditated murder, he was handed over for execution (19:11-12). If the death was deemed accidental, the person was acquitted. Nevertheless, he had to pay a penalty. The manslayer had to stay in the city of refuge as long as the current high priest was in office (Nm 35:22-28). That would be a considerable hardship in some cases. It meant either separation from one’s family or the expense and risk of moving from one’s ancestral land and trying to make a livelihood in a new city.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Asylum; Civil Law and Justice.<\/p>","summary_ro":"CITIES OF REFUGE Six cities, three in Canaan and three in Transjordan (area east of the Jordan River), designated as places of safety for persons suspected of manslaughter. The six cities were among the 48 assigned to the Levites (Nm 35:6). The three Transjordanian cities were Bezer, Ramoth, and Golan (Dt 4:43; Jos 20:8). The three cities west of the Jordan were Kedesh, Shechem, and Kiriath-arba (that is, Hebron) in the hill country of Judah (Jos 20:7). They were distributed so that east of t...","summary_en":"CITIES OF REFUGE Six cities, three in Canaan and three in Transjordan (area east of the Jordan River), designated as places of safety for persons suspected of manslaughter. The six cities were among the 48 assigned to the Levites (Nm 35:6). The three Transjordanian cities were Bezer, Ramoth, and Golan (Dt 4:43; Jos 20:8). The three cities west of the Jordan were Kedesh, Shechem, and Kiriath-arba (that is, Hebron) in the hill country of Judah (Jos 20:7). They were distributed so that east of t...","source":"Articles\/C.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":45086,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Deuteronomul 19:4","title_en":"Study Note: Deuteronomul 19:4","content_ro":"<p><strong>19:4<\/strong> A <em>slayer<\/em> who <em>kills . . . unintentionally<\/em> does not plan ahead of time to commit the act (see 17:8).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>19:4<\/strong> A <em>slayer<\/em> who <em>kills . . . unintentionally<\/em> does not plan ahead of time to commit the act (see 17:8).<\/p>","summary_ro":"19:4 A slayer who kills . . . unintentionally does not plan ahead of time to commit the act (see 17:8).","summary_en":"19:4 A slayer who kills . . . unintentionally does not plan ahead of time to commit the act (see 17:8).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":72712,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Deuteronomul 19:4","title_en":"Study Note: Deuteronomul 19:4","content_ro":"<p><strong>19:4<\/strong> A <em>slayer<\/em> who <em>kills . . . unintentionally<\/em> does not plan ahead of time to commit the act (see 17:8).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>19:4<\/strong> A <em>slayer<\/em> who <em>kills . . . unintentionally<\/em> does not plan ahead of time to commit the act (see 17:8).<\/p>","summary_ro":"19:4 A slayer who kills . . . unintentionally does not plan ahead of time to commit the act (see 17:8).","summary_en":"19:4 A slayer who kills . . . unintentionally does not plan ahead of time to commit the act (see 17:8).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":100338,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Deuteronomul 19:4","title_en":"Study Note: Deuteronomul 19:4","content_ro":"<p><strong>19:4<\/strong> A <em>slayer<\/em> who <em>kills . . . unintentionally<\/em> does not plan ahead of time to commit the act (see 17:8).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>19:4<\/strong> A <em>slayer<\/em> who <em>kills . . . unintentionally<\/em> does not plan ahead of time to commit the act (see 17:8).<\/p>","summary_ro":"19:4 A slayer who kills . . . unintentionally does not plan ahead of time to commit the act (see 17:8).","summary_en":"19:4 A slayer who kills . . . unintentionally does not plan ahead of time to commit the act (see 17:8).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":127964,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Deuteronomul 19:4","title_en":"Study Note: Deuteronomul 19:4","content_ro":"<p><strong>19:4<\/strong> A <em>slayer<\/em> who <em>kills . . . unintentionally<\/em> does not plan ahead of time to commit the act (see 17:8).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>19:4<\/strong> A <em>slayer<\/em> who <em>kills . . . unintentionally<\/em> does not plan ahead of time to commit the act (see 17:8).<\/p>","summary_ro":"19:4 A slayer who kills . . . unintentionally does not plan ahead of time to commit the act (see 17:8).","summary_en":"19:4 A slayer who kills . . . unintentionally does not plan ahead of time to commit the act (see 17:8).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"6":[{"id":15700,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Heart","title_en":"Heart","content_ro":"<h3>HEART<\/h3>\n<p>Vital bodily organ; emotional center of one’s being.<\/p>\n<p>In Hebrew and Greek, as in modern English, “heart” is used to designate a physical organ as well as the emotional center of one’s being. “Heart” (Hebrew <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">leb<\/span><em>;<\/em> Greek <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">kardia<\/span>) occurs approximately 1,000 times in the Bible, though it is often disguised in translation. The range of meaning is great.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"PhysicalHeart\">Physical Heart<\/p>\n<p>That the beating heart indicates life seems implied in 1 Samuel 25:37-39 (see <span>nlt<\/span> mg), despite the delay in Nabal’s death. Physical food and wine affect the heart (Jgs 19:5; Ps 104:15; Acts 14:17), and the heart can “faint” and “tremble.” The heart’s position in the body yields an obvious metaphor for “the center” (Mt 12:40).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"PyschologicalHeart\">Pyschological Heart<\/p>\n<p>The heart attends intellectually (e.g., Jer 12:11); it also perceives (Jn 12:40), understands (1 Kgs 3:9), debates (Mk 2:6), reflects (Lk 2:19), remembers (Lk 2:51), thinks (Dt 8:17), imagines (Lk 1:51), is wise (Eccl 1:17, <span>kjv<\/span>), has technical skill (Ex 28:3, <span>kjv<\/span>), and much more.<\/p>\n<p>Emotionally, the heart experiences intoxicated merriment (1 Sm 25:36), gladness (Is 30:29), joy (Jn 16:22), sorrow (Neh 2:2), anguish (Rom 9:2), bitterness (Prv 14:10), anxiety (1 Sm 4:13), despair (Eccl 2:20), love (2 Sm 14:1), trust (Ps 112:7), affection (2 Cor 7:3), lust (Mt 5:28), callousness (Mk 3:5), hatred (Lv 19:17), fear (Gn 42:28), jealousy (Jas 3:14), desire (Rom 10:1), discouragement (Nm 32:9), sympathy (Ex 23:9), anger (Dt 19:6, <span>kjv<\/span>), irresolution (2 Chr 13:7, <span>kjv<\/span>), and much more.<\/p>\n<p>Volitionally, the heart can purpose (1 Cor 4:5), incline to (1 Sm 14:7), prompt (2 Kgs 12:4; cf. Prv 4:23), be steadfast (Acts 11:23), be willing (Ex 35:22), contrive evil (Acts 5:4), or follow its “treasure” (Mt 6:21).<\/p>\n<p>Morally, the heart can be gentle, lowly (Mt 11:29), holy (1 Thes 3:13), faithful (Neh 9:8), upright (Ps 97:11), pure, single-minded (Jas 4:8), clean (Acts 15:8), loving toward God (Mk 12:30) and others (1 Pt 1:22), hardened, or sensitive (Ez 11:19). Scripture’s emphasis falls upon the heart’s evil (Gn 6:5 and throughout), as self-deceiving (Jas 1:26), deceitful (Jer 17:9), avaricious (Mt 6:19-21), lustful (Mt 5:28), arrogant (Is 9:9), impious (Acts 7:51), perverse (Ps 101:4), and impenitent (Rom 2:5). Nothing defiles a man worse than his own heart (Mk 7:18-19).<\/p>\n<p>Yet out of the heart can come good (Lk 6:45; 8:15). Even when frustrated by circumstances or by fear, the heart’s good intention remains good; its evil intent, bad (1 Kgs 8:18; Mt 5:28).<\/p>\n<p>Being so complex, a person’s heart is sadly divided, and Scripture often extols a perfect, whole, true (i.e., united) heart (Gn 20:5; Ps 86:11; Acts 8:37). The “heart” signifies the total inner self, a person’s hidden core of being (1 Pt 3:4), with which one communes, which one “pours out” in prayer, words, and deeds (Ps 62:8; Mt 15:18-19). It is the genuine self, distinguished from appearance, public position, and physical presence (1 Sm 16:7; 2 Cor 5:12; 1 Thes 2:17). And this “heart-self” has its own nature, character, and disposition (Dn 4:16; 7:4, <span>kjv<\/span>; cf. Mt 12:33-37).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheSpiritualHeart\">The Spiritual Heart<\/p>\n<p>The heart is especially important in biblical religion. The mystery of the hidden self is fully known to God and to Christ (Jer 17:10; Lk 9:47; Rom 8:27), and the heart is the seat of our knowledge of God (2 Cor 4:6). The state of heart governs the vision of God (Mt 5:8); from the heart one speaks to God (Ps 27:8); the heart is the locus of divine indwelling (2 Cor 1:22; Gal 4:6; Eph 3:17).<\/p>\n<p>On the other hand, moral evil in the heart is seen in biblical perspective as sin against God. Senseless hearts are darkened, often secretly idolatrous, far from God, “not right” before God (Dt 29:18-19; Mt 15:8; Acts 8:21; Rom 1:21). Yet the Lord will not despise a broken, contrite heart (Ps 51:17). When one’s heart is turned toward God, he promises to make it sensitive to divine things, renewed and purified (Dt 4:29; 2 Kgs 23:25; Ps 51:10; Jl 2:13; Ez 36:25-27). God’s law shall then be written on the heart as the inward guide and incentive (Jer 31:33; Heb 8:10; cf. 2 Cor 3:2-3).<\/p>\n<p>In Christian terms, such transformation involves believing the gospel from the “honest and good heart” that provides fruitful soil for the Word of God (Lk 8:15; Rom 10:9). The true heart draws near to God, loves him with all its intellect, feeling, and will (Lk 10:27; Heb 10:22). Then God gives strength, reward, renewal, grace, peace, and joy to the heart (Ps 73:26; Is 57:15; Acts 2:46; Phil 4:7; Heb 13:9). So the ancient ideal becomes possible again, that of being “a man after God’s own heart” (1 Sm 13:14; Acts 13:22).<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>HEART<\/h3>\n<p>Vital bodily organ; emotional center of one’s being.<\/p>\n<p>In Hebrew and Greek, as in modern English, “heart” is used to designate a physical organ as well as the emotional center of one’s being. “Heart” (Hebrew <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">leb<\/span><em>;<\/em> Greek <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">kardia<\/span>) occurs approximately 1,000 times in the Bible, though it is often disguised in translation. The range of meaning is great.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"PhysicalHeart\">Physical Heart<\/p>\n<p>That the beating heart indicates life seems implied in 1 Samuel 25:37-39 (see <span>nlt<\/span> mg), despite the delay in Nabal’s death. Physical food and wine affect the heart (Jgs 19:5; Ps 104:15; Acts 14:17), and the heart can “faint” and “tremble.” The heart’s position in the body yields an obvious metaphor for “the center” (Mt 12:40).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"PyschologicalHeart\">Pyschological Heart<\/p>\n<p>The heart attends intellectually (e.g., Jer 12:11); it also perceives (Jn 12:40), understands (1 Kgs 3:9), debates (Mk 2:6), reflects (Lk 2:19), remembers (Lk 2:51), thinks (Dt 8:17), imagines (Lk 1:51), is wise (Eccl 1:17, <span>kjv<\/span>), has technical skill (Ex 28:3, <span>kjv<\/span>), and much more.<\/p>\n<p>Emotionally, the heart experiences intoxicated merriment (1 Sm 25:36), gladness (Is 30:29), joy (Jn 16:22), sorrow (Neh 2:2), anguish (Rom 9:2), bitterness (Prv 14:10), anxiety (1 Sm 4:13), despair (Eccl 2:20), love (2 Sm 14:1), trust (Ps 112:7), affection (2 Cor 7:3), lust (Mt 5:28), callousness (Mk 3:5), hatred (Lv 19:17), fear (Gn 42:28), jealousy (Jas 3:14), desire (Rom 10:1), discouragement (Nm 32:9), sympathy (Ex 23:9), anger (Dt 19:6, <span>kjv<\/span>), irresolution (2 Chr 13:7, <span>kjv<\/span>), and much more.<\/p>\n<p>Volitionally, the heart can purpose (1 Cor 4:5), incline to (1 Sm 14:7), prompt (2 Kgs 12:4; cf. Prv 4:23), be steadfast (Acts 11:23), be willing (Ex 35:22), contrive evil (Acts 5:4), or follow its “treasure” (Mt 6:21).<\/p>\n<p>Morally, the heart can be gentle, lowly (Mt 11:29), holy (1 Thes 3:13), faithful (Neh 9:8), upright (Ps 97:11), pure, single-minded (Jas 4:8), clean (Acts 15:8), loving toward God (Mk 12:30) and others (1 Pt 1:22), hardened, or sensitive (Ez 11:19). Scripture’s emphasis falls upon the heart’s evil (Gn 6:5 and throughout), as self-deceiving (Jas 1:26), deceitful (Jer 17:9), avaricious (Mt 6:19-21), lustful (Mt 5:28), arrogant (Is 9:9), impious (Acts 7:51), perverse (Ps 101:4), and impenitent (Rom 2:5). Nothing defiles a man worse than his own heart (Mk 7:18-19).<\/p>\n<p>Yet out of the heart can come good (Lk 6:45; 8:15). Even when frustrated by circumstances or by fear, the heart’s good intention remains good; its evil intent, bad (1 Kgs 8:18; Mt 5:28).<\/p>\n<p>Being so complex, a person’s heart is sadly divided, and Scripture often extols a perfect, whole, true (i.e., united) heart (Gn 20:5; Ps 86:11; Acts 8:37). The “heart” signifies the total inner self, a person’s hidden core of being (1 Pt 3:4), with which one communes, which one “pours out” in prayer, words, and deeds (Ps 62:8; Mt 15:18-19). It is the genuine self, distinguished from appearance, public position, and physical presence (1 Sm 16:7; 2 Cor 5:12; 1 Thes 2:17). And this “heart-self” has its own nature, character, and disposition (Dn 4:16; 7:4, <span>kjv<\/span>; cf. Mt 12:33-37).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheSpiritualHeart\">The Spiritual Heart<\/p>\n<p>The heart is especially important in biblical religion. The mystery of the hidden self is fully known to God and to Christ (Jer 17:10; Lk 9:47; Rom 8:27), and the heart is the seat of our knowledge of God (2 Cor 4:6). The state of heart governs the vision of God (Mt 5:8); from the heart one speaks to God (Ps 27:8); the heart is the locus of divine indwelling (2 Cor 1:22; Gal 4:6; Eph 3:17).<\/p>\n<p>On the other hand, moral evil in the heart is seen in biblical perspective as sin against God. Senseless hearts are darkened, often secretly idolatrous, far from God, “not right” before God (Dt 29:18-19; Mt 15:8; Acts 8:21; Rom 1:21). Yet the Lord will not despise a broken, contrite heart (Ps 51:17). When one’s heart is turned toward God, he promises to make it sensitive to divine things, renewed and purified (Dt 4:29; 2 Kgs 23:25; Ps 51:10; Jl 2:13; Ez 36:25-27). God’s law shall then be written on the heart as the inward guide and incentive (Jer 31:33; Heb 8:10; cf. 2 Cor 3:2-3).<\/p>\n<p>In Christian terms, such transformation involves believing the gospel from the “honest and good heart” that provides fruitful soil for the Word of God (Lk 8:15; Rom 10:9). The true heart draws near to God, loves him with all its intellect, feeling, and will (Lk 10:27; Heb 10:22). Then God gives strength, reward, renewal, grace, peace, and joy to the heart (Ps 73:26; Is 57:15; Acts 2:46; Phil 4:7; Heb 13:9). So the ancient ideal becomes possible again, that of being “a man after God’s own heart” (1 Sm 13:14; Acts 13:22).<\/p>","summary_ro":"HEART Vital bodily organ; emotional center of one’s being. In Hebrew and Greek, as in modern English, “heart” is used to designate a physical organ as well as the emotional center of one’s being. “Heart” (Hebrew leb; Greek kardia) occurs approximately 1,000 times in the Bible, though it is often disguised in translation. The range of meaning is great. Physical Heart That the beating heart indicates life seems implied in 1 Samuel 25:37-39 (see nlt mg), despite the delay in Nabal’s death. Physi...","summary_en":"HEART Vital bodily organ; emotional center of one’s being. In Hebrew and Greek, as in modern English, “heart” is used to designate a physical organ as well as the emotional center of one’s being. “Heart” (Hebrew leb; Greek kardia) occurs approximately 1,000 times in the Bible, though it is often disguised in translation. The range of meaning is great. Physical Heart That the beating heart indicates life seems implied in 1 Samuel 25:37-39 (see nlt mg), despite the delay in Nabal’s death. Physi...","source":"Articles\/H.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":45087,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Deuteronomul 19:6","title_en":"Study Note: Deuteronomul 19:6","content_ro":"<p><strong>19:6<\/strong> <em>avenger<\/em> (literally <em>the redeemer of blood<\/em>): The law allowed murder to be avenged by members of the victim’s family. When they found the killer, they could put him to death (Num 35:16-21). The idea was that blood shed by the victim must be paid for by the blood of the person responsible for the act (see Gen 4:15; 9:6). In this way, the land polluted by the shed blood could be purified (Num 35:33-34).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>19:6<\/strong> <em>avenger<\/em> (literally <em>the redeemer of blood<\/em>): The law allowed murder to be avenged by members of the victim’s family. When they found the killer, they could put him to death (Num 35:16-21). The idea was that blood shed by the victim must be paid for by the blood of the person responsible for the act (see Gen 4:15; 9:6). In this way, the land polluted by the shed blood could be purified (Num 35:33-34).<\/p>","summary_ro":"19:6 avenger (literally the redeemer of blood): The law allowed murder to be avenged by members of the victim’s family. When they found the killer, they could put him to death (Num 35:16-21). The idea was that blood shed by the victim must be paid for by the blood of the person responsible for the act (see Gen 4:15; 9:6). In this way, the land polluted by the shed blood could be purified (Num 35:33-34).","summary_en":"19:6 avenger (literally the redeemer of blood): The law allowed murder to be avenged by members of the victim’s family. When they found the killer, they could put him to death (Num 35:16-21). The idea was that blood shed by the victim must be paid for by the blood of the person responsible for the act (see Gen 4:15; 9:6). In this way, the land polluted by the shed blood could be purified (Num 35:33-34).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":72713,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Deuteronomul 19:6","title_en":"Study Note: Deuteronomul 19:6","content_ro":"<p><strong>19:6<\/strong> <em>avenger<\/em> (literally <em>the redeemer of blood<\/em>): The law allowed murder to be avenged by members of the victim’s family. When they found the killer, they could put him to death (Num 35:16-21). The idea was that blood shed by the victim must be paid for by the blood of the person responsible for the act (see Gen 4:15; 9:6). In this way, the land polluted by the shed blood could be purified (Num 35:33-34).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>19:6<\/strong> <em>avenger<\/em> (literally <em>the redeemer of blood<\/em>): The law allowed murder to be avenged by members of the victim’s family. When they found the killer, they could put him to death (Num 35:16-21). The idea was that blood shed by the victim must be paid for by the blood of the person responsible for the act (see Gen 4:15; 9:6). In this way, the land polluted by the shed blood could be purified (Num 35:33-34).<\/p>","summary_ro":"19:6 avenger (literally the redeemer of blood): The law allowed murder to be avenged by members of the victim’s family. When they found the killer, they could put him to death (Num 35:16-21). The idea was that blood shed by the victim must be paid for by the blood of the person responsible for the act (see Gen 4:15; 9:6). In this way, the land polluted by the shed blood could be purified (Num 35:33-34).","summary_en":"19:6 avenger (literally the redeemer of blood): The law allowed murder to be avenged by members of the victim’s family. When they found the killer, they could put him to death (Num 35:16-21). The idea was that blood shed by the victim must be paid for by the blood of the person responsible for the act (see Gen 4:15; 9:6). In this way, the land polluted by the shed blood could be purified (Num 35:33-34).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":100339,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Deuteronomul 19:6","title_en":"Study Note: Deuteronomul 19:6","content_ro":"<p><strong>19:6<\/strong> <em>avenger<\/em> (literally <em>the redeemer of blood<\/em>): The law allowed murder to be avenged by members of the victim’s family. When they found the killer, they could put him to death (Num 35:16-21). The idea was that blood shed by the victim must be paid for by the blood of the person responsible for the act (see Gen 4:15; 9:6). In this way, the land polluted by the shed blood could be purified (Num 35:33-34).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>19:6<\/strong> <em>avenger<\/em> (literally <em>the redeemer of blood<\/em>): The law allowed murder to be avenged by members of the victim’s family. When they found the killer, they could put him to death (Num 35:16-21). The idea was that blood shed by the victim must be paid for by the blood of the person responsible for the act (see Gen 4:15; 9:6). In this way, the land polluted by the shed blood could be purified (Num 35:33-34).<\/p>","summary_ro":"19:6 avenger (literally the redeemer of blood): The law allowed murder to be avenged by members of the victim’s family. When they found the killer, they could put him to death (Num 35:16-21). The idea was that blood shed by the victim must be paid for by the blood of the person responsible for the act (see Gen 4:15; 9:6). In this way, the land polluted by the shed blood could be purified (Num 35:33-34).","summary_en":"19:6 avenger (literally the redeemer of blood): The law allowed murder to be avenged by members of the victim’s family. When they found the killer, they could put him to death (Num 35:16-21). The idea was that blood shed by the victim must be paid for by the blood of the person responsible for the act (see Gen 4:15; 9:6). In this way, the land polluted by the shed blood could be purified (Num 35:33-34).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":127965,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Deuteronomul 19:6","title_en":"Study Note: Deuteronomul 19:6","content_ro":"<p><strong>19:6<\/strong> <em>avenger<\/em> (literally <em>the redeemer of blood<\/em>): The law allowed murder to be avenged by members of the victim’s family. When they found the killer, they could put him to death (Num 35:16-21). The idea was that blood shed by the victim must be paid for by the blood of the person responsible for the act (see Gen 4:15; 9:6). In this way, the land polluted by the shed blood could be purified (Num 35:33-34).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>19:6<\/strong> <em>avenger<\/em> (literally <em>the redeemer of blood<\/em>): The law allowed murder to be avenged by members of the victim’s family. When they found the killer, they could put him to death (Num 35:16-21). The idea was that blood shed by the victim must be paid for by the blood of the person responsible for the act (see Gen 4:15; 9:6). In this way, the land polluted by the shed blood could be purified (Num 35:33-34).<\/p>","summary_ro":"19:6 avenger (literally the redeemer of blood): The law allowed murder to be avenged by members of the victim’s family. When they found the killer, they could put him to death (Num 35:16-21). The idea was that blood shed by the victim must be paid for by the blood of the person responsible for the act (see Gen 4:15; 9:6). In this way, the land polluted by the shed blood could be purified (Num 35:33-34).","summary_en":"19:6 avenger (literally the redeemer of blood): The law allowed murder to be avenged by members of the victim’s family. When they found the killer, they could put him to death (Num 35:16-21). The idea was that blood shed by the victim must be paid for by the blood of the person responsible for the act (see Gen 4:15; 9:6). In this way, the land polluted by the shed blood could be purified (Num 35:33-34).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"9":[{"id":45088,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Deuteronomul 19:9","title_en":"Study Note: Deuteronomul 19:9","content_ro":"<p><strong>19:9<\/strong> If Israel proved faithful to the covenant (19:8), God would grant the nation even more territory, so much so that <em>three additional cities of refuge<\/em> would be needed. Sadly, this need never arose because of Israel’s disobedience to the Lord.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>19:9<\/strong> If Israel proved faithful to the covenant (19:8), God would grant the nation even more territory, so much so that <em>three additional cities of refuge<\/em> would be needed. Sadly, this need never arose because of Israel’s disobedience to the Lord.<\/p>","summary_ro":"19:9 If Israel proved faithful to the covenant (19:8), God would grant the nation even more territory, so much so that three additional cities of refuge would be needed. Sadly, this need never arose because of Israel’s disobedience to the Lord.","summary_en":"19:9 If Israel proved faithful to the covenant (19:8), God would grant the nation even more territory, so much so that three additional cities of refuge would be needed. Sadly, this need never arose because of Israel’s disobedience to the Lord.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":72714,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Deuteronomul 19:9","title_en":"Study Note: Deuteronomul 19:9","content_ro":"<p><strong>19:9<\/strong> If Israel proved faithful to the covenant (19:8), God would grant the nation even more territory, so much so that <em>three additional cities of refuge<\/em> would be needed. Sadly, this need never arose because of Israel’s disobedience to the Lord.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>19:9<\/strong> If Israel proved faithful to the covenant (19:8), God would grant the nation even more territory, so much so that <em>three additional cities of refuge<\/em> would be needed. Sadly, this need never arose because of Israel’s disobedience to the Lord.<\/p>","summary_ro":"19:9 If Israel proved faithful to the covenant (19:8), God would grant the nation even more territory, so much so that three additional cities of refuge would be needed. Sadly, this need never arose because of Israel’s disobedience to the Lord.","summary_en":"19:9 If Israel proved faithful to the covenant (19:8), God would grant the nation even more territory, so much so that three additional cities of refuge would be needed. Sadly, this need never arose because of Israel’s disobedience to the Lord.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":100340,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Deuteronomul 19:9","title_en":"Study Note: Deuteronomul 19:9","content_ro":"<p><strong>19:9<\/strong> If Israel proved faithful to the covenant (19:8), God would grant the nation even more territory, so much so that <em>three additional cities of refuge<\/em> would be needed. Sadly, this need never arose because of Israel’s disobedience to the Lord.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>19:9<\/strong> If Israel proved faithful to the covenant (19:8), God would grant the nation even more territory, so much so that <em>three additional cities of refuge<\/em> would be needed. Sadly, this need never arose because of Israel’s disobedience to the Lord.<\/p>","summary_ro":"19:9 If Israel proved faithful to the covenant (19:8), God would grant the nation even more territory, so much so that three additional cities of refuge would be needed. Sadly, this need never arose because of Israel’s disobedience to the Lord.","summary_en":"19:9 If Israel proved faithful to the covenant (19:8), God would grant the nation even more territory, so much so that three additional cities of refuge would be needed. Sadly, this need never arose because of Israel’s disobedience to the Lord.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":127966,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Deuteronomul 19:9","title_en":"Study Note: Deuteronomul 19:9","content_ro":"<p><strong>19:9<\/strong> If Israel proved faithful to the covenant (19:8), God would grant the nation even more territory, so much so that <em>three additional cities of refuge<\/em> would be needed. Sadly, this need never arose because of Israel’s disobedience to the Lord.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>19:9<\/strong> If Israel proved faithful to the covenant (19:8), God would grant the nation even more territory, so much so that <em>three additional cities of refuge<\/em> would be needed. Sadly, this need never arose because of Israel’s disobedience to the Lord.<\/p>","summary_ro":"19:9 If Israel proved faithful to the covenant (19:8), God would grant the nation even more territory, so much so that three additional cities of refuge would be needed. Sadly, this need never arose because of Israel’s disobedience to the Lord.","summary_en":"19:9 If Israel proved faithful to the covenant (19:8), God would grant the nation even more territory, so much so that three additional cities of refuge would be needed. Sadly, this need never arose because of Israel’s disobedience to the Lord.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"11":[{"id":5290,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Bloodguilt*","title_en":"Bloodguilt*","content_ro":"<h3>BLOODGUILT*<\/h3>\n<p>Term used in some English Bibles to translate a Hebrew word meaning “blood” or “bloods” (Ex 22:2-3; Lv 17:4; 1 Sm 25:26, 33; Hos 12:14). The translation “bloodguiltiness” occurs only in Psalm 51:14. The plural form almost invariably means the shedding of blood, but the singular can mean blood itself, bloodshed, or the guilt incurred by bloodshed (i.e., by killing). The idea that killing was punishable by death pervades the Bible; killing was generally done by literally shedding another’s blood.<\/p>\n<p>The first category of bloodshed resulting in bloodguilt was deliberate homicide, murder “in cold blood,” as moderns say, or of “innocent blood,” as the OT says (Jon 1:14). Several passages define the shedding of innocent blood and its punishment (Gn 9:6; Dt 19:11-13; 2 Kgs 24:4; Ez 33:6). The Bible prohibits any ransom for a murderer (Nm 35:31).<\/p>\n<p>Another category was accidental homicide (Nm 35:9-28, Dt 19:4-10). After an accidental killing, the “avenger of blood” might retaliate if he caught the offender outside a city of refuge. If the murderer was unknown, the town nearest the discovered corpse assumed the guilt; Deuteronomy 21:1-9 prescribes a ceremony for removing such guilt.<\/p>\n<p>In ancient Israel it was possible to shed the blood of an animal and incur bloodguilt (Lv 17:3-4, 10-11). An animal that was legally guilty of bloodshed was to be stoned (Ex 21:28-29). Exceptions to bloodguilt were made in the case of self-defense (22:2), capital punishment (Lv 20:9-16), and war (1 Kgs 2:5-6). Frequently the prophets would use the Hebrew word for “bloods” or “blood” to speak of the whole nation’s guilt (Is 1:15; 4:4; Ez 7:23; 9:9; Hos 1:4; 4:2, <span>kjv<\/span>; Mi 3:10; Hb 2:8, 12, 17; and many others). Other crimes beside bloodshed could bring on a death sentence (Lv 20:9-16; Ez 18:10-13). Such crimes included honoring pagan deities, worshiping idols, adultery, robbery, oppressing the poor, breach of promise, and usury.<\/p>\n<p>From the beginning (Gn 4:10-12), through the Prophets (Is 26:21; Ez 24:6-9), and into the NT (Rv 6:10), the Bible supports the idea that God will avenge wrongs and punish those guilty of bloodshed.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Cities of Refuge; Criminal Law and Punishment.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>BLOODGUILT*<\/h3>\n<p>Term used in some English Bibles to translate a Hebrew word meaning “blood” or “bloods” (Ex 22:2-3; Lv 17:4; 1 Sm 25:26, 33; Hos 12:14). The translation “bloodguiltiness” occurs only in Psalm 51:14. The plural form almost invariably means the shedding of blood, but the singular can mean blood itself, bloodshed, or the guilt incurred by bloodshed (i.e., by killing). The idea that killing was punishable by death pervades the Bible; killing was generally done by literally shedding another’s blood.<\/p>\n<p>The first category of bloodshed resulting in bloodguilt was deliberate homicide, murder “in cold blood,” as moderns say, or of “innocent blood,” as the OT says (Jon 1:14). Several passages define the shedding of innocent blood and its punishment (Gn 9:6; Dt 19:11-13; 2 Kgs 24:4; Ez 33:6). The Bible prohibits any ransom for a murderer (Nm 35:31).<\/p>\n<p>Another category was accidental homicide (Nm 35:9-28, Dt 19:4-10). After an accidental killing, the “avenger of blood” might retaliate if he caught the offender outside a city of refuge. If the murderer was unknown, the town nearest the discovered corpse assumed the guilt; Deuteronomy 21:1-9 prescribes a ceremony for removing such guilt.<\/p>\n<p>In ancient Israel it was possible to shed the blood of an animal and incur bloodguilt (Lv 17:3-4, 10-11). An animal that was legally guilty of bloodshed was to be stoned (Ex 21:28-29). Exceptions to bloodguilt were made in the case of self-defense (22:2), capital punishment (Lv 20:9-16), and war (1 Kgs 2:5-6). Frequently the prophets would use the Hebrew word for “bloods” or “blood” to speak of the whole nation’s guilt (Is 1:15; 4:4; Ez 7:23; 9:9; Hos 1:4; 4:2, <span>kjv<\/span>; Mi 3:10; Hb 2:8, 12, 17; and many others). Other crimes beside bloodshed could bring on a death sentence (Lv 20:9-16; Ez 18:10-13). Such crimes included honoring pagan deities, worshiping idols, adultery, robbery, oppressing the poor, breach of promise, and usury.<\/p>\n<p>From the beginning (Gn 4:10-12), through the Prophets (Is 26:21; Ez 24:6-9), and into the NT (Rv 6:10), the Bible supports the idea that God will avenge wrongs and punish those guilty of bloodshed.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Cities of Refuge; Criminal Law and Punishment.<\/p>","summary_ro":"BLOODGUILT* Term used in some English Bibles to translate a Hebrew word meaning “blood” or “bloods” (Ex 22:2-3; Lv 17:4; 1 Sm 25:26, 33; Hos 12:14). The translation “bloodguiltiness” occurs only in Psalm 51:14. The plural form almost invariably means the shedding of blood, but the singular can mean blood itself, bloodshed, or the guilt incurred by bloodshed (i.e., by killing). The idea that killing was punishable by death pervades the Bible; killing was generally done by literally shedding an...","summary_en":"BLOODGUILT* Term used in some English Bibles to translate a Hebrew word meaning “blood” or “bloods” (Ex 22:2-3; Lv 17:4; 1 Sm 25:26, 33; Hos 12:14). The translation “bloodguiltiness” occurs only in Psalm 51:14. The plural form almost invariably means the shedding of blood, but the singular can mean blood itself, bloodshed, or the guilt incurred by bloodshed (i.e., by killing). The idea that killing was punishable by death pervades the Bible; killing was generally done by literally shedding an...","source":"Articles\/B.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":6744,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Cities of Refuge","title_en":"Cities of Refuge","content_ro":"<h3>CITIES OF REFUGE<\/h3>\n<p>Six cities, three in Canaan and three in Transjordan (area east of the Jordan River), designated as places of safety for persons suspected of manslaughter. The six cities were among the 48 assigned to the Levites (Nm 35:6). The three Transjordanian cities were Bezer, Ramoth, and Golan (Dt 4:43; Jos 20:8). The three cities west of the Jordan were Kedesh, Shechem, and Kiriath-arba (that is, Hebron) in the hill country of Judah (Jos 20:7). They were distributed so that east of the Jordan, Golan was located in the north, Ramoth in the center, and Bezer in the south. West of the Jordan, Kedesh, Shechem, and Hebron were located north, center, and south respectively. That made it possible for an accused manslayer to reach a city of refuge quickly.<\/p>\n<p>In ancient Israel the nearest relative of a murder victim was required to take the life of the murderer (Nm 35:19-21). It was his duty to the widow, other family members, and to society. Murderers were not allowed to live, and there was no way to ransom them (v 31).<\/p>\n\n<p>Accidental death, however, was another matter. Manslaughter without malice or premeditation had a special provision in the law of Moses. A man who accidentally killed someone could flee to the nearest city of refuge, where the local authorities would grant him asylum (Dt 19:4-6). When the case came to court, if the man was found guilty of premeditated murder, he was handed over for execution (19:11-12). If the death was deemed accidental, the person was acquitted. Nevertheless, he had to pay a penalty. The manslayer had to stay in the city of refuge as long as the current high priest was in office (Nm 35:22-28). That would be a considerable hardship in some cases. It meant either separation from one’s family or the expense and risk of moving from one’s ancestral land and trying to make a livelihood in a new city.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Asylum; Civil Law and Justice.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>CITIES OF REFUGE<\/h3>\n<p>Six cities, three in Canaan and three in Transjordan (area east of the Jordan River), designated as places of safety for persons suspected of manslaughter. The six cities were among the 48 assigned to the Levites (Nm 35:6). The three Transjordanian cities were Bezer, Ramoth, and Golan (Dt 4:43; Jos 20:8). The three cities west of the Jordan were Kedesh, Shechem, and Kiriath-arba (that is, Hebron) in the hill country of Judah (Jos 20:7). They were distributed so that east of the Jordan, Golan was located in the north, Ramoth in the center, and Bezer in the south. West of the Jordan, Kedesh, Shechem, and Hebron were located north, center, and south respectively. That made it possible for an accused manslayer to reach a city of refuge quickly.<\/p>\n<p>In ancient Israel the nearest relative of a murder victim was required to take the life of the murderer (Nm 35:19-21). It was his duty to the widow, other family members, and to society. Murderers were not allowed to live, and there was no way to ransom them (v 31).<\/p>\n\n<p>Accidental death, however, was another matter. Manslaughter without malice or premeditation had a special provision in the law of Moses. A man who accidentally killed someone could flee to the nearest city of refuge, where the local authorities would grant him asylum (Dt 19:4-6). When the case came to court, if the man was found guilty of premeditated murder, he was handed over for execution (19:11-12). If the death was deemed accidental, the person was acquitted. Nevertheless, he had to pay a penalty. The manslayer had to stay in the city of refuge as long as the current high priest was in office (Nm 35:22-28). That would be a considerable hardship in some cases. It meant either separation from one’s family or the expense and risk of moving from one’s ancestral land and trying to make a livelihood in a new city.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Asylum; Civil Law and Justice.<\/p>","summary_ro":"CITIES OF REFUGE Six cities, three in Canaan and three in Transjordan (area east of the Jordan River), designated as places of safety for persons suspected of manslaughter. The six cities were among the 48 assigned to the Levites (Nm 35:6). The three Transjordanian cities were Bezer, Ramoth, and Golan (Dt 4:43; Jos 20:8). The three cities west of the Jordan were Kedesh, Shechem, and Kiriath-arba (that is, Hebron) in the hill country of Judah (Jos 20:7). They were distributed so that east of t...","summary_en":"CITIES OF REFUGE Six cities, three in Canaan and three in Transjordan (area east of the Jordan River), designated as places of safety for persons suspected of manslaughter. The six cities were among the 48 assigned to the Levites (Nm 35:6). The three Transjordanian cities were Bezer, Ramoth, and Golan (Dt 4:43; Jos 20:8). The three cities west of the Jordan were Kedesh, Shechem, and Kiriath-arba (that is, Hebron) in the hill country of Judah (Jos 20:7). They were distributed so that east of t...","source":"Articles\/C.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":27268,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Neighbor","title_en":"Neighbor","content_ro":"<h3>NEIGHBOR<\/h3>\n<p>Concept apparently limited in the OT period and late Judaism to one’s fellow Israelite, or member of the covenant, and extended by Jesus to include anyone encountered in life.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"IntheOldTestament\">In the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>Although it is never explicitly limited as such, the prominent connotation of “neighbor” in the OT is that of a fellow member of the covenant community; that is, another Israelite (see Lv 6:1-7; 19; Dt 15:2-3). In Leviticus 19:18, a passage often quoted in the NT, the Israelite is commanded to “love your neighbor as yourself.” In 19:34, it is explicitly stated that such love should also be shown to the foreigner (or “sojourner”) passing through the land. If “neighbor” (v 18) implied a more encompassing notion, such as “mankind” or “fellow man,” there presumably would have been no need to include the further stipulation in verse 34. “Neighbor” was therefore probably taken to mean one’s immediate neighbor, the fellow Israelite.<\/p>\n<p>Within the covenant community, love of neighbor involved certain responsibilities explicitly set forth in the law. The neighbor was to be treated fairly (Ex 22:5-15; Lv 6:2-7; 19:9-18) and respected (Ex 20:16), as were his belongings (Ex 20:17). To foster such just and merciful relationships within the covenant community, the neighbor was to be thought of as a “brother” (Lv 25:25; Dt 22:1-4). What one did to one’s neighbor was to be returned in kind (Lv 24:19-23; Dt 19:11-19).<\/p>\n<p>The grave importance attached to treatment of the neighbor is understandable when seen as part of one’s wider relationship with God and was considered something that could affect significantly the divine-human relationship (Lv 6:1-7; 19; 25:17; Dt 24:10-13; Ps 12). Israelites were to treat their neighbors in the same loving way they had themselves been treated by God (Ex 22:21; Lv 25:35-38).<\/p>\n<p>The importance of the neighbor relationship within the covenant community is also demonstrated by the fact that when such responsibilities were ignored, a societal breakdown or national turmoil followed (Dt 28:15-68; Hos 4:1-3; Am 2:6-7). That the Israelites often did neglect love for neighbor, particularly the neighbor in need, is a contributing cause for the divine punishment of the exile (Jer 5:7-9; 7:1-15; 9:2-9; Hos 4:1-3; Am 2:6-7; 5:10-13; 8:4-6). The mere fact that proper love of neighbor was also part of Israel’s hope for the messianic age to come (Jer 31:34; Zec 3:10) also points to its common neglect within the OT covenant community.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"InLateJudaism\">In Late Judaism<\/p>\n<p>From the exilic experience, Israel recognized that divine blessing was conditional somewhat on justice and love exercised toward one another (Zec 8:14-17). The identity of the “neighbor” was debatable, however. Several factors suggest that “neighbor” was limited in this period to the fellow Israelite and the proselyte (gentile convert to Judaism). Evidence from rabbinic material excludes Samaritans and the Gentiles living in the land from being considered “neighbors” and thus worthy of love. Within the Jewish Essene community at Qumran, the “neighbor” to be respected and treated fairly was restricted to one’s fellow community members. Finally, when Jesus recalls, “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy’” (Mt 5:43), he is quoting only partially from the OT (Lv 19:18—“You shall love your neighbor”). The last phrase (“and hate your enemy”) reflects the contemporary Jewish feeling toward outsiders; that is, God did not require love toward those considered “enemies” but only toward fellow countrymen.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"IntheNewTestament\">In the New Testament<\/p>\n<p>Jesus differed dramatically from his Jewish contemporaries by eradicating the limitations on the neighbor to be loved. In contrast to those who would limit love to one’s fellow countrymen, Jesus advocated extending the obligation reserved for the neighbor to the enemy as well (Mt 5:43-48), and in so doing, he destroyed the distinction between neighbor and enemy altogether.<\/p>\n<p>On another occasion, a scribe asked Jesus what was the greatest commandment given by God (Mk 12:28-31). In response, Jesus cited Deuteronomy 6:5 concerning the nature of God and man’s obligation to love God with his entire being: heart, soul, and mind. Of significance is that Jesus did not stop there but linked with this a second commandment to “love your neighbor as yourself” (Lv 19:18). Some scholars suggest that this dramatic and close association of love of God and love of neighbor originated with Jesus. If Jesus was the first to tie these commands together (see Mt 22:37; Mk 12:29-31), it reveals our Lord’s own understanding of the relation of these two obligations; proper love for neighbor derives from love for God, and conversely, love for God is inseparable from meeting the needs of a neighbor in love.<\/p>\n<p>The debate in Jesus’ time was not over how to properly treat a neighbor but who, in fact, was the neighbor. Jesus is asked this very question by an expert of the law (Lk 10:29). Jesus had complimented the lawyer for his clear understanding of what was required to inherit eternal life, namely, love of God and love of neighbor. Luke suggests that the lawyer asked the further qualifying question in order to “justify himself,” that is, justify his actual behavior of limited love toward his fellow man. Jesus chose not to respond directly but through the use of a parable, in this case, the familiar parable of the Good Samaritan (vv 30-35).<\/p>\n<p>In order to open the lawyer’s eyes to the tragic shortsightedness of his question, Jesus related an everyday story of a man traveling the treacherous road from Jerusalem down to Jericho, a road particularly plagued by robbers. The traveler is robbed, stripped, beaten, and left half dead. To this point, the lawyer might have assumed Jesus was offering an example of who constitutes a “neighbor”—a fellow Jew in need. Jesus proceeds, however, to introduce two figures, a priest and a Levite who, in an academic discussion, could have argued quite ably on who is the neighbor God calls one to love. The lawyer would no doubt have anticipated such experts in the law to act rightly toward the victim. In contrast, the priest and Levite, upon seeing the man in need, respond by “passing by on the other side.” Unable to determine whether the victim was dead or barely alive, and possibly not wanting to risk uncleanness, the experts of the law pass by, thus violating the greatest of the commandments just identified by the lawyer (10:25-28).<\/p>\n<p>Enter a Samaritan—a figure especially despised by the Jews. Viewed as heretics by the Jewish religious authorities, the Samaritans were disqualified in rabbinic circles from being considered a “neighbor” and thus worthy of love. In fact, previous centuries had witnessed the slaughter of many Samaritans by Jewish rulers, and animosity clearly existed between the two peoples (see Jn 4:9). While the lawyer listening to the parable would have expected the priest and Levite to act justly toward the victim, he must have been surprised that a hated Samaritan would show compassion and thus fulfill the greatest commandment. Jesus intentionally spelled out the extent of the Samaritan’s compassion (immediate care in dressing wounds, transport to the inn, care for the victim there and extended care in paying for care by others while he is away, Lk 10:34-35) to such a degree that the lawyer would have no doubt as to the genuineness of the Samaritan’s love. The irony of the story is that one not considered worthy to be called “neighbor” by Jews was precisely the one who showed himself to be “neighbor” to the victim (vv 36-37).<\/p>\n<p>The parable, like the statement in Matthew 5:43-48, reveals Jesus’ own understanding of “neighbor” and what “love of neighbor” demands. Jesus sets no limitation on who qualifies as the neighbor commanded by God to be loved.<\/p>\n<p>The forcefulness and power of Jesus’ teachings on the love of neighbor and its relationship to one’s love for God are demonstrated by a similar emphasis within the early church. Paul on two occasions called the love of neighbor the fulfillment of the entire law (Rom 13:8-10; Gal 5:14), while James referred to the same commandment as “the royal law” (Jas 2:8).<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>NEIGHBOR<\/h3>\n<p>Concept apparently limited in the OT period and late Judaism to one’s fellow Israelite, or member of the covenant, and extended by Jesus to include anyone encountered in life.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"IntheOldTestament\">In the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>Although it is never explicitly limited as such, the prominent connotation of “neighbor” in the OT is that of a fellow member of the covenant community; that is, another Israelite (see Lv 6:1-7; 19; Dt 15:2-3). In Leviticus 19:18, a passage often quoted in the NT, the Israelite is commanded to “love your neighbor as yourself.” In 19:34, it is explicitly stated that such love should also be shown to the foreigner (or “sojourner”) passing through the land. If “neighbor” (v 18) implied a more encompassing notion, such as “mankind” or “fellow man,” there presumably would have been no need to include the further stipulation in verse 34. “Neighbor” was therefore probably taken to mean one’s immediate neighbor, the fellow Israelite.<\/p>\n<p>Within the covenant community, love of neighbor involved certain responsibilities explicitly set forth in the law. The neighbor was to be treated fairly (Ex 22:5-15; Lv 6:2-7; 19:9-18) and respected (Ex 20:16), as were his belongings (Ex 20:17). To foster such just and merciful relationships within the covenant community, the neighbor was to be thought of as a “brother” (Lv 25:25; Dt 22:1-4). What one did to one’s neighbor was to be returned in kind (Lv 24:19-23; Dt 19:11-19).<\/p>\n<p>The grave importance attached to treatment of the neighbor is understandable when seen as part of one’s wider relationship with God and was considered something that could affect significantly the divine-human relationship (Lv 6:1-7; 19; 25:17; Dt 24:10-13; Ps 12). Israelites were to treat their neighbors in the same loving way they had themselves been treated by God (Ex 22:21; Lv 25:35-38).<\/p>\n<p>The importance of the neighbor relationship within the covenant community is also demonstrated by the fact that when such responsibilities were ignored, a societal breakdown or national turmoil followed (Dt 28:15-68; Hos 4:1-3; Am 2:6-7). That the Israelites often did neglect love for neighbor, particularly the neighbor in need, is a contributing cause for the divine punishment of the exile (Jer 5:7-9; 7:1-15; 9:2-9; Hos 4:1-3; Am 2:6-7; 5:10-13; 8:4-6). The mere fact that proper love of neighbor was also part of Israel’s hope for the messianic age to come (Jer 31:34; Zec 3:10) also points to its common neglect within the OT covenant community.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"InLateJudaism\">In Late Judaism<\/p>\n<p>From the exilic experience, Israel recognized that divine blessing was conditional somewhat on justice and love exercised toward one another (Zec 8:14-17). The identity of the “neighbor” was debatable, however. Several factors suggest that “neighbor” was limited in this period to the fellow Israelite and the proselyte (gentile convert to Judaism). Evidence from rabbinic material excludes Samaritans and the Gentiles living in the land from being considered “neighbors” and thus worthy of love. Within the Jewish Essene community at Qumran, the “neighbor” to be respected and treated fairly was restricted to one’s fellow community members. Finally, when Jesus recalls, “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy’” (Mt 5:43), he is quoting only partially from the OT (Lv 19:18—“You shall love your neighbor”). The last phrase (“and hate your enemy”) reflects the contemporary Jewish feeling toward outsiders; that is, God did not require love toward those considered “enemies” but only toward fellow countrymen.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"IntheNewTestament\">In the New Testament<\/p>\n<p>Jesus differed dramatically from his Jewish contemporaries by eradicating the limitations on the neighbor to be loved. In contrast to those who would limit love to one’s fellow countrymen, Jesus advocated extending the obligation reserved for the neighbor to the enemy as well (Mt 5:43-48), and in so doing, he destroyed the distinction between neighbor and enemy altogether.<\/p>\n<p>On another occasion, a scribe asked Jesus what was the greatest commandment given by God (Mk 12:28-31). In response, Jesus cited Deuteronomy 6:5 concerning the nature of God and man’s obligation to love God with his entire being: heart, soul, and mind. Of significance is that Jesus did not stop there but linked with this a second commandment to “love your neighbor as yourself” (Lv 19:18). Some scholars suggest that this dramatic and close association of love of God and love of neighbor originated with Jesus. If Jesus was the first to tie these commands together (see Mt 22:37; Mk 12:29-31), it reveals our Lord’s own understanding of the relation of these two obligations; proper love for neighbor derives from love for God, and conversely, love for God is inseparable from meeting the needs of a neighbor in love.<\/p>\n<p>The debate in Jesus’ time was not over how to properly treat a neighbor but who, in fact, was the neighbor. Jesus is asked this very question by an expert of the law (Lk 10:29). Jesus had complimented the lawyer for his clear understanding of what was required to inherit eternal life, namely, love of God and love of neighbor. Luke suggests that the lawyer asked the further qualifying question in order to “justify himself,” that is, justify his actual behavior of limited love toward his fellow man. Jesus chose not to respond directly but through the use of a parable, in this case, the familiar parable of the Good Samaritan (vv 30-35).<\/p>\n<p>In order to open the lawyer’s eyes to the tragic shortsightedness of his question, Jesus related an everyday story of a man traveling the treacherous road from Jerusalem down to Jericho, a road particularly plagued by robbers. The traveler is robbed, stripped, beaten, and left half dead. To this point, the lawyer might have assumed Jesus was offering an example of who constitutes a “neighbor”—a fellow Jew in need. Jesus proceeds, however, to introduce two figures, a priest and a Levite who, in an academic discussion, could have argued quite ably on who is the neighbor God calls one to love. The lawyer would no doubt have anticipated such experts in the law to act rightly toward the victim. In contrast, the priest and Levite, upon seeing the man in need, respond by “passing by on the other side.” Unable to determine whether the victim was dead or barely alive, and possibly not wanting to risk uncleanness, the experts of the law pass by, thus violating the greatest of the commandments just identified by the lawyer (10:25-28).<\/p>\n<p>Enter a Samaritan—a figure especially despised by the Jews. Viewed as heretics by the Jewish religious authorities, the Samaritans were disqualified in rabbinic circles from being considered a “neighbor” and thus worthy of love. In fact, previous centuries had witnessed the slaughter of many Samaritans by Jewish rulers, and animosity clearly existed between the two peoples (see Jn 4:9). While the lawyer listening to the parable would have expected the priest and Levite to act justly toward the victim, he must have been surprised that a hated Samaritan would show compassion and thus fulfill the greatest commandment. Jesus intentionally spelled out the extent of the Samaritan’s compassion (immediate care in dressing wounds, transport to the inn, care for the victim there and extended care in paying for care by others while he is away, Lk 10:34-35) to such a degree that the lawyer would have no doubt as to the genuineness of the Samaritan’s love. The irony of the story is that one not considered worthy to be called “neighbor” by Jews was precisely the one who showed himself to be “neighbor” to the victim (vv 36-37).<\/p>\n<p>The parable, like the statement in Matthew 5:43-48, reveals Jesus’ own understanding of “neighbor” and what “love of neighbor” demands. Jesus sets no limitation on who qualifies as the neighbor commanded by God to be loved.<\/p>\n<p>The forcefulness and power of Jesus’ teachings on the love of neighbor and its relationship to one’s love for God are demonstrated by a similar emphasis within the early church. Paul on two occasions called the love of neighbor the fulfillment of the entire law (Rom 13:8-10; Gal 5:14), while James referred to the same commandment as “the royal law” (Jas 2:8).<\/p>","summary_ro":"NEIGHBOR Concept apparently limited in the OT period and late Judaism to one’s fellow Israelite, or member of the covenant, and extended by Jesus to include anyone encountered in life. In the Old Testament Although it is never explicitly limited as such, the prominent connotation of “neighbor” in the OT is that of a fellow member of the covenant community; that is, another Israelite (see Lv 6:1-7; 19; Dt 15:2-3). In Leviticus 19:18, a passage often quoted in the NT, the Israelite is commanded...","summary_en":"NEIGHBOR Concept apparently limited in the OT period and late Judaism to one’s fellow Israelite, or member of the covenant, and extended by Jesus to include anyone encountered in life. In the Old Testament Although it is never explicitly limited as such, the prominent connotation of “neighbor” in the OT is that of a fellow member of the covenant community; that is, another Israelite (see Lv 6:1-7; 19; Dt 15:2-3). In Leviticus 19:18, a passage often quoted in the NT, the Israelite is commanded...","source":"Articles\/N.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":45089,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Deuteronomul 19:11","title_en":"Study Note: Deuteronomul 19:11","content_ro":"<p><strong>19:11<\/strong> The Hebrew term rendered <em>is hostile<\/em> (literally <em>is a hater<\/em>) indicates a constant and long-standing hateful attitude, which constituted evidence that the killer was predisposed to commit a crime and therefore probably did it.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>19:11<\/strong> The Hebrew term rendered <em>is hostile<\/em> (literally <em>is a hater<\/em>) indicates a constant and long-standing hateful attitude, which constituted evidence that the killer was predisposed to commit a crime and therefore probably did it.<\/p>","summary_ro":"19:11 The Hebrew term rendered is hostile (literally is a hater) indicates a constant and long-standing hateful attitude, which constituted evidence that the killer was predisposed to commit a crime and therefore probably did it.","summary_en":"19:11 The Hebrew term rendered is hostile (literally is a hater) indicates a constant and long-standing hateful attitude, which constituted evidence that the killer was predisposed to commit a crime and therefore probably did it.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":72715,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Deuteronomul 19:11","title_en":"Study Note: Deuteronomul 19:11","content_ro":"<p><strong>19:11<\/strong> The Hebrew term rendered <em>is hostile<\/em> (literally <em>is a hater<\/em>) indicates a constant and long-standing hateful attitude, which constituted evidence that the killer was predisposed to commit a crime and therefore probably did it.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>19:11<\/strong> The Hebrew term rendered <em>is hostile<\/em> (literally <em>is a hater<\/em>) indicates a constant and long-standing hateful attitude, which constituted evidence that the killer was predisposed to commit a crime and therefore probably did it.<\/p>","summary_ro":"19:11 The Hebrew term rendered is hostile (literally is a hater) indicates a constant and long-standing hateful attitude, which constituted evidence that the killer was predisposed to commit a crime and therefore probably did it.","summary_en":"19:11 The Hebrew term rendered is hostile (literally is a hater) indicates a constant and long-standing hateful attitude, which constituted evidence that the killer was predisposed to commit a crime and therefore probably did it.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":100341,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Deuteronomul 19:11","title_en":"Study Note: Deuteronomul 19:11","content_ro":"<p><strong>19:11<\/strong> The Hebrew term rendered <em>is hostile<\/em> (literally <em>is a hater<\/em>) indicates a constant and long-standing hateful attitude, which constituted evidence that the killer was predisposed to commit a crime and therefore probably did it.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>19:11<\/strong> The Hebrew term rendered <em>is hostile<\/em> (literally <em>is a hater<\/em>) indicates a constant and long-standing hateful attitude, which constituted evidence that the killer was predisposed to commit a crime and therefore probably did it.<\/p>","summary_ro":"19:11 The Hebrew term rendered is hostile (literally is a hater) indicates a constant and long-standing hateful attitude, which constituted evidence that the killer was predisposed to commit a crime and therefore probably did it.","summary_en":"19:11 The Hebrew term rendered is hostile (literally is a hater) indicates a constant and long-standing hateful attitude, which constituted evidence that the killer was predisposed to commit a crime and therefore probably did it.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":127967,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Deuteronomul 19:11","title_en":"Study Note: Deuteronomul 19:11","content_ro":"<p><strong>19:11<\/strong> The Hebrew term rendered <em>is hostile<\/em> (literally <em>is a hater<\/em>) indicates a constant and long-standing hateful attitude, which constituted evidence that the killer was predisposed to commit a crime and therefore probably did it.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>19:11<\/strong> The Hebrew term rendered <em>is hostile<\/em> (literally <em>is a hater<\/em>) indicates a constant and long-standing hateful attitude, which constituted evidence that the killer was predisposed to commit a crime and therefore probably did it.<\/p>","summary_ro":"19:11 The Hebrew term rendered is hostile (literally is a hater) indicates a constant and long-standing hateful attitude, which constituted evidence that the killer was predisposed to commit a crime and therefore probably did it.","summary_en":"19:11 The Hebrew term rendered is hostile (literally is a hater) indicates a constant and long-standing hateful attitude, which constituted evidence that the killer was predisposed to commit a crime and therefore probably did it.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"12":[{"id":7804,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Courts and Trials","title_en":"Courts and Trials","content_ro":"<h3>COURTS AND TRIALS<\/h3>\n<p>Legal disputes were as much a part of life in Bible times as they are today. The ways that courts operated and trials were conducted, however, were quite different. Unless those customs are understood, modern readers of the Bible, thinking of contemporary legal procedures, may misunderstand the judicial accounts contained in the Bible.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"OldTestamentLegalProcedures\">Old Testament Legal Procedures<\/p>\n<h5>Exodus to Deuteronomy<\/h5>\n<p>The books of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy contain most of the law in the OT, plus much other information about courts and legal procedures. Those books reveal how trials were conducted before Israel had kings. Certain changes in the legal system occurring after the establishment of the monarchy (c. 1000 <span>BC<\/span>) are described in other OT books.<\/p>\n<p>The OT depicts God as supreme lawgiver and judge, with Moses and later the kings as God’s deputies. But Moses did not create the law or decide the most difficult cases, which were referred directly to God for the decision (see Lv 24:10-23; Nm 15:32-36; 27:1-11). When disputes arose between Israel’s leaders, God intervened, judging the guilty party directly (Nm 16–17). Thus law is seen in the OT as a divine revelation, not a human creation, as it was regarded in ancient Babylon.<\/p>\n<p>Usually it was not necessary to seek God’s direct guidance; precedent was sufficient. Elders were appointed in Israel to serve as judges of all but the most serious cases, relieving Moses of the burden of judging all the people himself (Ex 18:13-27). Deuteronomy 16:18 specifies that “judges” be appointed in every town; in other passages those responsible for punishing criminals are called “the elders” (Dt 19:12). The local judges were obviously nonprofessionals selected from the most respected members of each tribe or village. Difficult cases were referred to a central court of justice to be decided by the priests and, in the period of the judges, by the civil and military leader (17:8-12). Deborah and Samuel were both examples of such “judges of Israel.” Samuel even conducted a circuit court in a number of different centers (Jgs 4:4-5; 1 Sm 7:15-17).<\/p>\n<p>In Israel, as in other ancient societies, private prosecution was the norm. An individual with a grievance had to bring the case before the court. Only in situations of idolatry or other serious religious crimes were public prosecutions instituted (Dt 13; 17:2-7). Even in murder cases prosecution was left in the hands of the victim’s relatives. One relative, called the “avenger of blood,” had to pursue the alleged murderer to the nearest city of refuge, where a trial was held (Nm 35:10-34; Dt 19:1-13).<\/p>\n<p>Trials were held in a public place, such as the open space near a city gate (Dt 21:19). During the trial, the judges were seated, but the parties to the dispute and the witnesses stood. At least two witnesses were required to convict (19:15). They had to be eyewitnesses who had caught the accused red-handed. Where such clear-cut evidence was lacking (for example in disputes over ownership), the litigants could take an oath to demonstrate their honesty (Ex 22:8-13). If a husband suspected his wife of infidelity but had no proof, he could require her to undergo an ordeal of drinking “bitter water” to demonstrate her innocence (Nm 5:6-31).<\/p>\n<p>When all the evidence had been presented, the judges gave their verdict. Those who had brought the accusation had the duty of enforcing the court’s sentence. Thus, a witness of idolatry had to throw the first stone at the guilty person’s execution (Dt 17:7). Certain administrative officials may have had the job of writing down the court’s decision and seeing that it was enforced (16:18). At times it may have been difficult for people to uphold their legal rights if their opponent came from a strong and wealthy family.<\/p>\n<h5>Other Old Testament Books<\/h5>\n<p>When Israel became a kingdom, certain changes were made in its judicial system. Most obviously, the king became the supreme judge who dealt with the most difficult cases. Solomon demonstrated his great wisdom in adjudicating between two women who both claimed to be the mother of a particular baby (1 Kgs 3:16-28). Kings, who had all the power necessary to enforce their decisions, were expected to use it to help the weak members of society, such as orphans and widows (Ps 72:12).<\/p>\n<p>In practice, however, Israel’s kings did not always live up to that ideal. Absalom sowed the seeds of a revolution by telling those who came to the royal court that his father, King David, did not administer justice well (2 Sm 15:1-6). One notable trial in the OT illustrates how royal judicial powers could be completely misused by unscrupulous rulers. Naboth was put to death on a trumped-up charge of blasphemy so that King Ahab could extend his palace grounds by taking over Naboth’s vineyard. Though the charge was false, the trial followed correct legal procedures. Two scoundrels were found to give evidence that they had heard Naboth curse God and the king (1 Kgs 21:10); one witness would have been insufficient to secure conviction. Naboth was tried by the elders of the city in a public place. After being convicted he was taken outside the city and executed (vv 11-13). In other trials the prophet Jeremiah was charged with subversive activities more than once (Jer 26; 37:11–38:28).<\/p>\n<p>The prophets sometimes pictured God as taking Israel to court to answer for the nation’s misdeeds. God would list Israel’s sins and invite the people to explain their behavior. Sometimes heaven and earth, or the mountains, were called to be witnesses confirming the truth of God’s accusations. Finally judgment was pronounced (e.g., Is 1:2-26; 43; Jer 2:4-37; Mi 6).<\/p>\n<p>A theme running through the book of Job is Job’s request for a trial. Job thought that if he were given a fair hearing, his innocence would be demonstrated and God would stop causing him so much suffering (cf. Jb 13:23). Eventually God heeded Job’s request and a long cross-examination began, finally reducing Job to silence (42:1-6).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"NewTestamentLegalProcedures\">New Testament Legal Procedures<\/p>\n<p>Numerous trials occur in the NT. Jesus was tried by the Sanhedrin (the supreme Jewish religious court) and also by the Roman governor. The book of Acts mentions various court actions designed to stop the spread of Christianity. Luke, the author of Acts, presents a vivid and accurate description of how courts operated in provinces of the Roman Empire. Acts reaches a climax with Paul traveling to Rome to have his case heard by the Roman emperor Nero. Legal procedures in Roman courts were governed by complicated rules broadly resembling modern judicial technicalities. Serious crime was handled by public prosecutors, and trials were usually conducted by one judge. There were lawyers for the prosecution and lawyers for the defense.<\/p>\n<p>In Judea and other provinces of the empire, the local legal system was not suppressed. Traditional Jewish courts were allowed to try minor and religious offenses (Acts 4; 6:12–7:60) but were not permitted to handle serious cases where the death penalty might be involved. For that reason, when the Sanhedrin found Jesus guilty of blasphemy for claiming to be the Son of God and the Messiah, they had to transfer the case to Pontius Pilate, the Roman procurator (governor) of Judea. The Jews considered blasphemy worthy of death, but as they admitted to Pilate, “It is not lawful for us to put any man to death” (Jn 18:31, <span>rsv<\/span>). The rule throughout the Roman Empire was that only governors could pronounce the death sentence. Execution of the apostle James by Jewish authorities, mentioned by the Jewish historian Josephus, took place during an interregnum between two governors. The stoning of Stephen was done in haste, without the consent of Pilate (Acts 7).<\/p>\n<h5>The Trials of Jesus<\/h5>\n<p>Jesus was first tried by the Sanhedrin, presided over by the high priest. By later standards of Jewish legal practice, that trial was somewhat irregular. For example, it seems to have been held both at night and on the eve of a festival. Criminal trials were not supposed to take place at such times. It is uncertain that those rules existed in Jesus’ day, but even if they did, little can be made of that technicality since the Jewish court had no power to carry out its sentence.<\/p>\n<p>After conviction by the Sanhedrin, Jesus was taken to Pilate, whose Jerusalem residence, the old royal palace called the Praetorium, was on the western side of the city near the modern Jaffa Gate. The Romans were unlikely to sentence anyone to death in a religious matter, so the Jewish authorities presented their charges against Jesus in political language: he violated the law by “forbidding us to give tribute to Caesar, and saying that he himself is Christ a king” (Lk 23:2, <span>rsv<\/span>). Perhaps sensing something false about those charges (they were actually religious rather than political), Pilate sent Jesus to Herod, the ruler of Galilee, who was in Jerusalem at the time. Pilate, who did not have to send Galileans to Herod for trial, probably saw this as a means of avoiding an uncomfortable decision. Herod, however, pronounced Jesus innocent and returned him to Pilate.<\/p>\n<p>Pilate offered to give Jesus a disciplinary beating traditionally given to troublemakers as a warning to behave themselves in the future (Lk 23:16). But that did not satisfy Jesus’ accusers, who pressed the charge of insurrection, threatening to report Pilate to the emperor if he did not convict Jesus. Pilate, who had not been a very successful governor, feared official complaints about his administration, so the threat worked. He sentenced Jesus to be crucified on the charge of being king of the Jews. The heavy scourging that preceded the Crucifixion was never a punishment by itself but was a frequent accompaniment to other punishments. Another feature of Roman legal practice illustrated in the Gospels was the division of Jesus’ clothes among the soldiers; executioners were allowed to keep such personal effects as a fringe benefit.<\/p>\n<h5>The Trials of the Apostle Paul<\/h5>\n<p>Paul’s trials recorded in the book of Acts also reflect the division between Jewish and Roman authority in legal matters. When arrested, Paul had a preliminary hearing before the Sanhedrin (Acts 23). He was then transferred to the governor for a formal trial in Caesarea, the governor’s usual headquarters. There he was tried before Felix, who adjourned the case for two years until a new governor could be appointed. Luke reported that Felix (another unpopular governor) did that to please the Jews, but it was quite common for governors to leave cases to be dealt with by their successors.<\/p>\n<p>When Festus, the new governor, arrived, he suggested that Paul be tried in Jerusalem. Paul, disliking the prospect of being tried there, exercised his right as a Roman citizen to be tried in Rome before the emperor (Acts 25:1-20). The rest of the book of Acts tells how Paul eventually reached Rome and had to wait another two years before his case was heard. No details of Paul’s trial in Rome are known, but Nero, who was emperor when Paul arrived, tried very few cases himself. He appointed judges to handle appeals cases such as Paul’s, so it is unlikely that Paul was actually tried by Nero.<\/p>\n<p>The right of appeal to the emperor was not the only legal right possessed by Roman citizens. They were also protected from being beaten without a trial, a right asserted by Paul in Philippi and Jerusalem (Acts 16:37; 22:24-29).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Avenger of Blood; Cities of Refuge; Civil Law and Justice; Criminal Law and Punishment; Sanhedrin.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>COURTS AND TRIALS<\/h3>\n<p>Legal disputes were as much a part of life in Bible times as they are today. The ways that courts operated and trials were conducted, however, were quite different. Unless those customs are understood, modern readers of the Bible, thinking of contemporary legal procedures, may misunderstand the judicial accounts contained in the Bible.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"OldTestamentLegalProcedures\">Old Testament Legal Procedures<\/p>\n<h5>Exodus to Deuteronomy<\/h5>\n<p>The books of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy contain most of the law in the OT, plus much other information about courts and legal procedures. Those books reveal how trials were conducted before Israel had kings. Certain changes in the legal system occurring after the establishment of the monarchy (c. 1000 <span>BC<\/span>) are described in other OT books.<\/p>\n<p>The OT depicts God as supreme lawgiver and judge, with Moses and later the kings as God’s deputies. But Moses did not create the law or decide the most difficult cases, which were referred directly to God for the decision (see Lv 24:10-23; Nm 15:32-36; 27:1-11). When disputes arose between Israel’s leaders, God intervened, judging the guilty party directly (Nm 16–17). Thus law is seen in the OT as a divine revelation, not a human creation, as it was regarded in ancient Babylon.<\/p>\n<p>Usually it was not necessary to seek God’s direct guidance; precedent was sufficient. Elders were appointed in Israel to serve as judges of all but the most serious cases, relieving Moses of the burden of judging all the people himself (Ex 18:13-27). Deuteronomy 16:18 specifies that “judges” be appointed in every town; in other passages those responsible for punishing criminals are called “the elders” (Dt 19:12). The local judges were obviously nonprofessionals selected from the most respected members of each tribe or village. Difficult cases were referred to a central court of justice to be decided by the priests and, in the period of the judges, by the civil and military leader (17:8-12). Deborah and Samuel were both examples of such “judges of Israel.” Samuel even conducted a circuit court in a number of different centers (Jgs 4:4-5; 1 Sm 7:15-17).<\/p>\n<p>In Israel, as in other ancient societies, private prosecution was the norm. An individual with a grievance had to bring the case before the court. Only in situations of idolatry or other serious religious crimes were public prosecutions instituted (Dt 13; 17:2-7). Even in murder cases prosecution was left in the hands of the victim’s relatives. One relative, called the “avenger of blood,” had to pursue the alleged murderer to the nearest city of refuge, where a trial was held (Nm 35:10-34; Dt 19:1-13).<\/p>\n<p>Trials were held in a public place, such as the open space near a city gate (Dt 21:19). During the trial, the judges were seated, but the parties to the dispute and the witnesses stood. At least two witnesses were required to convict (19:15). They had to be eyewitnesses who had caught the accused red-handed. Where such clear-cut evidence was lacking (for example in disputes over ownership), the litigants could take an oath to demonstrate their honesty (Ex 22:8-13). If a husband suspected his wife of infidelity but had no proof, he could require her to undergo an ordeal of drinking “bitter water” to demonstrate her innocence (Nm 5:6-31).<\/p>\n<p>When all the evidence had been presented, the judges gave their verdict. Those who had brought the accusation had the duty of enforcing the court’s sentence. Thus, a witness of idolatry had to throw the first stone at the guilty person’s execution (Dt 17:7). Certain administrative officials may have had the job of writing down the court’s decision and seeing that it was enforced (16:18). At times it may have been difficult for people to uphold their legal rights if their opponent came from a strong and wealthy family.<\/p>\n<h5>Other Old Testament Books<\/h5>\n<p>When Israel became a kingdom, certain changes were made in its judicial system. Most obviously, the king became the supreme judge who dealt with the most difficult cases. Solomon demonstrated his great wisdom in adjudicating between two women who both claimed to be the mother of a particular baby (1 Kgs 3:16-28). Kings, who had all the power necessary to enforce their decisions, were expected to use it to help the weak members of society, such as orphans and widows (Ps 72:12).<\/p>\n<p>In practice, however, Israel’s kings did not always live up to that ideal. Absalom sowed the seeds of a revolution by telling those who came to the royal court that his father, King David, did not administer justice well (2 Sm 15:1-6). One notable trial in the OT illustrates how royal judicial powers could be completely misused by unscrupulous rulers. Naboth was put to death on a trumped-up charge of blasphemy so that King Ahab could extend his palace grounds by taking over Naboth’s vineyard. Though the charge was false, the trial followed correct legal procedures. Two scoundrels were found to give evidence that they had heard Naboth curse God and the king (1 Kgs 21:10); one witness would have been insufficient to secure conviction. Naboth was tried by the elders of the city in a public place. After being convicted he was taken outside the city and executed (vv 11-13). In other trials the prophet Jeremiah was charged with subversive activities more than once (Jer 26; 37:11–38:28).<\/p>\n<p>The prophets sometimes pictured God as taking Israel to court to answer for the nation’s misdeeds. God would list Israel’s sins and invite the people to explain their behavior. Sometimes heaven and earth, or the mountains, were called to be witnesses confirming the truth of God’s accusations. Finally judgment was pronounced (e.g., Is 1:2-26; 43; Jer 2:4-37; Mi 6).<\/p>\n<p>A theme running through the book of Job is Job’s request for a trial. Job thought that if he were given a fair hearing, his innocence would be demonstrated and God would stop causing him so much suffering (cf. Jb 13:23). Eventually God heeded Job’s request and a long cross-examination began, finally reducing Job to silence (42:1-6).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"NewTestamentLegalProcedures\">New Testament Legal Procedures<\/p>\n<p>Numerous trials occur in the NT. Jesus was tried by the Sanhedrin (the supreme Jewish religious court) and also by the Roman governor. The book of Acts mentions various court actions designed to stop the spread of Christianity. Luke, the author of Acts, presents a vivid and accurate description of how courts operated in provinces of the Roman Empire. Acts reaches a climax with Paul traveling to Rome to have his case heard by the Roman emperor Nero. Legal procedures in Roman courts were governed by complicated rules broadly resembling modern judicial technicalities. Serious crime was handled by public prosecutors, and trials were usually conducted by one judge. There were lawyers for the prosecution and lawyers for the defense.<\/p>\n<p>In Judea and other provinces of the empire, the local legal system was not suppressed. Traditional Jewish courts were allowed to try minor and religious offenses (Acts 4; 6:12–7:60) but were not permitted to handle serious cases where the death penalty might be involved. For that reason, when the Sanhedrin found Jesus guilty of blasphemy for claiming to be the Son of God and the Messiah, they had to transfer the case to Pontius Pilate, the Roman procurator (governor) of Judea. The Jews considered blasphemy worthy of death, but as they admitted to Pilate, “It is not lawful for us to put any man to death” (Jn 18:31, <span>rsv<\/span>). The rule throughout the Roman Empire was that only governors could pronounce the death sentence. Execution of the apostle James by Jewish authorities, mentioned by the Jewish historian Josephus, took place during an interregnum between two governors. The stoning of Stephen was done in haste, without the consent of Pilate (Acts 7).<\/p>\n<h5>The Trials of Jesus<\/h5>\n<p>Jesus was first tried by the Sanhedrin, presided over by the high priest. By later standards of Jewish legal practice, that trial was somewhat irregular. For example, it seems to have been held both at night and on the eve of a festival. Criminal trials were not supposed to take place at such times. It is uncertain that those rules existed in Jesus’ day, but even if they did, little can be made of that technicality since the Jewish court had no power to carry out its sentence.<\/p>\n<p>After conviction by the Sanhedrin, Jesus was taken to Pilate, whose Jerusalem residence, the old royal palace called the Praetorium, was on the western side of the city near the modern Jaffa Gate. The Romans were unlikely to sentence anyone to death in a religious matter, so the Jewish authorities presented their charges against Jesus in political language: he violated the law by “forbidding us to give tribute to Caesar, and saying that he himself is Christ a king” (Lk 23:2, <span>rsv<\/span>). Perhaps sensing something false about those charges (they were actually religious rather than political), Pilate sent Jesus to Herod, the ruler of Galilee, who was in Jerusalem at the time. Pilate, who did not have to send Galileans to Herod for trial, probably saw this as a means of avoiding an uncomfortable decision. Herod, however, pronounced Jesus innocent and returned him to Pilate.<\/p>\n<p>Pilate offered to give Jesus a disciplinary beating traditionally given to troublemakers as a warning to behave themselves in the future (Lk 23:16). But that did not satisfy Jesus’ accusers, who pressed the charge of insurrection, threatening to report Pilate to the emperor if he did not convict Jesus. Pilate, who had not been a very successful governor, feared official complaints about his administration, so the threat worked. He sentenced Jesus to be crucified on the charge of being king of the Jews. The heavy scourging that preceded the Crucifixion was never a punishment by itself but was a frequent accompaniment to other punishments. Another feature of Roman legal practice illustrated in the Gospels was the division of Jesus’ clothes among the soldiers; executioners were allowed to keep such personal effects as a fringe benefit.<\/p>\n<h5>The Trials of the Apostle Paul<\/h5>\n<p>Paul’s trials recorded in the book of Acts also reflect the division between Jewish and Roman authority in legal matters. When arrested, Paul had a preliminary hearing before the Sanhedrin (Acts 23). He was then transferred to the governor for a formal trial in Caesarea, the governor’s usual headquarters. There he was tried before Felix, who adjourned the case for two years until a new governor could be appointed. Luke reported that Felix (another unpopular governor) did that to please the Jews, but it was quite common for governors to leave cases to be dealt with by their successors.<\/p>\n<p>When Festus, the new governor, arrived, he suggested that Paul be tried in Jerusalem. Paul, disliking the prospect of being tried there, exercised his right as a Roman citizen to be tried in Rome before the emperor (Acts 25:1-20). The rest of the book of Acts tells how Paul eventually reached Rome and had to wait another two years before his case was heard. No details of Paul’s trial in Rome are known, but Nero, who was emperor when Paul arrived, tried very few cases himself. He appointed judges to handle appeals cases such as Paul’s, so it is unlikely that Paul was actually tried by Nero.<\/p>\n<p>The right of appeal to the emperor was not the only legal right possessed by Roman citizens. They were also protected from being beaten without a trial, a right asserted by Paul in Philippi and Jerusalem (Acts 16:37; 22:24-29).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Avenger of Blood; Cities of Refuge; Civil Law and Justice; Criminal Law and Punishment; Sanhedrin.<\/p>","summary_ro":"COURTS AND TRIALS Legal disputes were as much a part of life in Bible times as they are today. The ways that courts operated and trials were conducted, however, were quite different. Unless those customs are understood, modern readers of the Bible, thinking of contemporary legal procedures, may misunderstand the judicial accounts contained in the Bible. Old Testament Legal Procedures Exodus to Deuteronomy The books of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy contain most of the law in the ...","summary_en":"COURTS AND TRIALS Legal disputes were as much a part of life in Bible times as they are today. The ways that courts operated and trials were conducted, however, were quite different. Unless those customs are understood, modern readers of the Bible, thinking of contemporary legal procedures, may misunderstand the judicial accounts contained in the Bible. Old Testament Legal Procedures Exodus to Deuteronomy The books of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy contain most of the law in the ...","source":"Articles\/C.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":10289,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Elder","title_en":"Elder","content_ro":"<h3>ELDER<\/h3>\n<p>Person who, by virtue of position in the family, clan, or tribe; or by reason of personality, prowess, stature, or influence; or through a process of appointment and ordination, exercised leadership and judicial functions in both religious and secular spheres in the ancient world, both among biblical and nonbiblical peoples. The roots of the development of the presbytery (group of elders) in the NT and postapostolic church originate in Judaism and the OT, though the figure of the elder or groups of elders can also be found in the world surrounding ancient Israel and in the Greco-Roman world of the NT period.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"IntheOldTestament\">In the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>The elder, or the institution of elders, is closely linked with the tribal system. Tribes were composed of clans, and clans of large, extended family units. By virtue of age and function in a patriarchal society, the father of a family ruled. This fact of age, as well as the wisdom and maturity invested in older persons, is undoubtedly the origin of the authority that these elders exercised. A clan was ruled by the heads of the families constituting it, forming a council of elders. In time of war, each clan furnished a contingent; these were led by a chief, probably chosen from the ranks of the elders.<\/p>\n<p>In Israel’s premonarchy period, local administration and judicial action was largely in the hands of those elders. In the exodus narrative, it was the elders of Israel (heads of families) who were instructed by Moses concerning the first Passover meal (Ex 12:21-22). It was these elders who, in Exodus 18:12, met with Jethro, Moses’ father-in-law, and from whose ranks were chosen worthy representatives to assist Moses in the interpretation of the law of God and the administration of justice (18:13-23). Similarly, according to Numbers 11:16-17, Moses was instructed by God to select 70 men from among the elders of Israel to assist him in leadership of the people. In this latter account, the elders were marked by a special endowment of God’s Spirit. In the former the elders—chosen as coadministrators with Moses—were those known to be trustworthy.<\/p>\n<p>A central function of elders was the administration of justice. They were the “judges,” who sat “in the gate,” the traditional courtroom of ancient villages and towns. Here disputes and trials were settled by the elders, and community affairs were discussed and decisions made (Gn 23:10, 18; Jb 29:7; Prv 24:7; 31:23). The preservation and application of the law was clearly in the hands of elders who sat at the gate of the town (Dt 19:12; 21:19; 22:15; 25:7-10). Ruth 4:1-12 provides an excellent description of such a process.<\/p>\n<p>During the period of the monarchy, local administration and judicial authority continued to be invested in councils of elders. At the end of Saul’s reign, David sent messages and gifts to the elders of the towns of Judah (1 Sm 30:26), obviously recognizing that his efficient rule would depend on their goodwill and allegiance. In the time of Jehu (2 Kgs 10:5), we hear of elders in Samaria, side by side with a governor and master of the palace. To facilitate her plot against Naboth, Jezebel wrote instructions to the elders and nobles of Jezreel (1 Kgs 21:8-11). Again, Josiah convened the elders of Judah and Jerusalem to hear the reading of the law and to enter with him into a new covenant of obedience (2 Kgs 23:1). It is clear that the elders of Israel were now responsible for the application of the law within their jurisdictions. Besides administrative and judicial functions, elders also assumed cultic roles (Ex 24:1, 9; Lv 4:14-15).<\/p>\n<p>The institution of the elders survived the collapse of the royal institutions. Elders were present during the exile (Ez 8:1; 14:1; 20:1-3) as well as after the return (e.g., Ezr 10:16).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"InJudaismoftheNewTestamentPeriod\">In Judaism of the New Testament Period<\/p>\n<p>While use of the title “elder” to designate officers of various Greek cult associations and village magistrates may have influenced the development of community structure in the gentile churches, the Christian office (or function) of elder stems from a very similar institution within Judaism. In the first three Gospels and in Acts there are numerous references to elders as functionaries within the communal and religious life of Judaism. Generally they are mentioned together with one or more other groups of functionaries (quoting the <span>rsv<\/span>): “elders and chief priests and scribes” (Mt 16:21); “chief priests and elders of the people” (21:23; 26:3, 47); “scribes and elders” (26:57; 27:41); “chief priests and elders” (27:1, 3, 12, 20); “rulers and elders and scribes” (Acts 4:5); “rulers of the people and elders” (v 8). From these NT passages we cannot determine what exactly their functions were, or how they differed from rulers or scribes. However, the duties of Jewish elders are clearly described in the tractate <em>Sanhedrin<\/em> in the Mishnah, as well as in the community rule books of the Qumran ascetics, discovered among the Dead Sea Scrolls.<\/p>\n<p>Each Jewish community had its council of elders, who had general administrative oversight and represented the community in relations with Roman authorities. Their primary duty was judicial. They were custodians of the law and its traditional interpretations (see Mt 15:2), and they were charged with both its enforcement and the punishment of offenders. The most important of these councils of elders was the Sanhedrin in Jerusalem, a group of 71 men who acted as the final court for the entire nation.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"IntheChristianCommunity\">In the Christian Community<\/p>\n<p>Since the primitive church eventually regarded itself as the new Israel (Mt 21:43; Gal 6:16), it is easy to see why it should gradually adopt the institution of elders. Though it is difficult to make out the order that prevailed in the first Christian communities, because it apparently varied according to place and time in both form and extent, the presence and functioning of elders was part of the reality of early church life.<\/p>\n<p>In Luke’s account of the origin and spread of Christianity, the elders are already present in the church at Jerusalem. In Acts we see Christians at Antioch sending famine relief “to the elders [of the Judean churches] by Barnabas and Saul” (Acts 11:30). On their first missionary journey, Paul and Barnabas “appointed elders in every church” (14:23). Later, Paul and Barnabas were sent from Antioch to Jerusalem “to the apostles and elders” about the question of circumcision of gentile Christians (15:2), and were “welcomed by the church, and the apostles, and the elders” (v 4), who gathered to hear the case and resolve the issue (vv 6-23).<\/p>\n<p>Who these elders were, and how they were chosen, we are not told. It seems possible to argue, on the basis of Jewish precedent, that age and prominence gave them the privilege of rendering special service within the community. Veneration for age was a deeply rooted sentiment among Jews, and the name “presbyter” (elder) was derived from Jewish usage. It is also possible that, like the appointment of “the seven” for special service by the laying on of hands (6:1-6), the first elders in the Jerusalem church were appointed by the apostles. Apparently they functioned in the Christian community in ways comparable to the elders in the Jewish communities and the Sanhedrin (11:30; 15:2-6, 22-23; 16:4; 21:18).<\/p>\n<p>Paul apparently continued the practice among the gentile churches, though elders are not mentioned in the earliest Pauline writings. They are mentioned only in the Pastoral Epistles (1 Tm 5:17, 19; Ti 1:5). On his last journey to Jerusalem, Paul summoned the elders of the church at Ephesus to Miletus (Acts 20:17) to bid them farewell, and to instruct them to be faithful in their task of overseeing and caring for the Christian flock, the church of God (20:28).<\/p>\n<p>Although elders are not explicitly mentioned in Paul’s early letters, they may have been among the leaders who presided over the congregations (Rom 12:8; 1 Thes 5:12-13). Philippians 1:1 certainly reveals a definite stratification of leadership (“overseers and deacons”) within a young Pauline congregation. And 1 Timothy 5:17, reflecting what is often considered a later phase in the development of church government, attributes the functions of preaching and teaching to the ruling elders. Further, that Christian elders exercised pastoral functions may be inferred from 1 Peter 5:1-5 and James 5:14.<\/p>\n<p>There is one passage where we find a possible identification of an apostle (Peter) as also being an elder: “I exhort the elders among you, as a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ” (1 Pt 5:1a, <span>rsv<\/span>). This text may indicate that elders were appointed and functioned as extensions of apostolic servanthood. Paul’s practice of appointing elders in the churches before his departure may support such a suggestion. The fact that in the tradition of the later church the “elder” of 2 and 3 John was identified as the apostle John points in a similar direction. Though such an identification is implicit, the apostles could function as elders but not the other way around.<\/p>\n<p>The elders had several functions. For example, 1 Timothy 5:17 speaks of elders as involved in preaching and teaching; James 5:14 sees them involved in a healing ministry; 1 Peter 5:2 exhorts them to tend the flock. Thus, the prophets and teachers who led the church at Antioch (according to Acts 13:1-3) may well have been the elders of this community.<\/p>\n<p>The diaconate, too, whose roots are to be seen in the selection of “the seven” for service to those in need (Acts 6:1-3), was not restricted to purely external service. Two of these men, whom Luke introduces to us as deacons, appear at the same time as evangelists who were particularly effective as preachers of the Word, performers of miracles, expounders of the Scriptures (Stephen, Acts 6:8-10; Philip, Acts 8:4-13, 26-40).<\/p>\n<p>Whereas in the later church bishops and elders were clearly distinguished, the NT reflects an early period when these offices were virtually synonymous. In Paul’s farewell speech at Miletus (Acts 20), addressed specifically to the Ephesian church elders (v 17), he tells them that the Holy Spirit has made them “overseers, to care for the church of God” (v 28). Whether “overseer” is used here in the later technical sense of bishop or the more general sense of guardian is not clear. However, in Titus 1:5-7, the elders of verse 5 are clearly the same persons as the bishops of verse 7. Again, the bishops of Philippians 1:1 are likely to be understood as the elders appointed by Paul upon his leaving this mission station.<\/p>\n<p>It is clear that church government in the NT period was still relatively fluid, but the seeds for the later structures were surely planted. The institution of the elders, on the basis of Jewish precedent, was central. The episcopate (overseers\/bishops) probably emerged out of the presbyterian (elders), one elder being appointed as overseer by the entire council of elders.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Bishop; Deacon, Deaconess; Pastor; Presbyter; Spiritual Gifts.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>ELDER<\/h3>\n<p>Person who, by virtue of position in the family, clan, or tribe; or by reason of personality, prowess, stature, or influence; or through a process of appointment and ordination, exercised leadership and judicial functions in both religious and secular spheres in the ancient world, both among biblical and nonbiblical peoples. The roots of the development of the presbytery (group of elders) in the NT and postapostolic church originate in Judaism and the OT, though the figure of the elder or groups of elders can also be found in the world surrounding ancient Israel and in the Greco-Roman world of the NT period.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"IntheOldTestament\">In the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>The elder, or the institution of elders, is closely linked with the tribal system. Tribes were composed of clans, and clans of large, extended family units. By virtue of age and function in a patriarchal society, the father of a family ruled. This fact of age, as well as the wisdom and maturity invested in older persons, is undoubtedly the origin of the authority that these elders exercised. A clan was ruled by the heads of the families constituting it, forming a council of elders. In time of war, each clan furnished a contingent; these were led by a chief, probably chosen from the ranks of the elders.<\/p>\n<p>In Israel’s premonarchy period, local administration and judicial action was largely in the hands of those elders. In the exodus narrative, it was the elders of Israel (heads of families) who were instructed by Moses concerning the first Passover meal (Ex 12:21-22). It was these elders who, in Exodus 18:12, met with Jethro, Moses’ father-in-law, and from whose ranks were chosen worthy representatives to assist Moses in the interpretation of the law of God and the administration of justice (18:13-23). Similarly, according to Numbers 11:16-17, Moses was instructed by God to select 70 men from among the elders of Israel to assist him in leadership of the people. In this latter account, the elders were marked by a special endowment of God’s Spirit. In the former the elders—chosen as coadministrators with Moses—were those known to be trustworthy.<\/p>\n<p>A central function of elders was the administration of justice. They were the “judges,” who sat “in the gate,” the traditional courtroom of ancient villages and towns. Here disputes and trials were settled by the elders, and community affairs were discussed and decisions made (Gn 23:10, 18; Jb 29:7; Prv 24:7; 31:23). The preservation and application of the law was clearly in the hands of elders who sat at the gate of the town (Dt 19:12; 21:19; 22:15; 25:7-10). Ruth 4:1-12 provides an excellent description of such a process.<\/p>\n<p>During the period of the monarchy, local administration and judicial authority continued to be invested in councils of elders. At the end of Saul’s reign, David sent messages and gifts to the elders of the towns of Judah (1 Sm 30:26), obviously recognizing that his efficient rule would depend on their goodwill and allegiance. In the time of Jehu (2 Kgs 10:5), we hear of elders in Samaria, side by side with a governor and master of the palace. To facilitate her plot against Naboth, Jezebel wrote instructions to the elders and nobles of Jezreel (1 Kgs 21:8-11). Again, Josiah convened the elders of Judah and Jerusalem to hear the reading of the law and to enter with him into a new covenant of obedience (2 Kgs 23:1). It is clear that the elders of Israel were now responsible for the application of the law within their jurisdictions. Besides administrative and judicial functions, elders also assumed cultic roles (Ex 24:1, 9; Lv 4:14-15).<\/p>\n<p>The institution of the elders survived the collapse of the royal institutions. Elders were present during the exile (Ez 8:1; 14:1; 20:1-3) as well as after the return (e.g., Ezr 10:16).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"InJudaismoftheNewTestamentPeriod\">In Judaism of the New Testament Period<\/p>\n<p>While use of the title “elder” to designate officers of various Greek cult associations and village magistrates may have influenced the development of community structure in the gentile churches, the Christian office (or function) of elder stems from a very similar institution within Judaism. In the first three Gospels and in Acts there are numerous references to elders as functionaries within the communal and religious life of Judaism. Generally they are mentioned together with one or more other groups of functionaries (quoting the <span>rsv<\/span>): “elders and chief priests and scribes” (Mt 16:21); “chief priests and elders of the people” (21:23; 26:3, 47); “scribes and elders” (26:57; 27:41); “chief priests and elders” (27:1, 3, 12, 20); “rulers and elders and scribes” (Acts 4:5); “rulers of the people and elders” (v 8). From these NT passages we cannot determine what exactly their functions were, or how they differed from rulers or scribes. However, the duties of Jewish elders are clearly described in the tractate <em>Sanhedrin<\/em> in the Mishnah, as well as in the community rule books of the Qumran ascetics, discovered among the Dead Sea Scrolls.<\/p>\n<p>Each Jewish community had its council of elders, who had general administrative oversight and represented the community in relations with Roman authorities. Their primary duty was judicial. They were custodians of the law and its traditional interpretations (see Mt 15:2), and they were charged with both its enforcement and the punishment of offenders. The most important of these councils of elders was the Sanhedrin in Jerusalem, a group of 71 men who acted as the final court for the entire nation.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"IntheChristianCommunity\">In the Christian Community<\/p>\n<p>Since the primitive church eventually regarded itself as the new Israel (Mt 21:43; Gal 6:16), it is easy to see why it should gradually adopt the institution of elders. Though it is difficult to make out the order that prevailed in the first Christian communities, because it apparently varied according to place and time in both form and extent, the presence and functioning of elders was part of the reality of early church life.<\/p>\n<p>In Luke’s account of the origin and spread of Christianity, the elders are already present in the church at Jerusalem. In Acts we see Christians at Antioch sending famine relief “to the elders [of the Judean churches] by Barnabas and Saul” (Acts 11:30). On their first missionary journey, Paul and Barnabas “appointed elders in every church” (14:23). Later, Paul and Barnabas were sent from Antioch to Jerusalem “to the apostles and elders” about the question of circumcision of gentile Christians (15:2), and were “welcomed by the church, and the apostles, and the elders” (v 4), who gathered to hear the case and resolve the issue (vv 6-23).<\/p>\n<p>Who these elders were, and how they were chosen, we are not told. It seems possible to argue, on the basis of Jewish precedent, that age and prominence gave them the privilege of rendering special service within the community. Veneration for age was a deeply rooted sentiment among Jews, and the name “presbyter” (elder) was derived from Jewish usage. It is also possible that, like the appointment of “the seven” for special service by the laying on of hands (6:1-6), the first elders in the Jerusalem church were appointed by the apostles. Apparently they functioned in the Christian community in ways comparable to the elders in the Jewish communities and the Sanhedrin (11:30; 15:2-6, 22-23; 16:4; 21:18).<\/p>\n<p>Paul apparently continued the practice among the gentile churches, though elders are not mentioned in the earliest Pauline writings. They are mentioned only in the Pastoral Epistles (1 Tm 5:17, 19; Ti 1:5). On his last journey to Jerusalem, Paul summoned the elders of the church at Ephesus to Miletus (Acts 20:17) to bid them farewell, and to instruct them to be faithful in their task of overseeing and caring for the Christian flock, the church of God (20:28).<\/p>\n<p>Although elders are not explicitly mentioned in Paul’s early letters, they may have been among the leaders who presided over the congregations (Rom 12:8; 1 Thes 5:12-13). Philippians 1:1 certainly reveals a definite stratification of leadership (“overseers and deacons”) within a young Pauline congregation. And 1 Timothy 5:17, reflecting what is often considered a later phase in the development of church government, attributes the functions of preaching and teaching to the ruling elders. Further, that Christian elders exercised pastoral functions may be inferred from 1 Peter 5:1-5 and James 5:14.<\/p>\n<p>There is one passage where we find a possible identification of an apostle (Peter) as also being an elder: “I exhort the elders among you, as a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ” (1 Pt 5:1a, <span>rsv<\/span>). This text may indicate that elders were appointed and functioned as extensions of apostolic servanthood. Paul’s practice of appointing elders in the churches before his departure may support such a suggestion. The fact that in the tradition of the later church the “elder” of 2 and 3 John was identified as the apostle John points in a similar direction. Though such an identification is implicit, the apostles could function as elders but not the other way around.<\/p>\n<p>The elders had several functions. For example, 1 Timothy 5:17 speaks of elders as involved in preaching and teaching; James 5:14 sees them involved in a healing ministry; 1 Peter 5:2 exhorts them to tend the flock. Thus, the prophets and teachers who led the church at Antioch (according to Acts 13:1-3) may well have been the elders of this community.<\/p>\n<p>The diaconate, too, whose roots are to be seen in the selection of “the seven” for service to those in need (Acts 6:1-3), was not restricted to purely external service. Two of these men, whom Luke introduces to us as deacons, appear at the same time as evangelists who were particularly effective as preachers of the Word, performers of miracles, expounders of the Scriptures (Stephen, Acts 6:8-10; Philip, Acts 8:4-13, 26-40).<\/p>\n<p>Whereas in the later church bishops and elders were clearly distinguished, the NT reflects an early period when these offices were virtually synonymous. In Paul’s farewell speech at Miletus (Acts 20), addressed specifically to the Ephesian church elders (v 17), he tells them that the Holy Spirit has made them “overseers, to care for the church of God” (v 28). Whether “overseer” is used here in the later technical sense of bishop or the more general sense of guardian is not clear. However, in Titus 1:5-7, the elders of verse 5 are clearly the same persons as the bishops of verse 7. Again, the bishops of Philippians 1:1 are likely to be understood as the elders appointed by Paul upon his leaving this mission station.<\/p>\n<p>It is clear that church government in the NT period was still relatively fluid, but the seeds for the later structures were surely planted. The institution of the elders, on the basis of Jewish precedent, was central. The episcopate (overseers\/bishops) probably emerged out of the presbyterian (elders), one elder being appointed as overseer by the entire council of elders.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Bishop; Deacon, Deaconess; Pastor; Presbyter; Spiritual Gifts.<\/p>","summary_ro":"ELDER Person who, by virtue of position in the family, clan, or tribe; or by reason of personality, prowess, stature, or influence; or through a process of appointment and ordination, exercised leadership and judicial functions in both religious and secular spheres in the ancient world, both among biblical and nonbiblical peoples. The roots of the development of the presbytery (group of elders) in the NT and postapostolic church originate in Judaism and the OT, though the figure of the elder ...","summary_en":"ELDER Person who, by virtue of position in the family, clan, or tribe; or by reason of personality, prowess, stature, or influence; or through a process of appointment and ordination, exercised leadership and judicial functions in both religious and secular spheres in the ancient world, both among biblical and nonbiblical peoples. The roots of the development of the presbytery (group of elders) in the NT and postapostolic church originate in Judaism and the OT, though the figure of the elder ...","source":"Articles\/E.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":60921,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"The Cities of Refuge","title_en":"The Cities of Refuge","content_ro":"<h3>The Cities of Refuge<\/h3>\n<p>The cities of refuge were built to protect innocent people from blood revenge. An avenger had the legal right to put a murderer to death (Num 35:19; see Gen 9:6). If a person caused someone’s death accidentally, the slayer fled to a city of refuge to find temporary safety while awaiting trial (Num 35:22-28). The six cities of refuge were distributed across Hebrew territory so that any Israelite could seek asylum.<\/p>\n<p>If, after trial, the fugitive was convicted of murder (instead of involuntary manslaughter), he was turned over to the avenger and received his due punishment (Deut 19:12). If he was found innocent of murder, the slayer remained in the city of refuge, where he was granted asylum. When the high priest died, the slayer was free to return home and was no longer subject to blood revenge. This merciful legal arrangement protected the land from further pollution by innocent blood (see Num 35:33).<\/p>\n<p>It was not acceptable to pay a fine to atone for the death of another human being, even if that death was not premeditated (Num 35:31-33). Human life was too precious to be ransomed with a simple payment. When a human being was killed, whether deliberately or by accident, it resulted in alienation or exile.<\/p>\n<p>Atonement does not come easily, whether in ancient Israelite times or in our own day; each person is in need of atonement to restore their relationship with God (see Rom 3:23-26). Jesus, the Son of God, provides this reconciliation through his work as the Great High Priest who offered himself as the ultimate sacrifice (see Heb 4:14–10:18).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Num 35:6-34; Deut 19:1-13; Josh 20:1-9; 21:13, 21, 27, 32, 38; 1 Kgs 1:50-53; 2:28-34<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>The Cities of Refuge<\/h3>\n<p>The cities of refuge were built to protect innocent people from blood revenge. An avenger had the legal right to put a murderer to death (Num 35:19; see Gen 9:6). If a person caused someone’s death accidentally, the slayer fled to a city of refuge to find temporary safety while awaiting trial (Num 35:22-28). The six cities of refuge were distributed across Hebrew territory so that any Israelite could seek asylum.<\/p>\n<p>If, after trial, the fugitive was convicted of murder (instead of involuntary manslaughter), he was turned over to the avenger and received his due punishment (Deut 19:12). If he was found innocent of murder, the slayer remained in the city of refuge, where he was granted asylum. When the high priest died, the slayer was free to return home and was no longer subject to blood revenge. This merciful legal arrangement protected the land from further pollution by innocent blood (see Num 35:33).<\/p>\n<p>It was not acceptable to pay a fine to atone for the death of another human being, even if that death was not premeditated (Num 35:31-33). Human life was too precious to be ransomed with a simple payment. When a human being was killed, whether deliberately or by accident, it resulted in alienation or exile.<\/p>\n<p>Atonement does not come easily, whether in ancient Israelite times or in our own day; each person is in need of atonement to restore their relationship with God (see Rom 3:23-26). Jesus, the Son of God, provides this reconciliation through his work as the Great High Priest who offered himself as the ultimate sacrifice (see Heb 4:14–10:18).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Num 35:6-34; Deut 19:1-13; Josh 20:1-9; 21:13, 21, 27, 32, 38; 1 Kgs 1:50-53; 2:28-34<\/p>","summary_ro":"The Cities of Refuge The cities of refuge were built to protect innocent people from blood revenge. An avenger had the legal right to put a murderer to death (Num 35:19; see Gen 9:6). If a person caused someone’s death accidentally, the slayer fled to a city of refuge to find temporary safety while awaiting trial (Num 35:22-28). The six cities of refuge were distributed across Hebrew territory so that any Israelite could seek asylum. If, after trial, the fugitive was convicted of murder (inst...","summary_en":"The Cities of Refuge The cities of refuge were built to protect innocent people from blood revenge. An avenger had the legal right to put a murderer to death (Num 35:19; see Gen 9:6). If a person caused someone’s death accidentally, the slayer fled to a city of refuge to find temporary safety while awaiting trial (Num 35:22-28). The six cities of refuge were distributed across Hebrew territory so that any Israelite could seek asylum. If, after trial, the fugitive was convicted of murder (inst...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":88547,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"The Cities of Refuge","title_en":"The Cities of Refuge","content_ro":"<h3>The Cities of Refuge<\/h3>\n<p>The cities of refuge were built to protect innocent people from blood revenge. An avenger had the legal right to put a murderer to death (Num 35:19; see Gen 9:6). If a person caused someone’s death accidentally, the slayer fled to a city of refuge to find temporary safety while awaiting trial (Num 35:22-28). The six cities of refuge were distributed across Hebrew territory so that any Israelite could seek asylum.<\/p>\n<p>If, after trial, the fugitive was convicted of murder (instead of involuntary manslaughter), he was turned over to the avenger and received his due punishment (Deut 19:12). If he was found innocent of murder, the slayer remained in the city of refuge, where he was granted asylum. When the high priest died, the slayer was free to return home and was no longer subject to blood revenge. This merciful legal arrangement protected the land from further pollution by innocent blood (see Num 35:33).<\/p>\n<p>It was not acceptable to pay a fine to atone for the death of another human being, even if that death was not premeditated (Num 35:31-33). Human life was too precious to be ransomed with a simple payment. When a human being was killed, whether deliberately or by accident, it resulted in alienation or exile.<\/p>\n<p>Atonement does not come easily, whether in ancient Israelite times or in our own day; each person is in need of atonement to restore their relationship with God (see Rom 3:23-26). Jesus, the Son of God, provides this reconciliation through his work as the Great High Priest who offered himself as the ultimate sacrifice (see Heb 4:14–10:18).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Num 35:6-34; Deut 19:1-13; Josh 20:1-9; 21:13, 21, 27, 32, 38; 1 Kgs 1:50-53; 2:28-34<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>The Cities of Refuge<\/h3>\n<p>The cities of refuge were built to protect innocent people from blood revenge. An avenger had the legal right to put a murderer to death (Num 35:19; see Gen 9:6). If a person caused someone’s death accidentally, the slayer fled to a city of refuge to find temporary safety while awaiting trial (Num 35:22-28). The six cities of refuge were distributed across Hebrew territory so that any Israelite could seek asylum.<\/p>\n<p>If, after trial, the fugitive was convicted of murder (instead of involuntary manslaughter), he was turned over to the avenger and received his due punishment (Deut 19:12). If he was found innocent of murder, the slayer remained in the city of refuge, where he was granted asylum. When the high priest died, the slayer was free to return home and was no longer subject to blood revenge. This merciful legal arrangement protected the land from further pollution by innocent blood (see Num 35:33).<\/p>\n<p>It was not acceptable to pay a fine to atone for the death of another human being, even if that death was not premeditated (Num 35:31-33). Human life was too precious to be ransomed with a simple payment. When a human being was killed, whether deliberately or by accident, it resulted in alienation or exile.<\/p>\n<p>Atonement does not come easily, whether in ancient Israelite times or in our own day; each person is in need of atonement to restore their relationship with God (see Rom 3:23-26). Jesus, the Son of God, provides this reconciliation through his work as the Great High Priest who offered himself as the ultimate sacrifice (see Heb 4:14–10:18).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Num 35:6-34; Deut 19:1-13; Josh 20:1-9; 21:13, 21, 27, 32, 38; 1 Kgs 1:50-53; 2:28-34<\/p>","summary_ro":"The Cities of Refuge The cities of refuge were built to protect innocent people from blood revenge. An avenger had the legal right to put a murderer to death (Num 35:19; see Gen 9:6). If a person caused someone’s death accidentally, the slayer fled to a city of refuge to find temporary safety while awaiting trial (Num 35:22-28). The six cities of refuge were distributed across Hebrew territory so that any Israelite could seek asylum. If, after trial, the fugitive was convicted of murder (inst...","summary_en":"The Cities of Refuge The cities of refuge were built to protect innocent people from blood revenge. An avenger had the legal right to put a murderer to death (Num 35:19; see Gen 9:6). If a person caused someone’s death accidentally, the slayer fled to a city of refuge to find temporary safety while awaiting trial (Num 35:22-28). The six cities of refuge were distributed across Hebrew territory so that any Israelite could seek asylum. If, after trial, the fugitive was convicted of murder (inst...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":116173,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"The Cities of Refuge","title_en":"The Cities of Refuge","content_ro":"<h3>The Cities of Refuge<\/h3>\n<p>The cities of refuge were built to protect innocent people from blood revenge. An avenger had the legal right to put a murderer to death (Num 35:19; see Gen 9:6). If a person caused someone’s death accidentally, the slayer fled to a city of refuge to find temporary safety while awaiting trial (Num 35:22-28). The six cities of refuge were distributed across Hebrew territory so that any Israelite could seek asylum.<\/p>\n<p>If, after trial, the fugitive was convicted of murder (instead of involuntary manslaughter), he was turned over to the avenger and received his due punishment (Deut 19:12). If he was found innocent of murder, the slayer remained in the city of refuge, where he was granted asylum. When the high priest died, the slayer was free to return home and was no longer subject to blood revenge. This merciful legal arrangement protected the land from further pollution by innocent blood (see Num 35:33).<\/p>\n<p>It was not acceptable to pay a fine to atone for the death of another human being, even if that death was not premeditated (Num 35:31-33). Human life was too precious to be ransomed with a simple payment. When a human being was killed, whether deliberately or by accident, it resulted in alienation or exile.<\/p>\n<p>Atonement does not come easily, whether in ancient Israelite times or in our own day; each person is in need of atonement to restore their relationship with God (see Rom 3:23-26). Jesus, the Son of God, provides this reconciliation through his work as the Great High Priest who offered himself as the ultimate sacrifice (see Heb 4:14–10:18).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Num 35:6-34; Deut 19:1-13; Josh 20:1-9; 21:13, 21, 27, 32, 38; 1 Kgs 1:50-53; 2:28-34<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>The Cities of Refuge<\/h3>\n<p>The cities of refuge were built to protect innocent people from blood revenge. An avenger had the legal right to put a murderer to death (Num 35:19; see Gen 9:6). If a person caused someone’s death accidentally, the slayer fled to a city of refuge to find temporary safety while awaiting trial (Num 35:22-28). The six cities of refuge were distributed across Hebrew territory so that any Israelite could seek asylum.<\/p>\n<p>If, after trial, the fugitive was convicted of murder (instead of involuntary manslaughter), he was turned over to the avenger and received his due punishment (Deut 19:12). If he was found innocent of murder, the slayer remained in the city of refuge, where he was granted asylum. When the high priest died, the slayer was free to return home and was no longer subject to blood revenge. This merciful legal arrangement protected the land from further pollution by innocent blood (see Num 35:33).<\/p>\n<p>It was not acceptable to pay a fine to atone for the death of another human being, even if that death was not premeditated (Num 35:31-33). Human life was too precious to be ransomed with a simple payment. When a human being was killed, whether deliberately or by accident, it resulted in alienation or exile.<\/p>\n<p>Atonement does not come easily, whether in ancient Israelite times or in our own day; each person is in need of atonement to restore their relationship with God (see Rom 3:23-26). Jesus, the Son of God, provides this reconciliation through his work as the Great High Priest who offered himself as the ultimate sacrifice (see Heb 4:14–10:18).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Num 35:6-34; Deut 19:1-13; Josh 20:1-9; 21:13, 21, 27, 32, 38; 1 Kgs 1:50-53; 2:28-34<\/p>","summary_ro":"The Cities of Refuge The cities of refuge were built to protect innocent people from blood revenge. An avenger had the legal right to put a murderer to death (Num 35:19; see Gen 9:6). If a person caused someone’s death accidentally, the slayer fled to a city of refuge to find temporary safety while awaiting trial (Num 35:22-28). The six cities of refuge were distributed across Hebrew territory so that any Israelite could seek asylum. If, after trial, the fugitive was convicted of murder (inst...","summary_en":"The Cities of Refuge The cities of refuge were built to protect innocent people from blood revenge. An avenger had the legal right to put a murderer to death (Num 35:19; see Gen 9:6). If a person caused someone’s death accidentally, the slayer fled to a city of refuge to find temporary safety while awaiting trial (Num 35:22-28). The six cities of refuge were distributed across Hebrew territory so that any Israelite could seek asylum. If, after trial, the fugitive was convicted of murder (inst...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":143799,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"The Cities of Refuge","title_en":"The Cities of Refuge","content_ro":"<h3>The Cities of Refuge<\/h3>\n<p>The cities of refuge were built to protect innocent people from blood revenge. An avenger had the legal right to put a murderer to death (Num 35:19; see Gen 9:6). If a person caused someone’s death accidentally, the slayer fled to a city of refuge to find temporary safety while awaiting trial (Num 35:22-28). The six cities of refuge were distributed across Hebrew territory so that any Israelite could seek asylum.<\/p>\n<p>If, after trial, the fugitive was convicted of murder (instead of involuntary manslaughter), he was turned over to the avenger and received his due punishment (Deut 19:12). If he was found innocent of murder, the slayer remained in the city of refuge, where he was granted asylum. When the high priest died, the slayer was free to return home and was no longer subject to blood revenge. This merciful legal arrangement protected the land from further pollution by innocent blood (see Num 35:33).<\/p>\n<p>It was not acceptable to pay a fine to atone for the death of another human being, even if that death was not premeditated (Num 35:31-33). Human life was too precious to be ransomed with a simple payment. When a human being was killed, whether deliberately or by accident, it resulted in alienation or exile.<\/p>\n<p>Atonement does not come easily, whether in ancient Israelite times or in our own day; each person is in need of atonement to restore their relationship with God (see Rom 3:23-26). Jesus, the Son of God, provides this reconciliation through his work as the Great High Priest who offered himself as the ultimate sacrifice (see Heb 4:14–10:18).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Num 35:6-34; Deut 19:1-13; Josh 20:1-9; 21:13, 21, 27, 32, 38; 1 Kgs 1:50-53; 2:28-34<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>The Cities of Refuge<\/h3>\n<p>The cities of refuge were built to protect innocent people from blood revenge. An avenger had the legal right to put a murderer to death (Num 35:19; see Gen 9:6). If a person caused someone’s death accidentally, the slayer fled to a city of refuge to find temporary safety while awaiting trial (Num 35:22-28). The six cities of refuge were distributed across Hebrew territory so that any Israelite could seek asylum.<\/p>\n<p>If, after trial, the fugitive was convicted of murder (instead of involuntary manslaughter), he was turned over to the avenger and received his due punishment (Deut 19:12). If he was found innocent of murder, the slayer remained in the city of refuge, where he was granted asylum. When the high priest died, the slayer was free to return home and was no longer subject to blood revenge. This merciful legal arrangement protected the land from further pollution by innocent blood (see Num 35:33).<\/p>\n<p>It was not acceptable to pay a fine to atone for the death of another human being, even if that death was not premeditated (Num 35:31-33). Human life was too precious to be ransomed with a simple payment. When a human being was killed, whether deliberately or by accident, it resulted in alienation or exile.<\/p>\n<p>Atonement does not come easily, whether in ancient Israelite times or in our own day; each person is in need of atonement to restore their relationship with God (see Rom 3:23-26). Jesus, the Son of God, provides this reconciliation through his work as the Great High Priest who offered himself as the ultimate sacrifice (see Heb 4:14–10:18).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Num 35:6-34; Deut 19:1-13; Josh 20:1-9; 21:13, 21, 27, 32, 38; 1 Kgs 1:50-53; 2:28-34<\/p>","summary_ro":"The Cities of Refuge The cities of refuge were built to protect innocent people from blood revenge. An avenger had the legal right to put a murderer to death (Num 35:19; see Gen 9:6). If a person caused someone’s death accidentally, the slayer fled to a city of refuge to find temporary safety while awaiting trial (Num 35:22-28). The six cities of refuge were distributed across Hebrew territory so that any Israelite could seek asylum. If, after trial, the fugitive was convicted of murder (inst...","summary_en":"The Cities of Refuge The cities of refuge were built to protect innocent people from blood revenge. An avenger had the legal right to put a murderer to death (Num 35:19; see Gen 9:6). If a person caused someone’s death accidentally, the slayer fled to a city of refuge to find temporary safety while awaiting trial (Num 35:22-28). The six cities of refuge were distributed across Hebrew territory so that any Israelite could seek asylum. If, after trial, the fugitive was convicted of murder (inst...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"13":[{"id":45090,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Deuteronomul 19:13","title_en":"Study Note: Deuteronomul 19:13","content_ro":"<p><strong>19:13<\/strong> <em>Purge<\/em> (literally <em>burn<\/em>): The only way for the land to be free of culpability in matters of homicide was for blood vengeance to be enacted, which would burn out the impurity. See also 13:5; 17:12.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>19:13<\/strong> <em>Purge<\/em> (literally <em>burn<\/em>): The only way for the land to be free of culpability in matters of homicide was for blood vengeance to be enacted, which would burn out the impurity. See also 13:5; 17:12.<\/p>","summary_ro":"19:13 Purge (literally burn): The only way for the land to be free of culpability in matters of homicide was for blood vengeance to be enacted, which would burn out the impurity. See also 13:5; 17:12.","summary_en":"19:13 Purge (literally burn): The only way for the land to be free of culpability in matters of homicide was for blood vengeance to be enacted, which would burn out the impurity. See also 13:5; 17:12.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":72716,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Deuteronomul 19:13","title_en":"Study Note: Deuteronomul 19:13","content_ro":"<p><strong>19:13<\/strong> <em>Purge<\/em> (literally <em>burn<\/em>): The only way for the land to be free of culpability in matters of homicide was for blood vengeance to be enacted, which would burn out the impurity. See also 13:5; 17:12.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>19:13<\/strong> <em>Purge<\/em> (literally <em>burn<\/em>): The only way for the land to be free of culpability in matters of homicide was for blood vengeance to be enacted, which would burn out the impurity. See also 13:5; 17:12.<\/p>","summary_ro":"19:13 Purge (literally burn): The only way for the land to be free of culpability in matters of homicide was for blood vengeance to be enacted, which would burn out the impurity. See also 13:5; 17:12.","summary_en":"19:13 Purge (literally burn): The only way for the land to be free of culpability in matters of homicide was for blood vengeance to be enacted, which would burn out the impurity. See also 13:5; 17:12.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":100342,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Deuteronomul 19:13","title_en":"Study Note: Deuteronomul 19:13","content_ro":"<p><strong>19:13<\/strong> <em>Purge<\/em> (literally <em>burn<\/em>): The only way for the land to be free of culpability in matters of homicide was for blood vengeance to be enacted, which would burn out the impurity. See also 13:5; 17:12.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>19:13<\/strong> <em>Purge<\/em> (literally <em>burn<\/em>): The only way for the land to be free of culpability in matters of homicide was for blood vengeance to be enacted, which would burn out the impurity. See also 13:5; 17:12.<\/p>","summary_ro":"19:13 Purge (literally burn): The only way for the land to be free of culpability in matters of homicide was for blood vengeance to be enacted, which would burn out the impurity. See also 13:5; 17:12.","summary_en":"19:13 Purge (literally burn): The only way for the land to be free of culpability in matters of homicide was for blood vengeance to be enacted, which would burn out the impurity. See also 13:5; 17:12.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":127968,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Deuteronomul 19:13","title_en":"Study Note: Deuteronomul 19:13","content_ro":"<p><strong>19:13<\/strong> <em>Purge<\/em> (literally <em>burn<\/em>): The only way for the land to be free of culpability in matters of homicide was for blood vengeance to be enacted, which would burn out the impurity. See also 13:5; 17:12.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>19:13<\/strong> <em>Purge<\/em> (literally <em>burn<\/em>): The only way for the land to be free of culpability in matters of homicide was for blood vengeance to be enacted, which would burn out the impurity. See also 13:5; 17:12.<\/p>","summary_ro":"19:13 Purge (literally burn): The only way for the land to be free of culpability in matters of homicide was for blood vengeance to be enacted, which would burn out the impurity. See also 13:5; 17:12.","summary_en":"19:13 Purge (literally burn): The only way for the land to be free of culpability in matters of homicide was for blood vengeance to be enacted, which would burn out the impurity. See also 13:5; 17:12.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"14":[{"id":8080,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Law and Punishment*, Criminal","title_en":"Law and Punishment*, Criminal","content_ro":"<h3>CRIMINAL LAW AND PUNISHMENT*<\/h3>\n<p>The science or philosophy of law is called jurisprudence. Although modern jurisprudence bears little resemblance to biblical concepts of law, the Scriptures have played a definite role in its development. Today, criminal law is clearly distinguished from civil law; in Bible times the distinction was much less clear. Today, offenses against civil law (torts) are distinguished from minor crimes (misdemeanors) as well as from serious crimes (felonies). In the Bible, “crimes” included all punishable offenses, even religious offenses such as idolatry (worshiping a false god) or blasphemy (speaking or behaving with contempt toward God).<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Near Eastern Context<\/p>\n<p>• Hebrew Criminal Law<\/p>\n<p>• Punishment<\/p>\n<p>• Conclusion<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"NearEasternContext\">Near Eastern Context<\/p>\n<p>In ancient societies as in modern ones, laws were considered necessary to regulate individual behavior for the good of the community, state, or nation. Today laws are thought of as made by people for their own protection. In contrast, all ancient Near Eastern law codes were considered to have come directly from some divine source. Hebrew law, though distinct, followed the general pattern of Near Eastern law codes, as is known from those that have survived—such as the Code of Hammurabi and Assyrian and Hittite laws.<\/p>\n<p>Conclusions about the “origin” of ancient laws should be made cautiously. Although evidence indicates that Hammurabi based his legislation partially on earlier Sumerian codes, he declared that his code had been received from Shamash, god of justice. That declaration must have been intended to convey primarily that his code had the express sanction of Shamash, since at least some people would recognize it as a compilation based largely on earlier laws. Similarly, the clear biblical statements about Moses receiving the law on Mt Sinai (Ex 19–24) do not rule out the possibility that parts of the Decalogue (the Ten Commandments) may have existed in earlier codes. Possibly the Mosaic legislation included some social rules adapted from the period of Israel’s sojourn in Egypt.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"HebrewCriminalLaw\">Hebrew Criminal Law<\/p>\n<h5>Laws Governing Offenses against God<\/h5>\n<p>Since Hebrew law was designed for a group of people for whom religion was of paramount importance and whose faith was endangered by the influence of the beliefs of their pagan neighbors, it is not surprising that so much of Hebrew law dealt with crimes committed against God. The prohibition against worshiping idols is stated and repeated in the Torah, or Pentateuch (first five books of the Bible): “You shall not make for yourself a graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them or serve them” (Ex 20:4-5, <span>rsv<\/span>). Sacrifice of infants, practiced in some pagan religions, was specifically prohibited in Israel. The penalty for that crime, as for the other forms of murder, was stoning to death (Lv 20:2).<\/p>\n<p>In the book of Leviticus, death by stoning was recorded as the appropriate punishment for blaspheming the name of God (Lv 24:11-16). False prophecy was also a criminal offense; that accusation could apply to a person making a prediction in the name of a god other than the Lord, or implying falsely that one’s prophecy resulted from a communication with God. Jeremiah, whose prophecy of Nebuchadnezzar’s victory over the southern kingdom of Judah was for a time considered to be false, was almost lynched by a mob (Jer 26:8-9).<\/p>\n<p>The idea of keeping the seventh day holy stemmed from the celebration of God’s work in creating the universe in six days and resting on the seventh. Keeping the Sabbath required cessation of manual work for the entire family, including farm animals (Ex 16:23; 20:8-11). People were also required to meet together on the Sabbath for worship, which at a later period in Hebrew history included the reading of Scripture, prayer, and preaching. Anyone breaking the Sabbath could be sentenced to death, as happened to a man caught gathering firewood on the Sabbath (Nm 15:32-36).<\/p>\n<p>Any type of premeditated crime was considered an offense against God, the giver of all law; hence, it was punishable by death (Nm 15:30-31). Hebrew law also insisted on donation of the firstfruits of harvest to the Lord without delay. That requirement was sometimes carried over to include a first child, whose life was dedicated to service in the temple (Ex 22:29-30; Dt 15:19).<\/p>\n<h5>Personal Injury<\/h5>\n<p>Murder, an offense against “God’s image,” was one of many crimes punishable by death in OT times. The book of Exodus stated unequivocally that “anyone who hits a person hard enough to cause death must be put to death” (Ex 21:12, <span>nlt<\/span>). A murderer who killed by using a weapon such as a stone, a piece of wood, or iron could be killed in revenge by a relative of the deceased. If the original death happened accidentally, the community would sometimes help to conceal the killer and encourage him to hide in a nearby city of refuge, where he would be safe as long as he remained within its gates. He had to stay in that sanctuary until the death of the high priest then in office, after which he was free to return to his own city (Nm 35:10-28). The sixth commandment enjoined, “You shall not kill” (Ex 20:13). The Hebrew word referred specifically to murder, not to all forms of killing. Killing an enemy in battle and the execution of a murderer were considered necessary and were not prohibited. More than one witness was required for any conviction, particularly in a murder case (Nm 35:30; Dt 17:6; 19:15).<\/p>\n<p>In the Code of Hammurabi a man responsible for an accidental injury to another was required to pay for the services of the physician. If the victim died, a fine was payable according to the victim’s rank. In a sense the Hebrews went further by requiring payment for any loss of time suffered by the injured person (Ex 21:18-19).<\/p>\n<p>Kidnapping was punishable by death in the OT. Exodus states that “Kidnappers must be killed, whether they are caught in possession of their victims or have already sold them as slaves” (Ex 21:16, <span>nlt<\/span>). Joseph’s being sold into slavery by his brothers illustrates this kind of kidnapping.<\/p>\n<h5>Laws concerning Property<\/h5>\n<p>The book of Exodus is quite specific about anyone responsible for damage to the property or crops of another. If a field caught fire and the fire spread, damaging crops in other fields, the person who started the fire, or perhaps the owner of the first field to catch fire, was responsible for the damage (Ex 22:6). Hammurabi’s code cited a similar instance of a man who neglected to keep a dike in repair and was therefore responsible for flood damage to his neighbor’s crops.<\/p>\n<p>Injuries to animals, especially oxen, or injuries to people or property caused by such animals formed an important area of Hebrew law. If an ox that had been previously good-tempered killed a man, the owner would be blameless, although the ox would be put to death—a severe financial penalty for the owner. If an ox with a history of goring killed a man because its owner failed to restrain it adequately, both ox and owner would be put to death. The owner’s life could be ransomed by payment of an agreed-upon sum. If the person an ox gored was a servant, the ox was stoned and the owner paid a fine (Ex 21:28-32). The Code of Hammurabi also recommended no punishment for a first offense by an animal, but if the owner knew that the ox was dangerous and had taken no steps to prevent harm, a fine in silver was payable—a very large fine for an upper-class victim, slightly less if the victim was a slave. However bad the circumstances and however vicious the ox, the Code of Hammurabi stopped at a fine for the offense, never imposing a death penalty on either the animal or the owner.<\/p>\n<p>Negligence causing injury to an animal was also punished in Hebrew law. If an ox or a donkey fell into a pit carelessly left uncovered, the owner of the animal was reimbursed for its loss (Ex 21:33-36).<\/p>\n<p>In ancient cultures women were generally considered chattel (personal property), much like animals or slaves. A daughter was considered to be her father’s property until her marriage, then the property of her husband. Therefore, any offense against a married woman was regarded as an offense against the property of the husband. According to the Code of Hammurabi, a child could be sold into slavery as a servant or bondsman, usually in payment of the father’s debt (cf. Ex 21:2-7; Neh 5:5-8; Is 50:1). Parental authority was so highly regarded in biblical law that a stubborn and rebellious son could be brought before the elders on the grounds of being disobedient and a glutton or a drunkard. He might then be convicted and stoned to death on the spot by the men of the city (Dt 21:18-21). Even that, however, was a protection of the child’s rights; some Near Eastern legislation allowed a parent to order the death of his offspring without reference to the elders or to anyone else. With daughters in particular being held in such low esteem, it is perhaps remarkable that a daughter could inherit property if there were no sons (Nm 27:8).<\/p>\n<p>Adultery, prohibited in the Decalogue, was another crime against a man’s property, specifically his wife. The book of Deuteronomy goes into considerable detail about cases of adultery—the punishment for both persons being death (Dt 22:22). If a man seduced a young woman who was not betrothed, he was required to pay her father the bride price (50 silver shekels); he could not divorce her but had to keep her as his wife for the rest of his life (Ex 22:16; Dt 22:28-29).<\/p>\n<p>In a situation where a wife was accused of adultery but without evidence, a trial was conducted. The husband would bring his wife to a priest and present a small offering (a tenth of a measure of barley meal, with neither oil nor frankincense on it), indicating the low esteem in which he now held his wife. The woman then stood before the Lord holding an earthen jar of “holy water.” Dust from the floor of the tabernacle was mixed with the water, and the cereal offering was placed in her hands. Her hair was loosened by the priest to show not only her grief but also to give an impression of abandonment. She was then required to take an oath. After that, the priest pronounced a curse upon her to the effect that her womb would be fertilized easily, but that she would have many miscarriages. She had to give her consent to that pronouncement. The priest then wrote the curses in a book and symbolically washed them off into the “bitter water.” The woman was required to drink the water while the priest waved the cereal offering from her hands before the Lord and burned some of it on the altar. The priest told her that if she was guilty, the water would make her thigh rot and her abdomen swell. If that happened, she would become an outcast; but if she were proved innocent, she would be free. Whatever the result, no blame for false accusation fell upon the husband (Nm 5:12-31).<\/p>\n<p>If a slave was struck by his master in such a manner as to cause instant death, the slave’s death had to be avenged. If the slave lingered, possibly for days, he did not need to be avenged, his loss being a sufficient punishment for the owner (Ex 21:20-21). It is unlikely that the Hebrews had much experience with that law, which had no parallels in Hammurabi’s code. If an owner injured his slave by causing the loss of an eye or a tooth, Hebrew law required that the slave be set free (vv 26-27). The Code of Hammurabi gave an example of a man injuring another man’s slave; the owner had to be paid half the slave’s value.<\/p>\n<p>Little emphasis was placed on burglary or larceny in the Hebrew law code. A burglar was presumed to be repentant and ready to make restitution. After return of the stolen property and payment of a small additional fine, a thief could again “approach the Lord” (Lv 6:2-7). By contrast, the Code of Hammurabi prescribed the death penalty for burglary. In Hebrew law, theft of an animal required restitution to be made in the ratio of at least two to one; if a bull or a cow had been stolen or sold, the thief had to restore the property fivefold. The Code of Hammurabi contained a similar statute: “If a man steal ox or sheep, ass or pig, or goat—if it be from a god or a palace, he shall restore thirtyfold; if it be from a freeman, he shall render tenfold. If the thief have nothing wherewith to pay, he shall be put to death.” In Hebrew law goods stolen from a home were simply to be restored without additional penalty. If the thief no longer had the goods and was unable to pay the equivalent value, he might be sold into slavery until restitution was made (Ex 22:1-4).<\/p>\n<h5>General Laws<\/h5>\n<p>The Hebrew code as contained in Exodus and Deuteronomy included many general prohibitions. Some concerned business dealings such as the removal of boundary markers (Dt 19:14). The use of false weights and measures was condemned (Lv 19:35; Dt 25:15; Prv 11:1; 20:23; Mi 6:11). Bribery was strictly forbidden (Ex 23:8), yet no punishment was specified for those who broke that law. In the Code of Hammurabi, if a judge changed his decision and was unable to give a satisfactory explanation, particularly if bribery was suspected, the judge had to pay 12 times the amount of the penalty and lost his seat on the bench. In the Hebrew code, perjury was also dealt with, although again no punishment was specified. The Code of Hammurabi stated that for perjury in cases where the punishment was death, persons giving false testimony were to be sentenced to death themselves (cf. Ex 23:1).<\/p>\n<p>A number of Hebrew laws reflected concern for the poor. For example, poor people were not to be subjected to usury if they were in debt, or left cold at night if their coats were taken as a pledge. Widows, orphans, and strangers were also to be treated with mercy and understanding (Ex 22:21-27; 23:9; Dt 23:19; 24:17).<\/p>\n<p>Some Hebrew laws concerned family behavior, such as those previously mentioned who cursed or disobeyed their parents (Ex 21:17; Lv 20:9; Dt 27:16; cf. Prv 20:20; 30:17). Family responsibilities were strong; an entire family frequently suffered punishment for the crime of one of its individual members (Jos 7:20-26; 2 Sm 3:29; 21:1-9; 2 Kgs 5:27; Lam 5:7). Over a period of time, as individual responsibility came to be recognized, parents were no longer put to death for the crimes of their children, or vice versa (cf. Jer 31:29-30).<\/p>\n<p>Sorcery and witchcraft were forbidden. The book of Exodus stated explicitly, “A sorceress must not be allowed to live” (22:18, <span>nlt<\/span>). Sexual perversions, such as intercourse with animals, were forbidden under penalty of death. Regulations prohibiting marriage with close relatives were given in detail (Lv 20:17-21).<\/p>\n<p>In Hebrew law no parallel existed for some interesting items in the Code of Hammurabi concerning surgery. That code mentioned veterinary surgery and even operations on the human eye. A Babylonian surgeon had to be wary, for “if a physician makes a deep incision upon a man with his bronze lancet and causes the man’s death or operates on the eye socket of a man with his bronze lancet and destroys the man’s eye, then they shall cut off his hand.” Surgery was virtually unknown among the ancient Israelites except for the ritual practice of circumcision.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Punishment\">Punishment<\/p>\n<p>Near Eastern punishments for murder and personal injury were retaliatory and often of the same nature as the offense. Other methods of punishment tended to vary with individual countries or traditions. Many kinds of punishment were inflicted on people defeated in both a full-scale war or a small insurrection.<\/p>\n<h5>Physical Punishment<\/h5>\n<p>Many forms of punishment stopped short of killing but could nevertheless be quite severe.<\/p>\n<p>1. In the OT beating with rods or switches was the traditional form of discipline for children, fools, and slaves (Ex 21:20; Prv 13:24; 26:3). Scourging (also called flogging) was more severe than beating. The whip employed could be made of several strips of leather fastened at one end or of two interwoven leather strips. A whip nicknamed “scorpion” (because of the barbs in its end) was one of the cruelest instruments of punishment mentioned in the OT (1 Kgs 12:11, 14). The severity of punishment could be increased by inserting pieces of metal or bone into the leather.<\/p>\n<p>Before a scourging, the victim would be examined for physical fitness. If death resulted from the blows, no blame was attached to the person administering the punishment. The victim was stripped to the waist and tied to a pillar, his hands bound with leather thongs. The severity of a scourging depended on the crime, although the Mosaic law set an upper limit of 40 lashes (Dt 25:1-3). To guard against a miscount, that number was later lowered by one (2 Cor 11:24). Lashes might be administered both on the chest and the back. Under some law codes, scourging could be used as a private punishment; in that case, if the victim died, another life was forfeit.<\/p>\n<p>In offenses against the law, synagogue authorities administered scourgings (Mt 10:17). A husband might be scourged by the elders of the city for defamation of his wife’s character (Dt 22:18). Scourging was also used as a means of interrogating a prisoner—hence, a Roman captain’s comment that the apostle Paul should be “examined by scourging” (Acts 22:24).<\/p>\n<p>The Romans usually reserved scourging for non-Roman citizens, such as slaves or aliens, as well as for those condemned to death. Normally, criminals were scourged after they had been condemned to death; it is therefore unusual to find the scourging of Jesus taking place before his condemnation. Pilate may have hoped to soften the people’s hearts by Jesus’ suffering so that they would not demand the death penalty (Lk 23:16, 22; Jn 19:1).<\/p>\n<p>Citizens of the Roman Empire could never be beaten or scourged before sentencing (Acts 22:25). Hence, the magistrates were afraid when they heard that Paul, a Roman citizen, had been beaten under those circumstances (16:37-39).<\/p>\n<li>2. The gouging out of the eyes of prisoners and captives was a common practice in the Near East. The Philistines blinded Samson before imprisoning him (Jgs 16:21). The Babylonians did the same to King Zedekiah in 587 <span>BC<\/span> before taking him into captivity (2 Kgs 25:7). The Ammonite king Nahash was prepared to accept peace overtures from the men of the city of Jabesh on condition that all their right eyes be gouged out. Nahash’s purpose was to disgrace them and prevent them from further active participation in warfare (1 Sm 11:1-4).<\/li>\n<li>3. Several forms of mutilation served as punishments in the Near East. The Israelites considered their own bodies sacred and made in God’s image, but that did not prevent them from mutilating their enemies by cutting off their thumbs and large toes.<\/li>\n<p>The Code of Hammurabi and the Assyrian law code prescribed mutilation of the eye, nose, ear, breast, tongue, lip, hand, and finger as punishments for specific crimes. In Assyria, punishment was often inflicted by the victim of the crime under supervision of court officials. The Code of Hammurabi also contained safeguards so that criminals were not punished in excess of the law’s sentence.<\/p>\n<li>4. Stocks are mentioned as a form of punishment in the later OT period. The prophets Hanani (2 Chr 16:10) and Jeremiah (Jer 20:2-3) suffered the indignity of being placed in stocks. Both ankles, and sometimes the wrists and head as well, were placed in holes in two large pieces of wood. In Roman times, stocks were converted to a form of torture, with a prisoner’s legs stretched to holes increasingly far apart. In the NT, Paul and Silas had their feet placed in stocks by a Philippian jailer (Acts 16:24). The same Greek word, meaning “confinement,” can refer to fetters chaining a prisoner or to an iron collar like that worn by runaway Roman slaves.<\/li>\n<h5>Capital Punishment<\/h5>\n<p>Capital punishment was common in many Near Eastern countries. Several methods were used.<\/p>\n<p>1. Those who offended a king were beheaded with a sword (2 Sm 16:9; 2 Kgs 6:31-32), as were idolaters and murderers (according to the Mishnah, the Jewish commentary on the law). The sword was probably used for private executions as well. Inhabitants of entire cities were sometimes “put to the sword” for their denial of the faith (Ex 32:27; Dt 13:15).<\/p>\n<li>2. Certain sexual offenses were punished with death by burning (Lv 20:14; 21:9). Tamar, Judah’s daughter-in-law, was accused of adultery and ordered to be burned to death outside the city (Gn 38:24). The Lord instructed that anyone whose feet touched the holy ground of Mt Sinai was to be shot with arrows or stoned (Ex 19:13).<\/li>\n<li>3. Hanging may have been a form of execution in biblical times. But many scholars think the word translated “hanging” or “hanging on a tree” actually meant impalement (Nm 25:4; Dt 21:22-23; Jos 8:29; 2 Sm 21:6, 9; Est 9:14). A spiked wooden stake was set in the ground and the victim’s body was forced onto the spike, the tip of which probably protruded from the chest or mouth. Commonly practiced by the Assyrians, that form of execution was reserved for those guilty of the worst crimes and for prisoners of war or deserters. The Persian king Darius is reputed to have impaled 3,000 men when his army entered Babylon. Impalement was the penalty Darius set for changing his edict concerning the rebuilding of the temple (Ezr 6:11-12). It is not certain whether Haman was hung or impaled (see Est 7:9-10, <span>nlt<\/span> and mg notes).<\/li>\n<p>Usually “hanging” was a means of exhibiting a corpse as a warning to local inhabitants (Gn 40:19; Jos 8:29; 10:26; 2 Sm 4:12). Corpses were exhibited for only one day and were buried before nightfall. The hanging corpse was considered a defilement of the land that God had given (Dt 21:22-23). According to the Mishnah, the hands were tied together and the body hanged from the arm of a wooden gallows.<\/p>\n<li>4. Crucifixion was a punishment employed by the Syrian king Antiochus IV Epiphanes in 167–166 <span>BC<\/span>; according to Josephus, a first-century <span>AD<\/span> Jewish historian, Jews who refused to give up their traditional faith were so executed. During the Maccabean period (167–40 <span>BC<\/span>), Alexander Janneus crucified 800 rebellious Pharisees in an attempt to reestablish his authority. Crucifixion was a widespread form of execution: it was used in most places in the Roman Empire, including India, North Africa, and Germany. Between 4 <span>BC<\/span> and <span>AD<\/span> 70, on some occasions the number of people crucified at one time reached into the thousands.<\/li>\n<p>Three types of crosses seem to have been used: a cross with the crossbar below the head of the upright bar (Latin cross); a T-shaped cross (St Anthony’s cross); and an X-shaped cross (St Andrew’s cross). Matthew records that an inscription, “This is Jesus, the King of the Jews,” was placed over Jesus’ head (Mt 27:37). That indicates that for Jesus’ crucifixion a Latin cross was used, as artists have traditionally depicted it. In crucifixions the victim was most likely affixed to the cross while it was still lying flat on the ground. Then the cross was raised into position and dropped into a hole. The hands were either nailed or bound to the cross; it is uncertain whether the feet were nailed with one or two nails. The weight of the body was supported by a piece of wood at the feet and possibly by another that was like a spike between the legs.<\/p>\n<li>5. Stoning was the most common Hebrew death penalty. The first stones were thrown by the prosecution witnesses, who were then joined by spectators. Stoning was the punishment for certain religious offenses (Lv 24:16; Nm 15:32-36; Dt 13:1-10; 17:2-5), adultery (Dt 22:23-24), child sacrifice (Lv 20:2), divination of spirits (Lv 20:27), and rebellion (Dt 21:18-21). Before his conversion, the apostle Paul witnessed and consented to the stoning of Stephen (Acts 7:58-59). Paul himself later survived a stoning at Lystra (14:19). In Roman times, a person would occasionally be stoned as he stood on a gallows.<\/li>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Conclusion\">Conclusion<\/p>\n<p>Hebrew law was part of the Torah (“instruction”) given by God to make his covenant people holy. At that time the Israelites were a seminomadic band of former slaves. Although there are similarities with the Code of Hammurabi and other laws of settled Near Eastern cultures, there are also many differences. Hebrew law often had a broader view, even in its less sophisticated cultural setting, as though its purpose was more to teach godly behavior than to stabilize society. The simplicity and directness of the Ten Commandments, in particular, continue to influence jurisprudence, even in modern secular society.<\/p>\n<p>The Bible’s primary message is God’s love for his covenant people, yet it never overlooks the harsh realities of life in a fallen world. Human beings sin and they commit crimes; they suffer estrangement from God because of their sin and are punished for their crimes. Christians are constantly reminded of the realism of God’s love by the cross as the symbol of Christian faith. They see the crucifixion of Jesus Christ as the fulfillment of OT prophecy that the Lord put our iniquity on him (Is 53:5-6). The NT conviction is that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures (1 Cor 15:3).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Civil Law and Justice; Courts and Trials; Hammurabi, Law Code of; Law, Biblical Concept of.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>CRIMINAL LAW AND PUNISHMENT*<\/h3>\n<p>The science or philosophy of law is called jurisprudence. Although modern jurisprudence bears little resemblance to biblical concepts of law, the Scriptures have played a definite role in its development. Today, criminal law is clearly distinguished from civil law; in Bible times the distinction was much less clear. Today, offenses against civil law (torts) are distinguished from minor crimes (misdemeanors) as well as from serious crimes (felonies). In the Bible, “crimes” included all punishable offenses, even religious offenses such as idolatry (worshiping a false god) or blasphemy (speaking or behaving with contempt toward God).<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Near Eastern Context<\/p>\n<p>• Hebrew Criminal Law<\/p>\n<p>• Punishment<\/p>\n<p>• Conclusion<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"NearEasternContext\">Near Eastern Context<\/p>\n<p>In ancient societies as in modern ones, laws were considered necessary to regulate individual behavior for the good of the community, state, or nation. Today laws are thought of as made by people for their own protection. In contrast, all ancient Near Eastern law codes were considered to have come directly from some divine source. Hebrew law, though distinct, followed the general pattern of Near Eastern law codes, as is known from those that have survived—such as the Code of Hammurabi and Assyrian and Hittite laws.<\/p>\n<p>Conclusions about the “origin” of ancient laws should be made cautiously. Although evidence indicates that Hammurabi based his legislation partially on earlier Sumerian codes, he declared that his code had been received from Shamash, god of justice. That declaration must have been intended to convey primarily that his code had the express sanction of Shamash, since at least some people would recognize it as a compilation based largely on earlier laws. Similarly, the clear biblical statements about Moses receiving the law on Mt Sinai (Ex 19–24) do not rule out the possibility that parts of the Decalogue (the Ten Commandments) may have existed in earlier codes. Possibly the Mosaic legislation included some social rules adapted from the period of Israel’s sojourn in Egypt.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"HebrewCriminalLaw\">Hebrew Criminal Law<\/p>\n<h5>Laws Governing Offenses against God<\/h5>\n<p>Since Hebrew law was designed for a group of people for whom religion was of paramount importance and whose faith was endangered by the influence of the beliefs of their pagan neighbors, it is not surprising that so much of Hebrew law dealt with crimes committed against God. The prohibition against worshiping idols is stated and repeated in the Torah, or Pentateuch (first five books of the Bible): “You shall not make for yourself a graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them or serve them” (Ex 20:4-5, <span>rsv<\/span>). Sacrifice of infants, practiced in some pagan religions, was specifically prohibited in Israel. The penalty for that crime, as for the other forms of murder, was stoning to death (Lv 20:2).<\/p>\n<p>In the book of Leviticus, death by stoning was recorded as the appropriate punishment for blaspheming the name of God (Lv 24:11-16). False prophecy was also a criminal offense; that accusation could apply to a person making a prediction in the name of a god other than the Lord, or implying falsely that one’s prophecy resulted from a communication with God. Jeremiah, whose prophecy of Nebuchadnezzar’s victory over the southern kingdom of Judah was for a time considered to be false, was almost lynched by a mob (Jer 26:8-9).<\/p>\n<p>The idea of keeping the seventh day holy stemmed from the celebration of God’s work in creating the universe in six days and resting on the seventh. Keeping the Sabbath required cessation of manual work for the entire family, including farm animals (Ex 16:23; 20:8-11). People were also required to meet together on the Sabbath for worship, which at a later period in Hebrew history included the reading of Scripture, prayer, and preaching. Anyone breaking the Sabbath could be sentenced to death, as happened to a man caught gathering firewood on the Sabbath (Nm 15:32-36).<\/p>\n<p>Any type of premeditated crime was considered an offense against God, the giver of all law; hence, it was punishable by death (Nm 15:30-31). Hebrew law also insisted on donation of the firstfruits of harvest to the Lord without delay. That requirement was sometimes carried over to include a first child, whose life was dedicated to service in the temple (Ex 22:29-30; Dt 15:19).<\/p>\n<h5>Personal Injury<\/h5>\n<p>Murder, an offense against “God’s image,” was one of many crimes punishable by death in OT times. The book of Exodus stated unequivocally that “anyone who hits a person hard enough to cause death must be put to death” (Ex 21:12, <span>nlt<\/span>). A murderer who killed by using a weapon such as a stone, a piece of wood, or iron could be killed in revenge by a relative of the deceased. If the original death happened accidentally, the community would sometimes help to conceal the killer and encourage him to hide in a nearby city of refuge, where he would be safe as long as he remained within its gates. He had to stay in that sanctuary until the death of the high priest then in office, after which he was free to return to his own city (Nm 35:10-28). The sixth commandment enjoined, “You shall not kill” (Ex 20:13). The Hebrew word referred specifically to murder, not to all forms of killing. Killing an enemy in battle and the execution of a murderer were considered necessary and were not prohibited. More than one witness was required for any conviction, particularly in a murder case (Nm 35:30; Dt 17:6; 19:15).<\/p>\n<p>In the Code of Hammurabi a man responsible for an accidental injury to another was required to pay for the services of the physician. If the victim died, a fine was payable according to the victim’s rank. In a sense the Hebrews went further by requiring payment for any loss of time suffered by the injured person (Ex 21:18-19).<\/p>\n<p>Kidnapping was punishable by death in the OT. Exodus states that “Kidnappers must be killed, whether they are caught in possession of their victims or have already sold them as slaves” (Ex 21:16, <span>nlt<\/span>). Joseph’s being sold into slavery by his brothers illustrates this kind of kidnapping.<\/p>\n<h5>Laws concerning Property<\/h5>\n<p>The book of Exodus is quite specific about anyone responsible for damage to the property or crops of another. If a field caught fire and the fire spread, damaging crops in other fields, the person who started the fire, or perhaps the owner of the first field to catch fire, was responsible for the damage (Ex 22:6). Hammurabi’s code cited a similar instance of a man who neglected to keep a dike in repair and was therefore responsible for flood damage to his neighbor’s crops.<\/p>\n<p>Injuries to animals, especially oxen, or injuries to people or property caused by such animals formed an important area of Hebrew law. If an ox that had been previously good-tempered killed a man, the owner would be blameless, although the ox would be put to death—a severe financial penalty for the owner. If an ox with a history of goring killed a man because its owner failed to restrain it adequately, both ox and owner would be put to death. The owner’s life could be ransomed by payment of an agreed-upon sum. If the person an ox gored was a servant, the ox was stoned and the owner paid a fine (Ex 21:28-32). The Code of Hammurabi also recommended no punishment for a first offense by an animal, but if the owner knew that the ox was dangerous and had taken no steps to prevent harm, a fine in silver was payable—a very large fine for an upper-class victim, slightly less if the victim was a slave. However bad the circumstances and however vicious the ox, the Code of Hammurabi stopped at a fine for the offense, never imposing a death penalty on either the animal or the owner.<\/p>\n<p>Negligence causing injury to an animal was also punished in Hebrew law. If an ox or a donkey fell into a pit carelessly left uncovered, the owner of the animal was reimbursed for its loss (Ex 21:33-36).<\/p>\n<p>In ancient cultures women were generally considered chattel (personal property), much like animals or slaves. A daughter was considered to be her father’s property until her marriage, then the property of her husband. Therefore, any offense against a married woman was regarded as an offense against the property of the husband. According to the Code of Hammurabi, a child could be sold into slavery as a servant or bondsman, usually in payment of the father’s debt (cf. Ex 21:2-7; Neh 5:5-8; Is 50:1). Parental authority was so highly regarded in biblical law that a stubborn and rebellious son could be brought before the elders on the grounds of being disobedient and a glutton or a drunkard. He might then be convicted and stoned to death on the spot by the men of the city (Dt 21:18-21). Even that, however, was a protection of the child’s rights; some Near Eastern legislation allowed a parent to order the death of his offspring without reference to the elders or to anyone else. With daughters in particular being held in such low esteem, it is perhaps remarkable that a daughter could inherit property if there were no sons (Nm 27:8).<\/p>\n<p>Adultery, prohibited in the Decalogue, was another crime against a man’s property, specifically his wife. The book of Deuteronomy goes into considerable detail about cases of adultery—the punishment for both persons being death (Dt 22:22). If a man seduced a young woman who was not betrothed, he was required to pay her father the bride price (50 silver shekels); he could not divorce her but had to keep her as his wife for the rest of his life (Ex 22:16; Dt 22:28-29).<\/p>\n<p>In a situation where a wife was accused of adultery but without evidence, a trial was conducted. The husband would bring his wife to a priest and present a small offering (a tenth of a measure of barley meal, with neither oil nor frankincense on it), indicating the low esteem in which he now held his wife. The woman then stood before the Lord holding an earthen jar of “holy water.” Dust from the floor of the tabernacle was mixed with the water, and the cereal offering was placed in her hands. Her hair was loosened by the priest to show not only her grief but also to give an impression of abandonment. She was then required to take an oath. After that, the priest pronounced a curse upon her to the effect that her womb would be fertilized easily, but that she would have many miscarriages. She had to give her consent to that pronouncement. The priest then wrote the curses in a book and symbolically washed them off into the “bitter water.” The woman was required to drink the water while the priest waved the cereal offering from her hands before the Lord and burned some of it on the altar. The priest told her that if she was guilty, the water would make her thigh rot and her abdomen swell. If that happened, she would become an outcast; but if she were proved innocent, she would be free. Whatever the result, no blame for false accusation fell upon the husband (Nm 5:12-31).<\/p>\n<p>If a slave was struck by his master in such a manner as to cause instant death, the slave’s death had to be avenged. If the slave lingered, possibly for days, he did not need to be avenged, his loss being a sufficient punishment for the owner (Ex 21:20-21). It is unlikely that the Hebrews had much experience with that law, which had no parallels in Hammurabi’s code. If an owner injured his slave by causing the loss of an eye or a tooth, Hebrew law required that the slave be set free (vv 26-27). The Code of Hammurabi gave an example of a man injuring another man’s slave; the owner had to be paid half the slave’s value.<\/p>\n<p>Little emphasis was placed on burglary or larceny in the Hebrew law code. A burglar was presumed to be repentant and ready to make restitution. After return of the stolen property and payment of a small additional fine, a thief could again “approach the Lord” (Lv 6:2-7). By contrast, the Code of Hammurabi prescribed the death penalty for burglary. In Hebrew law, theft of an animal required restitution to be made in the ratio of at least two to one; if a bull or a cow had been stolen or sold, the thief had to restore the property fivefold. The Code of Hammurabi contained a similar statute: “If a man steal ox or sheep, ass or pig, or goat—if it be from a god or a palace, he shall restore thirtyfold; if it be from a freeman, he shall render tenfold. If the thief have nothing wherewith to pay, he shall be put to death.” In Hebrew law goods stolen from a home were simply to be restored without additional penalty. If the thief no longer had the goods and was unable to pay the equivalent value, he might be sold into slavery until restitution was made (Ex 22:1-4).<\/p>\n<h5>General Laws<\/h5>\n<p>The Hebrew code as contained in Exodus and Deuteronomy included many general prohibitions. Some concerned business dealings such as the removal of boundary markers (Dt 19:14). The use of false weights and measures was condemned (Lv 19:35; Dt 25:15; Prv 11:1; 20:23; Mi 6:11). Bribery was strictly forbidden (Ex 23:8), yet no punishment was specified for those who broke that law. In the Code of Hammurabi, if a judge changed his decision and was unable to give a satisfactory explanation, particularly if bribery was suspected, the judge had to pay 12 times the amount of the penalty and lost his seat on the bench. In the Hebrew code, perjury was also dealt with, although again no punishment was specified. The Code of Hammurabi stated that for perjury in cases where the punishment was death, persons giving false testimony were to be sentenced to death themselves (cf. Ex 23:1).<\/p>\n<p>A number of Hebrew laws reflected concern for the poor. For example, poor people were not to be subjected to usury if they were in debt, or left cold at night if their coats were taken as a pledge. Widows, orphans, and strangers were also to be treated with mercy and understanding (Ex 22:21-27; 23:9; Dt 23:19; 24:17).<\/p>\n<p>Some Hebrew laws concerned family behavior, such as those previously mentioned who cursed or disobeyed their parents (Ex 21:17; Lv 20:9; Dt 27:16; cf. Prv 20:20; 30:17). Family responsibilities were strong; an entire family frequently suffered punishment for the crime of one of its individual members (Jos 7:20-26; 2 Sm 3:29; 21:1-9; 2 Kgs 5:27; Lam 5:7). Over a period of time, as individual responsibility came to be recognized, parents were no longer put to death for the crimes of their children, or vice versa (cf. Jer 31:29-30).<\/p>\n<p>Sorcery and witchcraft were forbidden. The book of Exodus stated explicitly, “A sorceress must not be allowed to live” (22:18, <span>nlt<\/span>). Sexual perversions, such as intercourse with animals, were forbidden under penalty of death. Regulations prohibiting marriage with close relatives were given in detail (Lv 20:17-21).<\/p>\n<p>In Hebrew law no parallel existed for some interesting items in the Code of Hammurabi concerning surgery. That code mentioned veterinary surgery and even operations on the human eye. A Babylonian surgeon had to be wary, for “if a physician makes a deep incision upon a man with his bronze lancet and causes the man’s death or operates on the eye socket of a man with his bronze lancet and destroys the man’s eye, then they shall cut off his hand.” Surgery was virtually unknown among the ancient Israelites except for the ritual practice of circumcision.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Punishment\">Punishment<\/p>\n<p>Near Eastern punishments for murder and personal injury were retaliatory and often of the same nature as the offense. Other methods of punishment tended to vary with individual countries or traditions. Many kinds of punishment were inflicted on people defeated in both a full-scale war or a small insurrection.<\/p>\n<h5>Physical Punishment<\/h5>\n<p>Many forms of punishment stopped short of killing but could nevertheless be quite severe.<\/p>\n<p>1. In the OT beating with rods or switches was the traditional form of discipline for children, fools, and slaves (Ex 21:20; Prv 13:24; 26:3). Scourging (also called flogging) was more severe than beating. The whip employed could be made of several strips of leather fastened at one end or of two interwoven leather strips. A whip nicknamed “scorpion” (because of the barbs in its end) was one of the cruelest instruments of punishment mentioned in the OT (1 Kgs 12:11, 14). The severity of punishment could be increased by inserting pieces of metal or bone into the leather.<\/p>\n<p>Before a scourging, the victim would be examined for physical fitness. If death resulted from the blows, no blame was attached to the person administering the punishment. The victim was stripped to the waist and tied to a pillar, his hands bound with leather thongs. The severity of a scourging depended on the crime, although the Mosaic law set an upper limit of 40 lashes (Dt 25:1-3). To guard against a miscount, that number was later lowered by one (2 Cor 11:24). Lashes might be administered both on the chest and the back. Under some law codes, scourging could be used as a private punishment; in that case, if the victim died, another life was forfeit.<\/p>\n<p>In offenses against the law, synagogue authorities administered scourgings (Mt 10:17). A husband might be scourged by the elders of the city for defamation of his wife’s character (Dt 22:18). Scourging was also used as a means of interrogating a prisoner—hence, a Roman captain’s comment that the apostle Paul should be “examined by scourging” (Acts 22:24).<\/p>\n<p>The Romans usually reserved scourging for non-Roman citizens, such as slaves or aliens, as well as for those condemned to death. Normally, criminals were scourged after they had been condemned to death; it is therefore unusual to find the scourging of Jesus taking place before his condemnation. Pilate may have hoped to soften the people’s hearts by Jesus’ suffering so that they would not demand the death penalty (Lk 23:16, 22; Jn 19:1).<\/p>\n<p>Citizens of the Roman Empire could never be beaten or scourged before sentencing (Acts 22:25). Hence, the magistrates were afraid when they heard that Paul, a Roman citizen, had been beaten under those circumstances (16:37-39).<\/p>\n<li>2. The gouging out of the eyes of prisoners and captives was a common practice in the Near East. The Philistines blinded Samson before imprisoning him (Jgs 16:21). The Babylonians did the same to King Zedekiah in 587 <span>BC<\/span> before taking him into captivity (2 Kgs 25:7). The Ammonite king Nahash was prepared to accept peace overtures from the men of the city of Jabesh on condition that all their right eyes be gouged out. Nahash’s purpose was to disgrace them and prevent them from further active participation in warfare (1 Sm 11:1-4).<\/li>\n<li>3. Several forms of mutilation served as punishments in the Near East. The Israelites considered their own bodies sacred and made in God’s image, but that did not prevent them from mutilating their enemies by cutting off their thumbs and large toes.<\/li>\n<p>The Code of Hammurabi and the Assyrian law code prescribed mutilation of the eye, nose, ear, breast, tongue, lip, hand, and finger as punishments for specific crimes. In Assyria, punishment was often inflicted by the victim of the crime under supervision of court officials. The Code of Hammurabi also contained safeguards so that criminals were not punished in excess of the law’s sentence.<\/p>\n<li>4. Stocks are mentioned as a form of punishment in the later OT period. The prophets Hanani (2 Chr 16:10) and Jeremiah (Jer 20:2-3) suffered the indignity of being placed in stocks. Both ankles, and sometimes the wrists and head as well, were placed in holes in two large pieces of wood. In Roman times, stocks were converted to a form of torture, with a prisoner’s legs stretched to holes increasingly far apart. In the NT, Paul and Silas had their feet placed in stocks by a Philippian jailer (Acts 16:24). The same Greek word, meaning “confinement,” can refer to fetters chaining a prisoner or to an iron collar like that worn by runaway Roman slaves.<\/li>\n<h5>Capital Punishment<\/h5>\n<p>Capital punishment was common in many Near Eastern countries. Several methods were used.<\/p>\n<p>1. Those who offended a king were beheaded with a sword (2 Sm 16:9; 2 Kgs 6:31-32), as were idolaters and murderers (according to the Mishnah, the Jewish commentary on the law). The sword was probably used for private executions as well. Inhabitants of entire cities were sometimes “put to the sword” for their denial of the faith (Ex 32:27; Dt 13:15).<\/p>\n<li>2. Certain sexual offenses were punished with death by burning (Lv 20:14; 21:9). Tamar, Judah’s daughter-in-law, was accused of adultery and ordered to be burned to death outside the city (Gn 38:24). The Lord instructed that anyone whose feet touched the holy ground of Mt Sinai was to be shot with arrows or stoned (Ex 19:13).<\/li>\n<li>3. Hanging may have been a form of execution in biblical times. But many scholars think the word translated “hanging” or “hanging on a tree” actually meant impalement (Nm 25:4; Dt 21:22-23; Jos 8:29; 2 Sm 21:6, 9; Est 9:14). A spiked wooden stake was set in the ground and the victim’s body was forced onto the spike, the tip of which probably protruded from the chest or mouth. Commonly practiced by the Assyrians, that form of execution was reserved for those guilty of the worst crimes and for prisoners of war or deserters. The Persian king Darius is reputed to have impaled 3,000 men when his army entered Babylon. Impalement was the penalty Darius set for changing his edict concerning the rebuilding of the temple (Ezr 6:11-12). It is not certain whether Haman was hung or impaled (see Est 7:9-10, <span>nlt<\/span> and mg notes).<\/li>\n<p>Usually “hanging” was a means of exhibiting a corpse as a warning to local inhabitants (Gn 40:19; Jos 8:29; 10:26; 2 Sm 4:12). Corpses were exhibited for only one day and were buried before nightfall. The hanging corpse was considered a defilement of the land that God had given (Dt 21:22-23). According to the Mishnah, the hands were tied together and the body hanged from the arm of a wooden gallows.<\/p>\n<li>4. Crucifixion was a punishment employed by the Syrian king Antiochus IV Epiphanes in 167–166 <span>BC<\/span>; according to Josephus, a first-century <span>AD<\/span> Jewish historian, Jews who refused to give up their traditional faith were so executed. During the Maccabean period (167–40 <span>BC<\/span>), Alexander Janneus crucified 800 rebellious Pharisees in an attempt to reestablish his authority. Crucifixion was a widespread form of execution: it was used in most places in the Roman Empire, including India, North Africa, and Germany. Between 4 <span>BC<\/span> and <span>AD<\/span> 70, on some occasions the number of people crucified at one time reached into the thousands.<\/li>\n<p>Three types of crosses seem to have been used: a cross with the crossbar below the head of the upright bar (Latin cross); a T-shaped cross (St Anthony’s cross); and an X-shaped cross (St Andrew’s cross). Matthew records that an inscription, “This is Jesus, the King of the Jews,” was placed over Jesus’ head (Mt 27:37). That indicates that for Jesus’ crucifixion a Latin cross was used, as artists have traditionally depicted it. In crucifixions the victim was most likely affixed to the cross while it was still lying flat on the ground. Then the cross was raised into position and dropped into a hole. The hands were either nailed or bound to the cross; it is uncertain whether the feet were nailed with one or two nails. The weight of the body was supported by a piece of wood at the feet and possibly by another that was like a spike between the legs.<\/p>\n<li>5. Stoning was the most common Hebrew death penalty. The first stones were thrown by the prosecution witnesses, who were then joined by spectators. Stoning was the punishment for certain religious offenses (Lv 24:16; Nm 15:32-36; Dt 13:1-10; 17:2-5), adultery (Dt 22:23-24), child sacrifice (Lv 20:2), divination of spirits (Lv 20:27), and rebellion (Dt 21:18-21). Before his conversion, the apostle Paul witnessed and consented to the stoning of Stephen (Acts 7:58-59). Paul himself later survived a stoning at Lystra (14:19). In Roman times, a person would occasionally be stoned as he stood on a gallows.<\/li>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Conclusion\">Conclusion<\/p>\n<p>Hebrew law was part of the Torah (“instruction”) given by God to make his covenant people holy. At that time the Israelites were a seminomadic band of former slaves. Although there are similarities with the Code of Hammurabi and other laws of settled Near Eastern cultures, there are also many differences. Hebrew law often had a broader view, even in its less sophisticated cultural setting, as though its purpose was more to teach godly behavior than to stabilize society. The simplicity and directness of the Ten Commandments, in particular, continue to influence jurisprudence, even in modern secular society.<\/p>\n<p>The Bible’s primary message is God’s love for his covenant people, yet it never overlooks the harsh realities of life in a fallen world. Human beings sin and they commit crimes; they suffer estrangement from God because of their sin and are punished for their crimes. Christians are constantly reminded of the realism of God’s love by the cross as the symbol of Christian faith. They see the crucifixion of Jesus Christ as the fulfillment of OT prophecy that the Lord put our iniquity on him (Is 53:5-6). The NT conviction is that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures (1 Cor 15:3).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Civil Law and Justice; Courts and Trials; Hammurabi, Law Code of; Law, Biblical Concept of.<\/p>","summary_ro":"CRIMINAL LAW AND PUNISHMENT* The science or philosophy of law is called jurisprudence. Although modern jurisprudence bears little resemblance to biblical concepts of law, the Scriptures have played a definite role in its development. Today, criminal law is clearly distinguished from civil law; in Bible times the distinction was much less clear. Today, offenses against civil law (torts) are distinguished from minor crimes (misdemeanors) as well as from serious crimes (felonies). In the Bible, ...","summary_en":"CRIMINAL LAW AND PUNISHMENT* The science or philosophy of law is called jurisprudence. Although modern jurisprudence bears little resemblance to biblical concepts of law, the Scriptures have played a definite role in its development. Today, criminal law is clearly distinguished from civil law; in Bible times the distinction was much less clear. Today, offenses against civil law (torts) are distinguished from minor crimes (misdemeanors) as well as from serious crimes (felonies). In the Bible, ...","source":"Articles\/C.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":22542,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Landmark*","title_en":"Landmark*","content_ro":"<h3>LANDMARK*<\/h3>\n<p>Inscribed stone that denoted a boundary of fields, districts, or nations (Gn 31:51-52). In most Near Eastern countries the removal of a landmark was a serious crime; in Israel it was a violation of the law of Moses (Dt 19:14; 27:17). Removing landmarks (<span>nlt<\/span> “boundary markers”) could be represented as changing ancient customs and laws (Prv 22:28; 23:10; cf. Jb 24:2).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Inscriptions.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>LANDMARK*<\/h3>\n<p>Inscribed stone that denoted a boundary of fields, districts, or nations (Gn 31:51-52). In most Near Eastern countries the removal of a landmark was a serious crime; in Israel it was a violation of the law of Moses (Dt 19:14; 27:17). Removing landmarks (<span>nlt<\/span> “boundary markers”) could be represented as changing ancient customs and laws (Prv 22:28; 23:10; cf. Jb 24:2).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Inscriptions.<\/p>","summary_ro":"LANDMARK* Inscribed stone that denoted a boundary of fields, districts, or nations (Gn 31:51-52). In most Near Eastern countries the removal of a landmark was a serious crime; in Israel it was a violation of the law of Moses (Dt 19:14; 27:17). Removing landmarks (nlt “boundary markers”) could be represented as changing ancient customs and laws (Prv 22:28; 23:10; cf. Jb 24:2). See also Inscriptions.","summary_en":"LANDMARK* Inscribed stone that denoted a boundary of fields, districts, or nations (Gn 31:51-52). In most Near Eastern countries the removal of a landmark was a serious crime; in Israel it was a violation of the law of Moses (Dt 19:14; 27:17). Removing landmarks (nlt “boundary markers”) could be represented as changing ancient customs and laws (Prv 22:28; 23:10; cf. Jb 24:2). See also Inscriptions.","source":"Articles\/L.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":34019,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Saul","title_en":"Saul","content_ro":"<h3>SAUL<\/h3>\n<p>Name meaning “asked,” with the implication being “asked <em>of God.”<\/em> A name with a usage extending far back into prebiblical times, it is attested in third-millennium texts from Tell Mardikh in Syria (ancient Ebla) and appears also to have been used in the second millennium in the city of Ugarit on the coast of Syria.<\/p>\n<p>In addition to the conventional spelling, it is sometimes spelled Shaul in older English versions. Apart from King Saul, the most famous bearer of the name, one other person called Saul (Shaul) is referred to in the OT, though little is known about him (<em>see<\/em> Shaul).<\/p>\n<p>1. Saul, king of Edom, is mentioned in an ancient list of kings who ruled Edom (in Transjordan) in pre-Israelite times (Gn 36:37-38; 1 Chr 1:48-49). He is described as coming from “Rehoboth on the river,” the “river” perhaps referring to a small river in the vicinity of Edom.<\/p>\n<li>2. Saul, the first king of Israel, is the best known and documented person with his name in the OT. He was a member of the tribe of Benjamin, one of the smallest of the Israelite tribes, whose territory was located just north of the Canaanite city of Jerusalem. His father was Kish, son of Abiel. Saul was born in Gibeah, a small town just a few miles north of Jerusalem in the hill country, and apart from his travels and military expeditions, Gibeah was Saul’s hometown for his entire life. He was a married man with one wife, Ahinoam, and five children—three sons and two daughters (1 Sm 14:49-50). His best-known son, Jonathan, later served him in a senior military capacity; three of Saul’s sons died with him in battle (31:2). Of his two daughters, the best-known is Michal, the younger daughter, who married David.<\/li>\n<p>Saul the Soldier<\/p>\n<p>Saul lived during a critical period in the history of the Israelite tribes. Though the dates cannot be determined with any certainty, he lived during the latter half of the 11th century <span>BC<\/span> and probably ruled as king from about 1020 to 1000 <span>BC<\/span>. Before he became king, the Israelite tribes were on the verge of military collapse. The Philistines, a powerful military people, had settled along the Mediterranean coast; they were well established on the coast and planned to move eastward and take control of Palestine as a whole. In order to do this, they first had to eliminate the Israelites, who were settled in the hill country on the west of the Jordan and also in Transjordan. The absence of any strong and permanent military authority among the Israelites meant that the Philistines were a grave military threat to the continued existence of Israel.<\/p>\n<p>The immediate crisis, which was to contribute to Saul’s rise to power, was a crushing defeat of the Israelite army by the Philistines at Ebenezer, in the vicinity of Aphek (1 Sm 4:1ff). The victory gave the Philistines more or less complete control of Israelite territories lying to the west of the Jordan; they attempted to maintain that control by establishing military garrisons throughout the country they had captured. Israel, weakened by the Philistine defeat, became vulnerable to enemies on other borders. The nation of Ammon, situated to the east of the Israelites’ land in Transjordan, attacked and laid siege to the town of Jabesh (11:1). Saul, summoning an army of volunteers, delivered the inhabitants of Jabesh and defeated the Ammonites (v 11). It was after this event that Saul became king. He had already been anointed a prince or leader among the people by Samuel; after his military success at Jabesh, he assumed the office formally at the sanctuary in Gilgal (v 15).<\/p>\n<p>The defeat of the Ammonites provided a significant boost to Israelite morale, but it did not change the military crisis and threat posed by the Philistines. Indeed, the location of Saul’s appointment to kingship is significant. Gilgal, in the Jordan Valley near Jericho, was chosen partly because the earlier shrine of Shiloh was held by the Philistines. Gilgal was in one of the few areas remaining outside Philistine control. Hence, if Saul’s kingship was to mean anything, he had to address the Philistine problem immediately; if he did not, there would be no Israel to rule.<\/p>\n<p>Saul acted promptly. Although the precise historical details are difficult to reconstruct, a general view of Saul’s anti-Philistine campaign is provided in the biblical text. He attacked garrisons at Gibeah and, later, at Micmash, about four miles (6.4 kilometers) northeast of Gibeah (1 Sm 13:16ff.). He had great success at Micmash, thanks in part to the military aid of his son Jonathan. The Philistines were routed and retreated from that portion of the hill country (14:15-23). Saul established his military base in his hometown, Gibeah, and built a citadel there.<\/p>\n<p>In the years that followed this initial campaign against the Philistines, Saul was constantly engaged in other military activities. He continued to fight with enemies on his eastern borders, particularly Ammon and Moab, to the east of the Dead Sea (1 Sm 14:47). He engaged in a major campaign on the southern border with the old enemies of the Israelites, the Amalekites (15:7); in this, too, he was successful. And throughout all this, he had to keep constant watch on Philistine activity on his western border.<\/p>\n<p>Saul was faced with an extraordinarily difficult task as military commander. His home ground had the advantage of being reasonably easy to protect, for most of it was mountainous countryside. But he was surrounded on all four sides by enemies who wanted his land, he had inadequate weapons (Philistines controlled the supply of iron), he had no large standing army, he had inadequate communication systems, and he did not have the wholehearted support of all the Israelites. For several years he was relatively successful against almost impossible odds, but eventually his military genius failed.<\/p>\n<p>The Philistines assembled a large army in the vicinity of Aphek (1 Sm 29:1), but instead of attacking Saul’s mountain territory directly, the army moved northward and then began to penetrate Israelite territory at a weak point in the vicinity of Jezreel (v 11). Saul attempted to gather an adequate military force to meet the Philistine threat, but he was unable to do so. With inadequate preparation and insufficient forces, he prepared for battle at Mt Gilboa (31:1); he should never have entered that battle, for it could not have been won. His sons were killed on the battlefield, and Saul, rather than fall into the hands of the Philistines, committed suicide (vv 2-6).<\/p>\n<p>From a military perspective, Saul had become king at a time of crisis; he had averted disaster and gained some respite for his country. But the battle in which he died was a disaster for Israel; the country he left behind after his death was in worse straits than it had been on his assumption of power.<\/p>\n<p>Saul the King<\/p>\n<p>If Saul had a difficult task as Israel’s military commander, he had an even more difficult task as Israel’s king. Before Saul’s time, there had been no king in Israel. The absence of any form of monarchy in Israel was largely a religious matter. God was the one and only true King of Israel; he was the one who reigned (Ex 15:18). Consequently, although there had been single, powerful rulers in Israel’s earlier history (Moses, Joshua, and certain judges), nobody had assumed the title or office of king, for it was thought that that would undermine the central position of God as King. However, provision had been made for the rise of kingship in the law (Dt 19:14-20); for more on kingship in Israel, <em>see<\/em> King, Kingship.<\/p>\n<p>It was sheer necessity that brought a monarchy to Israel, a necessity created by the constant military threat of the Philistines. A brief external threat could have been met by a temporary ruler, a judge. But a permanent and serious threat to Israel’s existence could not be thwarted by such temporary measures. If Israel was to survive as a nation (and it very nearly did not), it needed a central military government with recognized authority over the various tribes that constituted the nation of Israel. Thus the kingdom was established and Saul became the first king, facing incredible difficulties.<\/p>\n<p>Since there had never been a kingdom before in Israel, there were no precedents. What were his responsibilities? Primarily, they were military, for that was why the monarchy had been established. In this area, Saul was successful in the early years of his reign. But apart from his military responsibilities, King Saul faced an enormously difficult task. Given the nature of Hebrew theology, it was inevitable that many Israelites were opposed to the idea of kingship from the beginning. Indeed, Samuel, who was instrumental in the initial anointing of Saul and then in the formal coronation, appears to have been ambiguous in his attitudes toward the kingship (1 Sm 8:6), and later toward Saul himself (15:23). Furthermore, nobody had specified precisely what it was that the leader could do. He was a soldier—that much was clear. But did he also have religious responsibilities? Though the judgment of history upon Saul is often harsh, it is wise to recall the difficulty of the task he undertook. The military problems alone would have been more than sufficient for most great men; Saul also had to fashion the new role as king. In practical matters, Saul’s leadership was modest and praiseworthy. He sought none of the pomp and splendor of many Eastern kings. He had a small court, located in his military stronghold of Gibeah; there is little evidence that it was characterized by great wealth. For practical purposes, he had no standing army; he had only a few men close to him, in particular his son Jonathan and his general Abner. He also sought out young men of promise, like David. Saul’s court was rustic and feudal in comparison to the later splendor of David and Solomon. But Saul, as national leader, ran into difficulties with Samuel, who had appointed him and had influenced Israel prior to his kingship. While the responsibility for the trouble may lie primarily with Saul, Samuel himself does not appear to have been particularly supportive and helpful. On one occasion, Saul was roundly criticized and condemned by Samuel for assuming the priestly role of offering sacrifices in the absence of Samuel at Gilgal (1 Sm 13:8-15). The judgment was no doubt deserved, though one can perceive Saul’s dilemma. Did the king have a priestly role or not? This issue had not been made clear. Furthermore, Saul was at the time in a state of crisis; he had waited seven days for Samuel to turn up, and as each day passed, his army was reduced by deserters. So Saul acted. Perhaps he may not be excused, but his actions may easily be understood, and the incident itself is indicative of the difficulty of being a nation’s first king. Again, after the Amalekite war, Saul was subject to divine condemnation through Samuel.<\/p>\n<p>Saul was Israel’s first king but not its greatest. Yet no criticism of Saul’s leadership should be so harsh as to ignore his strengths. He faced extraordinary difficulties and for a while was successful. Few other men could have done what he did. Ultimately, he died in failure, yet his achievements might have been better remembered if he had been succeeded by any other leader than David. David’s gifts and competence were so magnificent and unusual that Saul’s modest achievements paled and only his failures are remembered.<\/p>\n<p>Saul the Man<\/p>\n<p>The writers of the OT have presented the story of Saul in a fascinating manner. While some OT characters remain shadowy figures, Saul stands out, with all his strengths and weaknesses, as a fully human figure. He was, in many ways, a great man, but there were also flaws in his personality that emerged more and more in the later years of his life. Born of a wealthy father, Saul is described as being tall and handsome (1 Sm 9:1-2). He was a man of immense courage, and part of his military success was rooted in his fearlessness. In his early years as king, Saul is portrayed as a man whose basic instincts were generous; he was kind and loyal to his friends and did not easily carry a grudge or hatred toward those who opposed him (11:12-13). But the real strength of Saul, in his early days, was in his relationship to God. For all his natural gifts and abilities, Saul became king as a result of divine appointment (10:1) and because the “Spirit of the Lord” came upon him (v 6).<\/p>\n<p>In his later life, a change came over Saul that transformed him into a tragic, pitiable person. The many incidents in Saul’s relationship to the young David provide insight into the transformation. Once a friend, then perceived as an enemy, David became the object of Saul’s unfounded suspicions and irrational jealousy. Saul’s periods of sanity became punctuated by periods of depression and paranoia. The paranoia affected his rational thought. Instead of warring against the invading Philistines, his energy was diverted toward the pursuit of David. The biblical writers describe this change as “the departure of the Spirit of God from Saul” and “an evil spirit from the <span>Lord<\/span> tormenting him” (1 Sm 16:14). Many modern writers have interpreted this as the onset of a form of mental illness, perhaps manic-depression, the alternation between active and lucid periods, followed by intense depression and paranoia. But there is a certain danger in psychoanalyzing the figures of ancient history, principally because the literary sources are rarely adequate to the task. The biblical writers indicated a theological basis for the change in Saul: the Spirit of God had departed from him. From a simple human perspective, the man was not equal to the enormity of the task before him. Overcome by its complexity, and lagging in the faith of the one who appointed him to such awesome responsibility, Saul ended his days in tragedy.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> David.<\/p>\n<li>3. Saul, mentioned in the NT, whose name was changed to Paul (Acts 13:9). <em>See<\/em> Paul, The Apostle.<\/li>","content_en":"<h3>SAUL<\/h3>\n<p>Name meaning “asked,” with the implication being “asked <em>of God.”<\/em> A name with a usage extending far back into prebiblical times, it is attested in third-millennium texts from Tell Mardikh in Syria (ancient Ebla) and appears also to have been used in the second millennium in the city of Ugarit on the coast of Syria.<\/p>\n<p>In addition to the conventional spelling, it is sometimes spelled Shaul in older English versions. Apart from King Saul, the most famous bearer of the name, one other person called Saul (Shaul) is referred to in the OT, though little is known about him (<em>see<\/em> Shaul).<\/p>\n<p>1. Saul, king of Edom, is mentioned in an ancient list of kings who ruled Edom (in Transjordan) in pre-Israelite times (Gn 36:37-38; 1 Chr 1:48-49). He is described as coming from “Rehoboth on the river,” the “river” perhaps referring to a small river in the vicinity of Edom.<\/p>\n<li>2. Saul, the first king of Israel, is the best known and documented person with his name in the OT. He was a member of the tribe of Benjamin, one of the smallest of the Israelite tribes, whose territory was located just north of the Canaanite city of Jerusalem. His father was Kish, son of Abiel. Saul was born in Gibeah, a small town just a few miles north of Jerusalem in the hill country, and apart from his travels and military expeditions, Gibeah was Saul’s hometown for his entire life. He was a married man with one wife, Ahinoam, and five children—three sons and two daughters (1 Sm 14:49-50). His best-known son, Jonathan, later served him in a senior military capacity; three of Saul’s sons died with him in battle (31:2). Of his two daughters, the best-known is Michal, the younger daughter, who married David.<\/li>\n<p>Saul the Soldier<\/p>\n<p>Saul lived during a critical period in the history of the Israelite tribes. Though the dates cannot be determined with any certainty, he lived during the latter half of the 11th century <span>BC<\/span> and probably ruled as king from about 1020 to 1000 <span>BC<\/span>. Before he became king, the Israelite tribes were on the verge of military collapse. The Philistines, a powerful military people, had settled along the Mediterranean coast; they were well established on the coast and planned to move eastward and take control of Palestine as a whole. In order to do this, they first had to eliminate the Israelites, who were settled in the hill country on the west of the Jordan and also in Transjordan. The absence of any strong and permanent military authority among the Israelites meant that the Philistines were a grave military threat to the continued existence of Israel.<\/p>\n<p>The immediate crisis, which was to contribute to Saul’s rise to power, was a crushing defeat of the Israelite army by the Philistines at Ebenezer, in the vicinity of Aphek (1 Sm 4:1ff). The victory gave the Philistines more or less complete control of Israelite territories lying to the west of the Jordan; they attempted to maintain that control by establishing military garrisons throughout the country they had captured. Israel, weakened by the Philistine defeat, became vulnerable to enemies on other borders. The nation of Ammon, situated to the east of the Israelites’ land in Transjordan, attacked and laid siege to the town of Jabesh (11:1). Saul, summoning an army of volunteers, delivered the inhabitants of Jabesh and defeated the Ammonites (v 11). It was after this event that Saul became king. He had already been anointed a prince or leader among the people by Samuel; after his military success at Jabesh, he assumed the office formally at the sanctuary in Gilgal (v 15).<\/p>\n<p>The defeat of the Ammonites provided a significant boost to Israelite morale, but it did not change the military crisis and threat posed by the Philistines. Indeed, the location of Saul’s appointment to kingship is significant. Gilgal, in the Jordan Valley near Jericho, was chosen partly because the earlier shrine of Shiloh was held by the Philistines. Gilgal was in one of the few areas remaining outside Philistine control. Hence, if Saul’s kingship was to mean anything, he had to address the Philistine problem immediately; if he did not, there would be no Israel to rule.<\/p>\n<p>Saul acted promptly. Although the precise historical details are difficult to reconstruct, a general view of Saul’s anti-Philistine campaign is provided in the biblical text. He attacked garrisons at Gibeah and, later, at Micmash, about four miles (6.4 kilometers) northeast of Gibeah (1 Sm 13:16ff.). He had great success at Micmash, thanks in part to the military aid of his son Jonathan. The Philistines were routed and retreated from that portion of the hill country (14:15-23). Saul established his military base in his hometown, Gibeah, and built a citadel there.<\/p>\n<p>In the years that followed this initial campaign against the Philistines, Saul was constantly engaged in other military activities. He continued to fight with enemies on his eastern borders, particularly Ammon and Moab, to the east of the Dead Sea (1 Sm 14:47). He engaged in a major campaign on the southern border with the old enemies of the Israelites, the Amalekites (15:7); in this, too, he was successful. And throughout all this, he had to keep constant watch on Philistine activity on his western border.<\/p>\n<p>Saul was faced with an extraordinarily difficult task as military commander. His home ground had the advantage of being reasonably easy to protect, for most of it was mountainous countryside. But he was surrounded on all four sides by enemies who wanted his land, he had inadequate weapons (Philistines controlled the supply of iron), he had no large standing army, he had inadequate communication systems, and he did not have the wholehearted support of all the Israelites. For several years he was relatively successful against almost impossible odds, but eventually his military genius failed.<\/p>\n<p>The Philistines assembled a large army in the vicinity of Aphek (1 Sm 29:1), but instead of attacking Saul’s mountain territory directly, the army moved northward and then began to penetrate Israelite territory at a weak point in the vicinity of Jezreel (v 11). Saul attempted to gather an adequate military force to meet the Philistine threat, but he was unable to do so. With inadequate preparation and insufficient forces, he prepared for battle at Mt Gilboa (31:1); he should never have entered that battle, for it could not have been won. His sons were killed on the battlefield, and Saul, rather than fall into the hands of the Philistines, committed suicide (vv 2-6).<\/p>\n<p>From a military perspective, Saul had become king at a time of crisis; he had averted disaster and gained some respite for his country. But the battle in which he died was a disaster for Israel; the country he left behind after his death was in worse straits than it had been on his assumption of power.<\/p>\n<p>Saul the King<\/p>\n<p>If Saul had a difficult task as Israel’s military commander, he had an even more difficult task as Israel’s king. Before Saul’s time, there had been no king in Israel. The absence of any form of monarchy in Israel was largely a religious matter. God was the one and only true King of Israel; he was the one who reigned (Ex 15:18). Consequently, although there had been single, powerful rulers in Israel’s earlier history (Moses, Joshua, and certain judges), nobody had assumed the title or office of king, for it was thought that that would undermine the central position of God as King. However, provision had been made for the rise of kingship in the law (Dt 19:14-20); for more on kingship in Israel, <em>see<\/em> King, Kingship.<\/p>\n<p>It was sheer necessity that brought a monarchy to Israel, a necessity created by the constant military threat of the Philistines. A brief external threat could have been met by a temporary ruler, a judge. But a permanent and serious threat to Israel’s existence could not be thwarted by such temporary measures. If Israel was to survive as a nation (and it very nearly did not), it needed a central military government with recognized authority over the various tribes that constituted the nation of Israel. Thus the kingdom was established and Saul became the first king, facing incredible difficulties.<\/p>\n<p>Since there had never been a kingdom before in Israel, there were no precedents. What were his responsibilities? Primarily, they were military, for that was why the monarchy had been established. In this area, Saul was successful in the early years of his reign. But apart from his military responsibilities, King Saul faced an enormously difficult task. Given the nature of Hebrew theology, it was inevitable that many Israelites were opposed to the idea of kingship from the beginning. Indeed, Samuel, who was instrumental in the initial anointing of Saul and then in the formal coronation, appears to have been ambiguous in his attitudes toward the kingship (1 Sm 8:6), and later toward Saul himself (15:23). Furthermore, nobody had specified precisely what it was that the leader could do. He was a soldier—that much was clear. But did he also have religious responsibilities? Though the judgment of history upon Saul is often harsh, it is wise to recall the difficulty of the task he undertook. The military problems alone would have been more than sufficient for most great men; Saul also had to fashion the new role as king. In practical matters, Saul’s leadership was modest and praiseworthy. He sought none of the pomp and splendor of many Eastern kings. He had a small court, located in his military stronghold of Gibeah; there is little evidence that it was characterized by great wealth. For practical purposes, he had no standing army; he had only a few men close to him, in particular his son Jonathan and his general Abner. He also sought out young men of promise, like David. Saul’s court was rustic and feudal in comparison to the later splendor of David and Solomon. But Saul, as national leader, ran into difficulties with Samuel, who had appointed him and had influenced Israel prior to his kingship. While the responsibility for the trouble may lie primarily with Saul, Samuel himself does not appear to have been particularly supportive and helpful. On one occasion, Saul was roundly criticized and condemned by Samuel for assuming the priestly role of offering sacrifices in the absence of Samuel at Gilgal (1 Sm 13:8-15). The judgment was no doubt deserved, though one can perceive Saul’s dilemma. Did the king have a priestly role or not? This issue had not been made clear. Furthermore, Saul was at the time in a state of crisis; he had waited seven days for Samuel to turn up, and as each day passed, his army was reduced by deserters. So Saul acted. Perhaps he may not be excused, but his actions may easily be understood, and the incident itself is indicative of the difficulty of being a nation’s first king. Again, after the Amalekite war, Saul was subject to divine condemnation through Samuel.<\/p>\n<p>Saul was Israel’s first king but not its greatest. Yet no criticism of Saul’s leadership should be so harsh as to ignore his strengths. He faced extraordinary difficulties and for a while was successful. Few other men could have done what he did. Ultimately, he died in failure, yet his achievements might have been better remembered if he had been succeeded by any other leader than David. David’s gifts and competence were so magnificent and unusual that Saul’s modest achievements paled and only his failures are remembered.<\/p>\n<p>Saul the Man<\/p>\n<p>The writers of the OT have presented the story of Saul in a fascinating manner. While some OT characters remain shadowy figures, Saul stands out, with all his strengths and weaknesses, as a fully human figure. He was, in many ways, a great man, but there were also flaws in his personality that emerged more and more in the later years of his life. Born of a wealthy father, Saul is described as being tall and handsome (1 Sm 9:1-2). He was a man of immense courage, and part of his military success was rooted in his fearlessness. In his early years as king, Saul is portrayed as a man whose basic instincts were generous; he was kind and loyal to his friends and did not easily carry a grudge or hatred toward those who opposed him (11:12-13). But the real strength of Saul, in his early days, was in his relationship to God. For all his natural gifts and abilities, Saul became king as a result of divine appointment (10:1) and because the “Spirit of the Lord” came upon him (v 6).<\/p>\n<p>In his later life, a change came over Saul that transformed him into a tragic, pitiable person. The many incidents in Saul’s relationship to the young David provide insight into the transformation. Once a friend, then perceived as an enemy, David became the object of Saul’s unfounded suspicions and irrational jealousy. Saul’s periods of sanity became punctuated by periods of depression and paranoia. The paranoia affected his rational thought. Instead of warring against the invading Philistines, his energy was diverted toward the pursuit of David. The biblical writers describe this change as “the departure of the Spirit of God from Saul” and “an evil spirit from the <span>Lord<\/span> tormenting him” (1 Sm 16:14). Many modern writers have interpreted this as the onset of a form of mental illness, perhaps manic-depression, the alternation between active and lucid periods, followed by intense depression and paranoia. But there is a certain danger in psychoanalyzing the figures of ancient history, principally because the literary sources are rarely adequate to the task. The biblical writers indicated a theological basis for the change in Saul: the Spirit of God had departed from him. From a simple human perspective, the man was not equal to the enormity of the task before him. Overcome by its complexity, and lagging in the faith of the one who appointed him to such awesome responsibility, Saul ended his days in tragedy.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> David.<\/p>\n<li>3. Saul, mentioned in the NT, whose name was changed to Paul (Acts 13:9). <em>See<\/em> Paul, The Apostle.<\/li>","summary_ro":"SAUL Name meaning “asked,” with the implication being “asked of God.” A name with a usage extending far back into prebiblical times, it is attested in third-millennium texts from Tell Mardikh in Syria (ancient Ebla) and appears also to have been used in the second millennium in the city of Ugarit on the coast of Syria. In addition to the conventional spelling, it is sometimes spelled Shaul in older English versions. Apart from King Saul, the most famous bearer of the name, one other person ca...","summary_en":"SAUL Name meaning “asked,” with the implication being “asked of God.” A name with a usage extending far back into prebiblical times, it is attested in third-millennium texts from Tell Mardikh in Syria (ancient Ebla) and appears also to have been used in the second millennium in the city of Ugarit on the coast of Syria. In addition to the conventional spelling, it is sometimes spelled Shaul in older English versions. Apart from King Saul, the most famous bearer of the name, one other person ca...","source":"Articles\/S.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"15":[{"id":7813,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Courts and Trials","title_en":"Courts and Trials","content_ro":"<h3>COURTS AND TRIALS<\/h3>\n<p>Legal disputes were as much a part of life in Bible times as they are today. The ways that courts operated and trials were conducted, however, were quite different. Unless those customs are understood, modern readers of the Bible, thinking of contemporary legal procedures, may misunderstand the judicial accounts contained in the Bible.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"OldTestamentLegalProcedures\">Old Testament Legal Procedures<\/p>\n<h5>Exodus to Deuteronomy<\/h5>\n<p>The books of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy contain most of the law in the OT, plus much other information about courts and legal procedures. Those books reveal how trials were conducted before Israel had kings. Certain changes in the legal system occurring after the establishment of the monarchy (c. 1000 <span>BC<\/span>) are described in other OT books.<\/p>\n<p>The OT depicts God as supreme lawgiver and judge, with Moses and later the kings as God’s deputies. But Moses did not create the law or decide the most difficult cases, which were referred directly to God for the decision (see Lv 24:10-23; Nm 15:32-36; 27:1-11). When disputes arose between Israel’s leaders, God intervened, judging the guilty party directly (Nm 16–17). Thus law is seen in the OT as a divine revelation, not a human creation, as it was regarded in ancient Babylon.<\/p>\n<p>Usually it was not necessary to seek God’s direct guidance; precedent was sufficient. Elders were appointed in Israel to serve as judges of all but the most serious cases, relieving Moses of the burden of judging all the people himself (Ex 18:13-27). Deuteronomy 16:18 specifies that “judges” be appointed in every town; in other passages those responsible for punishing criminals are called “the elders” (Dt 19:12). The local judges were obviously nonprofessionals selected from the most respected members of each tribe or village. Difficult cases were referred to a central court of justice to be decided by the priests and, in the period of the judges, by the civil and military leader (17:8-12). Deborah and Samuel were both examples of such “judges of Israel.” Samuel even conducted a circuit court in a number of different centers (Jgs 4:4-5; 1 Sm 7:15-17).<\/p>\n<p>In Israel, as in other ancient societies, private prosecution was the norm. An individual with a grievance had to bring the case before the court. Only in situations of idolatry or other serious religious crimes were public prosecutions instituted (Dt 13; 17:2-7). Even in murder cases prosecution was left in the hands of the victim’s relatives. One relative, called the “avenger of blood,” had to pursue the alleged murderer to the nearest city of refuge, where a trial was held (Nm 35:10-34; Dt 19:1-13).<\/p>\n<p>Trials were held in a public place, such as the open space near a city gate (Dt 21:19). During the trial, the judges were seated, but the parties to the dispute and the witnesses stood. At least two witnesses were required to convict (19:15). They had to be eyewitnesses who had caught the accused red-handed. Where such clear-cut evidence was lacking (for example in disputes over ownership), the litigants could take an oath to demonstrate their honesty (Ex 22:8-13). If a husband suspected his wife of infidelity but had no proof, he could require her to undergo an ordeal of drinking “bitter water” to demonstrate her innocence (Nm 5:6-31).<\/p>\n<p>When all the evidence had been presented, the judges gave their verdict. Those who had brought the accusation had the duty of enforcing the court’s sentence. Thus, a witness of idolatry had to throw the first stone at the guilty person’s execution (Dt 17:7). Certain administrative officials may have had the job of writing down the court’s decision and seeing that it was enforced (16:18). At times it may have been difficult for people to uphold their legal rights if their opponent came from a strong and wealthy family.<\/p>\n<h5>Other Old Testament Books<\/h5>\n<p>When Israel became a kingdom, certain changes were made in its judicial system. Most obviously, the king became the supreme judge who dealt with the most difficult cases. Solomon demonstrated his great wisdom in adjudicating between two women who both claimed to be the mother of a particular baby (1 Kgs 3:16-28). Kings, who had all the power necessary to enforce their decisions, were expected to use it to help the weak members of society, such as orphans and widows (Ps 72:12).<\/p>\n<p>In practice, however, Israel’s kings did not always live up to that ideal. Absalom sowed the seeds of a revolution by telling those who came to the royal court that his father, King David, did not administer justice well (2 Sm 15:1-6). One notable trial in the OT illustrates how royal judicial powers could be completely misused by unscrupulous rulers. Naboth was put to death on a trumped-up charge of blasphemy so that King Ahab could extend his palace grounds by taking over Naboth’s vineyard. Though the charge was false, the trial followed correct legal procedures. Two scoundrels were found to give evidence that they had heard Naboth curse God and the king (1 Kgs 21:10); one witness would have been insufficient to secure conviction. Naboth was tried by the elders of the city in a public place. After being convicted he was taken outside the city and executed (vv 11-13). In other trials the prophet Jeremiah was charged with subversive activities more than once (Jer 26; 37:11–38:28).<\/p>\n<p>The prophets sometimes pictured God as taking Israel to court to answer for the nation’s misdeeds. God would list Israel’s sins and invite the people to explain their behavior. Sometimes heaven and earth, or the mountains, were called to be witnesses confirming the truth of God’s accusations. Finally judgment was pronounced (e.g., Is 1:2-26; 43; Jer 2:4-37; Mi 6).<\/p>\n<p>A theme running through the book of Job is Job’s request for a trial. Job thought that if he were given a fair hearing, his innocence would be demonstrated and God would stop causing him so much suffering (cf. Jb 13:23). Eventually God heeded Job’s request and a long cross-examination began, finally reducing Job to silence (42:1-6).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"NewTestamentLegalProcedures\">New Testament Legal Procedures<\/p>\n<p>Numerous trials occur in the NT. Jesus was tried by the Sanhedrin (the supreme Jewish religious court) and also by the Roman governor. The book of Acts mentions various court actions designed to stop the spread of Christianity. Luke, the author of Acts, presents a vivid and accurate description of how courts operated in provinces of the Roman Empire. Acts reaches a climax with Paul traveling to Rome to have his case heard by the Roman emperor Nero. Legal procedures in Roman courts were governed by complicated rules broadly resembling modern judicial technicalities. Serious crime was handled by public prosecutors, and trials were usually conducted by one judge. There were lawyers for the prosecution and lawyers for the defense.<\/p>\n<p>In Judea and other provinces of the empire, the local legal system was not suppressed. Traditional Jewish courts were allowed to try minor and religious offenses (Acts 4; 6:12–7:60) but were not permitted to handle serious cases where the death penalty might be involved. For that reason, when the Sanhedrin found Jesus guilty of blasphemy for claiming to be the Son of God and the Messiah, they had to transfer the case to Pontius Pilate, the Roman procurator (governor) of Judea. The Jews considered blasphemy worthy of death, but as they admitted to Pilate, “It is not lawful for us to put any man to death” (Jn 18:31, <span>rsv<\/span>). The rule throughout the Roman Empire was that only governors could pronounce the death sentence. Execution of the apostle James by Jewish authorities, mentioned by the Jewish historian Josephus, took place during an interregnum between two governors. The stoning of Stephen was done in haste, without the consent of Pilate (Acts 7).<\/p>\n<h5>The Trials of Jesus<\/h5>\n<p>Jesus was first tried by the Sanhedrin, presided over by the high priest. By later standards of Jewish legal practice, that trial was somewhat irregular. For example, it seems to have been held both at night and on the eve of a festival. Criminal trials were not supposed to take place at such times. It is uncertain that those rules existed in Jesus’ day, but even if they did, little can be made of that technicality since the Jewish court had no power to carry out its sentence.<\/p>\n<p>After conviction by the Sanhedrin, Jesus was taken to Pilate, whose Jerusalem residence, the old royal palace called the Praetorium, was on the western side of the city near the modern Jaffa Gate. The Romans were unlikely to sentence anyone to death in a religious matter, so the Jewish authorities presented their charges against Jesus in political language: he violated the law by “forbidding us to give tribute to Caesar, and saying that he himself is Christ a king” (Lk 23:2, <span>rsv<\/span>). Perhaps sensing something false about those charges (they were actually religious rather than political), Pilate sent Jesus to Herod, the ruler of Galilee, who was in Jerusalem at the time. Pilate, who did not have to send Galileans to Herod for trial, probably saw this as a means of avoiding an uncomfortable decision. Herod, however, pronounced Jesus innocent and returned him to Pilate.<\/p>\n<p>Pilate offered to give Jesus a disciplinary beating traditionally given to troublemakers as a warning to behave themselves in the future (Lk 23:16). But that did not satisfy Jesus’ accusers, who pressed the charge of insurrection, threatening to report Pilate to the emperor if he did not convict Jesus. Pilate, who had not been a very successful governor, feared official complaints about his administration, so the threat worked. He sentenced Jesus to be crucified on the charge of being king of the Jews. The heavy scourging that preceded the Crucifixion was never a punishment by itself but was a frequent accompaniment to other punishments. Another feature of Roman legal practice illustrated in the Gospels was the division of Jesus’ clothes among the soldiers; executioners were allowed to keep such personal effects as a fringe benefit.<\/p>\n<h5>The Trials of the Apostle Paul<\/h5>\n<p>Paul’s trials recorded in the book of Acts also reflect the division between Jewish and Roman authority in legal matters. When arrested, Paul had a preliminary hearing before the Sanhedrin (Acts 23). He was then transferred to the governor for a formal trial in Caesarea, the governor’s usual headquarters. There he was tried before Felix, who adjourned the case for two years until a new governor could be appointed. Luke reported that Felix (another unpopular governor) did that to please the Jews, but it was quite common for governors to leave cases to be dealt with by their successors.<\/p>\n<p>When Festus, the new governor, arrived, he suggested that Paul be tried in Jerusalem. Paul, disliking the prospect of being tried there, exercised his right as a Roman citizen to be tried in Rome before the emperor (Acts 25:1-20). The rest of the book of Acts tells how Paul eventually reached Rome and had to wait another two years before his case was heard. No details of Paul’s trial in Rome are known, but Nero, who was emperor when Paul arrived, tried very few cases himself. He appointed judges to handle appeals cases such as Paul’s, so it is unlikely that Paul was actually tried by Nero.<\/p>\n<p>The right of appeal to the emperor was not the only legal right possessed by Roman citizens. They were also protected from being beaten without a trial, a right asserted by Paul in Philippi and Jerusalem (Acts 16:37; 22:24-29).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Avenger of Blood; Cities of Refuge; Civil Law and Justice; Criminal Law and Punishment; Sanhedrin.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>COURTS AND TRIALS<\/h3>\n<p>Legal disputes were as much a part of life in Bible times as they are today. The ways that courts operated and trials were conducted, however, were quite different. Unless those customs are understood, modern readers of the Bible, thinking of contemporary legal procedures, may misunderstand the judicial accounts contained in the Bible.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"OldTestamentLegalProcedures\">Old Testament Legal Procedures<\/p>\n<h5>Exodus to Deuteronomy<\/h5>\n<p>The books of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy contain most of the law in the OT, plus much other information about courts and legal procedures. Those books reveal how trials were conducted before Israel had kings. Certain changes in the legal system occurring after the establishment of the monarchy (c. 1000 <span>BC<\/span>) are described in other OT books.<\/p>\n<p>The OT depicts God as supreme lawgiver and judge, with Moses and later the kings as God’s deputies. But Moses did not create the law or decide the most difficult cases, which were referred directly to God for the decision (see Lv 24:10-23; Nm 15:32-36; 27:1-11). When disputes arose between Israel’s leaders, God intervened, judging the guilty party directly (Nm 16–17). Thus law is seen in the OT as a divine revelation, not a human creation, as it was regarded in ancient Babylon.<\/p>\n<p>Usually it was not necessary to seek God’s direct guidance; precedent was sufficient. Elders were appointed in Israel to serve as judges of all but the most serious cases, relieving Moses of the burden of judging all the people himself (Ex 18:13-27). Deuteronomy 16:18 specifies that “judges” be appointed in every town; in other passages those responsible for punishing criminals are called “the elders” (Dt 19:12). The local judges were obviously nonprofessionals selected from the most respected members of each tribe or village. Difficult cases were referred to a central court of justice to be decided by the priests and, in the period of the judges, by the civil and military leader (17:8-12). Deborah and Samuel were both examples of such “judges of Israel.” Samuel even conducted a circuit court in a number of different centers (Jgs 4:4-5; 1 Sm 7:15-17).<\/p>\n<p>In Israel, as in other ancient societies, private prosecution was the norm. An individual with a grievance had to bring the case before the court. Only in situations of idolatry or other serious religious crimes were public prosecutions instituted (Dt 13; 17:2-7). Even in murder cases prosecution was left in the hands of the victim’s relatives. One relative, called the “avenger of blood,” had to pursue the alleged murderer to the nearest city of refuge, where a trial was held (Nm 35:10-34; Dt 19:1-13).<\/p>\n<p>Trials were held in a public place, such as the open space near a city gate (Dt 21:19). During the trial, the judges were seated, but the parties to the dispute and the witnesses stood. At least two witnesses were required to convict (19:15). They had to be eyewitnesses who had caught the accused red-handed. Where such clear-cut evidence was lacking (for example in disputes over ownership), the litigants could take an oath to demonstrate their honesty (Ex 22:8-13). If a husband suspected his wife of infidelity but had no proof, he could require her to undergo an ordeal of drinking “bitter water” to demonstrate her innocence (Nm 5:6-31).<\/p>\n<p>When all the evidence had been presented, the judges gave their verdict. Those who had brought the accusation had the duty of enforcing the court’s sentence. Thus, a witness of idolatry had to throw the first stone at the guilty person’s execution (Dt 17:7). Certain administrative officials may have had the job of writing down the court’s decision and seeing that it was enforced (16:18). At times it may have been difficult for people to uphold their legal rights if their opponent came from a strong and wealthy family.<\/p>\n<h5>Other Old Testament Books<\/h5>\n<p>When Israel became a kingdom, certain changes were made in its judicial system. Most obviously, the king became the supreme judge who dealt with the most difficult cases. Solomon demonstrated his great wisdom in adjudicating between two women who both claimed to be the mother of a particular baby (1 Kgs 3:16-28). Kings, who had all the power necessary to enforce their decisions, were expected to use it to help the weak members of society, such as orphans and widows (Ps 72:12).<\/p>\n<p>In practice, however, Israel’s kings did not always live up to that ideal. Absalom sowed the seeds of a revolution by telling those who came to the royal court that his father, King David, did not administer justice well (2 Sm 15:1-6). One notable trial in the OT illustrates how royal judicial powers could be completely misused by unscrupulous rulers. Naboth was put to death on a trumped-up charge of blasphemy so that King Ahab could extend his palace grounds by taking over Naboth’s vineyard. Though the charge was false, the trial followed correct legal procedures. Two scoundrels were found to give evidence that they had heard Naboth curse God and the king (1 Kgs 21:10); one witness would have been insufficient to secure conviction. Naboth was tried by the elders of the city in a public place. After being convicted he was taken outside the city and executed (vv 11-13). In other trials the prophet Jeremiah was charged with subversive activities more than once (Jer 26; 37:11–38:28).<\/p>\n<p>The prophets sometimes pictured God as taking Israel to court to answer for the nation’s misdeeds. God would list Israel’s sins and invite the people to explain their behavior. Sometimes heaven and earth, or the mountains, were called to be witnesses confirming the truth of God’s accusations. Finally judgment was pronounced (e.g., Is 1:2-26; 43; Jer 2:4-37; Mi 6).<\/p>\n<p>A theme running through the book of Job is Job’s request for a trial. Job thought that if he were given a fair hearing, his innocence would be demonstrated and God would stop causing him so much suffering (cf. Jb 13:23). Eventually God heeded Job’s request and a long cross-examination began, finally reducing Job to silence (42:1-6).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"NewTestamentLegalProcedures\">New Testament Legal Procedures<\/p>\n<p>Numerous trials occur in the NT. Jesus was tried by the Sanhedrin (the supreme Jewish religious court) and also by the Roman governor. The book of Acts mentions various court actions designed to stop the spread of Christianity. Luke, the author of Acts, presents a vivid and accurate description of how courts operated in provinces of the Roman Empire. Acts reaches a climax with Paul traveling to Rome to have his case heard by the Roman emperor Nero. Legal procedures in Roman courts were governed by complicated rules broadly resembling modern judicial technicalities. Serious crime was handled by public prosecutors, and trials were usually conducted by one judge. There were lawyers for the prosecution and lawyers for the defense.<\/p>\n<p>In Judea and other provinces of the empire, the local legal system was not suppressed. Traditional Jewish courts were allowed to try minor and religious offenses (Acts 4; 6:12–7:60) but were not permitted to handle serious cases where the death penalty might be involved. For that reason, when the Sanhedrin found Jesus guilty of blasphemy for claiming to be the Son of God and the Messiah, they had to transfer the case to Pontius Pilate, the Roman procurator (governor) of Judea. The Jews considered blasphemy worthy of death, but as they admitted to Pilate, “It is not lawful for us to put any man to death” (Jn 18:31, <span>rsv<\/span>). The rule throughout the Roman Empire was that only governors could pronounce the death sentence. Execution of the apostle James by Jewish authorities, mentioned by the Jewish historian Josephus, took place during an interregnum between two governors. The stoning of Stephen was done in haste, without the consent of Pilate (Acts 7).<\/p>\n<h5>The Trials of Jesus<\/h5>\n<p>Jesus was first tried by the Sanhedrin, presided over by the high priest. By later standards of Jewish legal practice, that trial was somewhat irregular. For example, it seems to have been held both at night and on the eve of a festival. Criminal trials were not supposed to take place at such times. It is uncertain that those rules existed in Jesus’ day, but even if they did, little can be made of that technicality since the Jewish court had no power to carry out its sentence.<\/p>\n<p>After conviction by the Sanhedrin, Jesus was taken to Pilate, whose Jerusalem residence, the old royal palace called the Praetorium, was on the western side of the city near the modern Jaffa Gate. The Romans were unlikely to sentence anyone to death in a religious matter, so the Jewish authorities presented their charges against Jesus in political language: he violated the law by “forbidding us to give tribute to Caesar, and saying that he himself is Christ a king” (Lk 23:2, <span>rsv<\/span>). Perhaps sensing something false about those charges (they were actually religious rather than political), Pilate sent Jesus to Herod, the ruler of Galilee, who was in Jerusalem at the time. Pilate, who did not have to send Galileans to Herod for trial, probably saw this as a means of avoiding an uncomfortable decision. Herod, however, pronounced Jesus innocent and returned him to Pilate.<\/p>\n<p>Pilate offered to give Jesus a disciplinary beating traditionally given to troublemakers as a warning to behave themselves in the future (Lk 23:16). But that did not satisfy Jesus’ accusers, who pressed the charge of insurrection, threatening to report Pilate to the emperor if he did not convict Jesus. Pilate, who had not been a very successful governor, feared official complaints about his administration, so the threat worked. He sentenced Jesus to be crucified on the charge of being king of the Jews. The heavy scourging that preceded the Crucifixion was never a punishment by itself but was a frequent accompaniment to other punishments. Another feature of Roman legal practice illustrated in the Gospels was the division of Jesus’ clothes among the soldiers; executioners were allowed to keep such personal effects as a fringe benefit.<\/p>\n<h5>The Trials of the Apostle Paul<\/h5>\n<p>Paul’s trials recorded in the book of Acts also reflect the division between Jewish and Roman authority in legal matters. When arrested, Paul had a preliminary hearing before the Sanhedrin (Acts 23). He was then transferred to the governor for a formal trial in Caesarea, the governor’s usual headquarters. There he was tried before Felix, who adjourned the case for two years until a new governor could be appointed. Luke reported that Felix (another unpopular governor) did that to please the Jews, but it was quite common for governors to leave cases to be dealt with by their successors.<\/p>\n<p>When Festus, the new governor, arrived, he suggested that Paul be tried in Jerusalem. Paul, disliking the prospect of being tried there, exercised his right as a Roman citizen to be tried in Rome before the emperor (Acts 25:1-20). The rest of the book of Acts tells how Paul eventually reached Rome and had to wait another two years before his case was heard. No details of Paul’s trial in Rome are known, but Nero, who was emperor when Paul arrived, tried very few cases himself. He appointed judges to handle appeals cases such as Paul’s, so it is unlikely that Paul was actually tried by Nero.<\/p>\n<p>The right of appeal to the emperor was not the only legal right possessed by Roman citizens. They were also protected from being beaten without a trial, a right asserted by Paul in Philippi and Jerusalem (Acts 16:37; 22:24-29).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Avenger of Blood; Cities of Refuge; Civil Law and Justice; Criminal Law and Punishment; Sanhedrin.<\/p>","summary_ro":"COURTS AND TRIALS Legal disputes were as much a part of life in Bible times as they are today. The ways that courts operated and trials were conducted, however, were quite different. Unless those customs are understood, modern readers of the Bible, thinking of contemporary legal procedures, may misunderstand the judicial accounts contained in the Bible. Old Testament Legal Procedures Exodus to Deuteronomy The books of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy contain most of the law in the ...","summary_en":"COURTS AND TRIALS Legal disputes were as much a part of life in Bible times as they are today. The ways that courts operated and trials were conducted, however, were quite different. Unless those customs are understood, modern readers of the Bible, thinking of contemporary legal procedures, may misunderstand the judicial accounts contained in the Bible. Old Testament Legal Procedures Exodus to Deuteronomy The books of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy contain most of the law in the ...","source":"Articles\/C.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":8061,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Law and Punishment*, Criminal","title_en":"Law and Punishment*, Criminal","content_ro":"<h3>CRIMINAL LAW AND PUNISHMENT*<\/h3>\n<p>The science or philosophy of law is called jurisprudence. Although modern jurisprudence bears little resemblance to biblical concepts of law, the Scriptures have played a definite role in its development. Today, criminal law is clearly distinguished from civil law; in Bible times the distinction was much less clear. Today, offenses against civil law (torts) are distinguished from minor crimes (misdemeanors) as well as from serious crimes (felonies). In the Bible, “crimes” included all punishable offenses, even religious offenses such as idolatry (worshiping a false god) or blasphemy (speaking or behaving with contempt toward God).<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Near Eastern Context<\/p>\n<p>• Hebrew Criminal Law<\/p>\n<p>• Punishment<\/p>\n<p>• Conclusion<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"NearEasternContext\">Near Eastern Context<\/p>\n<p>In ancient societies as in modern ones, laws were considered necessary to regulate individual behavior for the good of the community, state, or nation. Today laws are thought of as made by people for their own protection. In contrast, all ancient Near Eastern law codes were considered to have come directly from some divine source. Hebrew law, though distinct, followed the general pattern of Near Eastern law codes, as is known from those that have survived—such as the Code of Hammurabi and Assyrian and Hittite laws.<\/p>\n<p>Conclusions about the “origin” of ancient laws should be made cautiously. Although evidence indicates that Hammurabi based his legislation partially on earlier Sumerian codes, he declared that his code had been received from Shamash, god of justice. That declaration must have been intended to convey primarily that his code had the express sanction of Shamash, since at least some people would recognize it as a compilation based largely on earlier laws. Similarly, the clear biblical statements about Moses receiving the law on Mt Sinai (Ex 19–24) do not rule out the possibility that parts of the Decalogue (the Ten Commandments) may have existed in earlier codes. Possibly the Mosaic legislation included some social rules adapted from the period of Israel’s sojourn in Egypt.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"HebrewCriminalLaw\">Hebrew Criminal Law<\/p>\n<h5>Laws Governing Offenses against God<\/h5>\n<p>Since Hebrew law was designed for a group of people for whom religion was of paramount importance and whose faith was endangered by the influence of the beliefs of their pagan neighbors, it is not surprising that so much of Hebrew law dealt with crimes committed against God. The prohibition against worshiping idols is stated and repeated in the Torah, or Pentateuch (first five books of the Bible): “You shall not make for yourself a graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them or serve them” (Ex 20:4-5, <span>rsv<\/span>). Sacrifice of infants, practiced in some pagan religions, was specifically prohibited in Israel. The penalty for that crime, as for the other forms of murder, was stoning to death (Lv 20:2).<\/p>\n<p>In the book of Leviticus, death by stoning was recorded as the appropriate punishment for blaspheming the name of God (Lv 24:11-16). False prophecy was also a criminal offense; that accusation could apply to a person making a prediction in the name of a god other than the Lord, or implying falsely that one’s prophecy resulted from a communication with God. Jeremiah, whose prophecy of Nebuchadnezzar’s victory over the southern kingdom of Judah was for a time considered to be false, was almost lynched by a mob (Jer 26:8-9).<\/p>\n<p>The idea of keeping the seventh day holy stemmed from the celebration of God’s work in creating the universe in six days and resting on the seventh. Keeping the Sabbath required cessation of manual work for the entire family, including farm animals (Ex 16:23; 20:8-11). People were also required to meet together on the Sabbath for worship, which at a later period in Hebrew history included the reading of Scripture, prayer, and preaching. Anyone breaking the Sabbath could be sentenced to death, as happened to a man caught gathering firewood on the Sabbath (Nm 15:32-36).<\/p>\n<p>Any type of premeditated crime was considered an offense against God, the giver of all law; hence, it was punishable by death (Nm 15:30-31). Hebrew law also insisted on donation of the firstfruits of harvest to the Lord without delay. That requirement was sometimes carried over to include a first child, whose life was dedicated to service in the temple (Ex 22:29-30; Dt 15:19).<\/p>\n<h5>Personal Injury<\/h5>\n<p>Murder, an offense against “God’s image,” was one of many crimes punishable by death in OT times. The book of Exodus stated unequivocally that “anyone who hits a person hard enough to cause death must be put to death” (Ex 21:12, <span>nlt<\/span>). A murderer who killed by using a weapon such as a stone, a piece of wood, or iron could be killed in revenge by a relative of the deceased. If the original death happened accidentally, the community would sometimes help to conceal the killer and encourage him to hide in a nearby city of refuge, where he would be safe as long as he remained within its gates. He had to stay in that sanctuary until the death of the high priest then in office, after which he was free to return to his own city (Nm 35:10-28). The sixth commandment enjoined, “You shall not kill” (Ex 20:13). The Hebrew word referred specifically to murder, not to all forms of killing. Killing an enemy in battle and the execution of a murderer were considered necessary and were not prohibited. More than one witness was required for any conviction, particularly in a murder case (Nm 35:30; Dt 17:6; 19:15).<\/p>\n<p>In the Code of Hammurabi a man responsible for an accidental injury to another was required to pay for the services of the physician. If the victim died, a fine was payable according to the victim’s rank. In a sense the Hebrews went further by requiring payment for any loss of time suffered by the injured person (Ex 21:18-19).<\/p>\n<p>Kidnapping was punishable by death in the OT. Exodus states that “Kidnappers must be killed, whether they are caught in possession of their victims or have already sold them as slaves” (Ex 21:16, <span>nlt<\/span>). Joseph’s being sold into slavery by his brothers illustrates this kind of kidnapping.<\/p>\n<h5>Laws concerning Property<\/h5>\n<p>The book of Exodus is quite specific about anyone responsible for damage to the property or crops of another. If a field caught fire and the fire spread, damaging crops in other fields, the person who started the fire, or perhaps the owner of the first field to catch fire, was responsible for the damage (Ex 22:6). Hammurabi’s code cited a similar instance of a man who neglected to keep a dike in repair and was therefore responsible for flood damage to his neighbor’s crops.<\/p>\n<p>Injuries to animals, especially oxen, or injuries to people or property caused by such animals formed an important area of Hebrew law. If an ox that had been previously good-tempered killed a man, the owner would be blameless, although the ox would be put to death—a severe financial penalty for the owner. If an ox with a history of goring killed a man because its owner failed to restrain it adequately, both ox and owner would be put to death. The owner’s life could be ransomed by payment of an agreed-upon sum. If the person an ox gored was a servant, the ox was stoned and the owner paid a fine (Ex 21:28-32). The Code of Hammurabi also recommended no punishment for a first offense by an animal, but if the owner knew that the ox was dangerous and had taken no steps to prevent harm, a fine in silver was payable—a very large fine for an upper-class victim, slightly less if the victim was a slave. However bad the circumstances and however vicious the ox, the Code of Hammurabi stopped at a fine for the offense, never imposing a death penalty on either the animal or the owner.<\/p>\n<p>Negligence causing injury to an animal was also punished in Hebrew law. If an ox or a donkey fell into a pit carelessly left uncovered, the owner of the animal was reimbursed for its loss (Ex 21:33-36).<\/p>\n<p>In ancient cultures women were generally considered chattel (personal property), much like animals or slaves. A daughter was considered to be her father’s property until her marriage, then the property of her husband. Therefore, any offense against a married woman was regarded as an offense against the property of the husband. According to the Code of Hammurabi, a child could be sold into slavery as a servant or bondsman, usually in payment of the father’s debt (cf. Ex 21:2-7; Neh 5:5-8; Is 50:1). Parental authority was so highly regarded in biblical law that a stubborn and rebellious son could be brought before the elders on the grounds of being disobedient and a glutton or a drunkard. He might then be convicted and stoned to death on the spot by the men of the city (Dt 21:18-21). Even that, however, was a protection of the child’s rights; some Near Eastern legislation allowed a parent to order the death of his offspring without reference to the elders or to anyone else. With daughters in particular being held in such low esteem, it is perhaps remarkable that a daughter could inherit property if there were no sons (Nm 27:8).<\/p>\n<p>Adultery, prohibited in the Decalogue, was another crime against a man’s property, specifically his wife. The book of Deuteronomy goes into considerable detail about cases of adultery—the punishment for both persons being death (Dt 22:22). If a man seduced a young woman who was not betrothed, he was required to pay her father the bride price (50 silver shekels); he could not divorce her but had to keep her as his wife for the rest of his life (Ex 22:16; Dt 22:28-29).<\/p>\n<p>In a situation where a wife was accused of adultery but without evidence, a trial was conducted. The husband would bring his wife to a priest and present a small offering (a tenth of a measure of barley meal, with neither oil nor frankincense on it), indicating the low esteem in which he now held his wife. The woman then stood before the Lord holding an earthen jar of “holy water.” Dust from the floor of the tabernacle was mixed with the water, and the cereal offering was placed in her hands. Her hair was loosened by the priest to show not only her grief but also to give an impression of abandonment. She was then required to take an oath. After that, the priest pronounced a curse upon her to the effect that her womb would be fertilized easily, but that she would have many miscarriages. She had to give her consent to that pronouncement. The priest then wrote the curses in a book and symbolically washed them off into the “bitter water.” The woman was required to drink the water while the priest waved the cereal offering from her hands before the Lord and burned some of it on the altar. The priest told her that if she was guilty, the water would make her thigh rot and her abdomen swell. If that happened, she would become an outcast; but if she were proved innocent, she would be free. Whatever the result, no blame for false accusation fell upon the husband (Nm 5:12-31).<\/p>\n<p>If a slave was struck by his master in such a manner as to cause instant death, the slave’s death had to be avenged. If the slave lingered, possibly for days, he did not need to be avenged, his loss being a sufficient punishment for the owner (Ex 21:20-21). It is unlikely that the Hebrews had much experience with that law, which had no parallels in Hammurabi’s code. If an owner injured his slave by causing the loss of an eye or a tooth, Hebrew law required that the slave be set free (vv 26-27). The Code of Hammurabi gave an example of a man injuring another man’s slave; the owner had to be paid half the slave’s value.<\/p>\n<p>Little emphasis was placed on burglary or larceny in the Hebrew law code. A burglar was presumed to be repentant and ready to make restitution. After return of the stolen property and payment of a small additional fine, a thief could again “approach the Lord” (Lv 6:2-7). By contrast, the Code of Hammurabi prescribed the death penalty for burglary. In Hebrew law, theft of an animal required restitution to be made in the ratio of at least two to one; if a bull or a cow had been stolen or sold, the thief had to restore the property fivefold. The Code of Hammurabi contained a similar statute: “If a man steal ox or sheep, ass or pig, or goat—if it be from a god or a palace, he shall restore thirtyfold; if it be from a freeman, he shall render tenfold. If the thief have nothing wherewith to pay, he shall be put to death.” In Hebrew law goods stolen from a home were simply to be restored without additional penalty. If the thief no longer had the goods and was unable to pay the equivalent value, he might be sold into slavery until restitution was made (Ex 22:1-4).<\/p>\n<h5>General Laws<\/h5>\n<p>The Hebrew code as contained in Exodus and Deuteronomy included many general prohibitions. Some concerned business dealings such as the removal of boundary markers (Dt 19:14). The use of false weights and measures was condemned (Lv 19:35; Dt 25:15; Prv 11:1; 20:23; Mi 6:11). Bribery was strictly forbidden (Ex 23:8), yet no punishment was specified for those who broke that law. In the Code of Hammurabi, if a judge changed his decision and was unable to give a satisfactory explanation, particularly if bribery was suspected, the judge had to pay 12 times the amount of the penalty and lost his seat on the bench. In the Hebrew code, perjury was also dealt with, although again no punishment was specified. The Code of Hammurabi stated that for perjury in cases where the punishment was death, persons giving false testimony were to be sentenced to death themselves (cf. Ex 23:1).<\/p>\n<p>A number of Hebrew laws reflected concern for the poor. For example, poor people were not to be subjected to usury if they were in debt, or left cold at night if their coats were taken as a pledge. Widows, orphans, and strangers were also to be treated with mercy and understanding (Ex 22:21-27; 23:9; Dt 23:19; 24:17).<\/p>\n<p>Some Hebrew laws concerned family behavior, such as those previously mentioned who cursed or disobeyed their parents (Ex 21:17; Lv 20:9; Dt 27:16; cf. Prv 20:20; 30:17). Family responsibilities were strong; an entire family frequently suffered punishment for the crime of one of its individual members (Jos 7:20-26; 2 Sm 3:29; 21:1-9; 2 Kgs 5:27; Lam 5:7). Over a period of time, as individual responsibility came to be recognized, parents were no longer put to death for the crimes of their children, or vice versa (cf. Jer 31:29-30).<\/p>\n<p>Sorcery and witchcraft were forbidden. The book of Exodus stated explicitly, “A sorceress must not be allowed to live” (22:18, <span>nlt<\/span>). Sexual perversions, such as intercourse with animals, were forbidden under penalty of death. Regulations prohibiting marriage with close relatives were given in detail (Lv 20:17-21).<\/p>\n<p>In Hebrew law no parallel existed for some interesting items in the Code of Hammurabi concerning surgery. That code mentioned veterinary surgery and even operations on the human eye. A Babylonian surgeon had to be wary, for “if a physician makes a deep incision upon a man with his bronze lancet and causes the man’s death or operates on the eye socket of a man with his bronze lancet and destroys the man’s eye, then they shall cut off his hand.” Surgery was virtually unknown among the ancient Israelites except for the ritual practice of circumcision.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Punishment\">Punishment<\/p>\n<p>Near Eastern punishments for murder and personal injury were retaliatory and often of the same nature as the offense. Other methods of punishment tended to vary with individual countries or traditions. Many kinds of punishment were inflicted on people defeated in both a full-scale war or a small insurrection.<\/p>\n<h5>Physical Punishment<\/h5>\n<p>Many forms of punishment stopped short of killing but could nevertheless be quite severe.<\/p>\n<p>1. In the OT beating with rods or switches was the traditional form of discipline for children, fools, and slaves (Ex 21:20; Prv 13:24; 26:3). Scourging (also called flogging) was more severe than beating. The whip employed could be made of several strips of leather fastened at one end or of two interwoven leather strips. A whip nicknamed “scorpion” (because of the barbs in its end) was one of the cruelest instruments of punishment mentioned in the OT (1 Kgs 12:11, 14). The severity of punishment could be increased by inserting pieces of metal or bone into the leather.<\/p>\n<p>Before a scourging, the victim would be examined for physical fitness. If death resulted from the blows, no blame was attached to the person administering the punishment. The victim was stripped to the waist and tied to a pillar, his hands bound with leather thongs. The severity of a scourging depended on the crime, although the Mosaic law set an upper limit of 40 lashes (Dt 25:1-3). To guard against a miscount, that number was later lowered by one (2 Cor 11:24). Lashes might be administered both on the chest and the back. Under some law codes, scourging could be used as a private punishment; in that case, if the victim died, another life was forfeit.<\/p>\n<p>In offenses against the law, synagogue authorities administered scourgings (Mt 10:17). A husband might be scourged by the elders of the city for defamation of his wife’s character (Dt 22:18). Scourging was also used as a means of interrogating a prisoner—hence, a Roman captain’s comment that the apostle Paul should be “examined by scourging” (Acts 22:24).<\/p>\n<p>The Romans usually reserved scourging for non-Roman citizens, such as slaves or aliens, as well as for those condemned to death. Normally, criminals were scourged after they had been condemned to death; it is therefore unusual to find the scourging of Jesus taking place before his condemnation. Pilate may have hoped to soften the people’s hearts by Jesus’ suffering so that they would not demand the death penalty (Lk 23:16, 22; Jn 19:1).<\/p>\n<p>Citizens of the Roman Empire could never be beaten or scourged before sentencing (Acts 22:25). Hence, the magistrates were afraid when they heard that Paul, a Roman citizen, had been beaten under those circumstances (16:37-39).<\/p>\n<li>2. The gouging out of the eyes of prisoners and captives was a common practice in the Near East. The Philistines blinded Samson before imprisoning him (Jgs 16:21). The Babylonians did the same to King Zedekiah in 587 <span>BC<\/span> before taking him into captivity (2 Kgs 25:7). The Ammonite king Nahash was prepared to accept peace overtures from the men of the city of Jabesh on condition that all their right eyes be gouged out. Nahash’s purpose was to disgrace them and prevent them from further active participation in warfare (1 Sm 11:1-4).<\/li>\n<li>3. Several forms of mutilation served as punishments in the Near East. The Israelites considered their own bodies sacred and made in God’s image, but that did not prevent them from mutilating their enemies by cutting off their thumbs and large toes.<\/li>\n<p>The Code of Hammurabi and the Assyrian law code prescribed mutilation of the eye, nose, ear, breast, tongue, lip, hand, and finger as punishments for specific crimes. In Assyria, punishment was often inflicted by the victim of the crime under supervision of court officials. The Code of Hammurabi also contained safeguards so that criminals were not punished in excess of the law’s sentence.<\/p>\n<li>4. Stocks are mentioned as a form of punishment in the later OT period. The prophets Hanani (2 Chr 16:10) and Jeremiah (Jer 20:2-3) suffered the indignity of being placed in stocks. Both ankles, and sometimes the wrists and head as well, were placed in holes in two large pieces of wood. In Roman times, stocks were converted to a form of torture, with a prisoner’s legs stretched to holes increasingly far apart. In the NT, Paul and Silas had their feet placed in stocks by a Philippian jailer (Acts 16:24). The same Greek word, meaning “confinement,” can refer to fetters chaining a prisoner or to an iron collar like that worn by runaway Roman slaves.<\/li>\n<h5>Capital Punishment<\/h5>\n<p>Capital punishment was common in many Near Eastern countries. Several methods were used.<\/p>\n<p>1. Those who offended a king were beheaded with a sword (2 Sm 16:9; 2 Kgs 6:31-32), as were idolaters and murderers (according to the Mishnah, the Jewish commentary on the law). The sword was probably used for private executions as well. Inhabitants of entire cities were sometimes “put to the sword” for their denial of the faith (Ex 32:27; Dt 13:15).<\/p>\n<li>2. Certain sexual offenses were punished with death by burning (Lv 20:14; 21:9). Tamar, Judah’s daughter-in-law, was accused of adultery and ordered to be burned to death outside the city (Gn 38:24). The Lord instructed that anyone whose feet touched the holy ground of Mt Sinai was to be shot with arrows or stoned (Ex 19:13).<\/li>\n<li>3. Hanging may have been a form of execution in biblical times. But many scholars think the word translated “hanging” or “hanging on a tree” actually meant impalement (Nm 25:4; Dt 21:22-23; Jos 8:29; 2 Sm 21:6, 9; Est 9:14). A spiked wooden stake was set in the ground and the victim’s body was forced onto the spike, the tip of which probably protruded from the chest or mouth. Commonly practiced by the Assyrians, that form of execution was reserved for those guilty of the worst crimes and for prisoners of war or deserters. The Persian king Darius is reputed to have impaled 3,000 men when his army entered Babylon. Impalement was the penalty Darius set for changing his edict concerning the rebuilding of the temple (Ezr 6:11-12). It is not certain whether Haman was hung or impaled (see Est 7:9-10, <span>nlt<\/span> and mg notes).<\/li>\n<p>Usually “hanging” was a means of exhibiting a corpse as a warning to local inhabitants (Gn 40:19; Jos 8:29; 10:26; 2 Sm 4:12). Corpses were exhibited for only one day and were buried before nightfall. The hanging corpse was considered a defilement of the land that God had given (Dt 21:22-23). According to the Mishnah, the hands were tied together and the body hanged from the arm of a wooden gallows.<\/p>\n<li>4. Crucifixion was a punishment employed by the Syrian king Antiochus IV Epiphanes in 167–166 <span>BC<\/span>; according to Josephus, a first-century <span>AD<\/span> Jewish historian, Jews who refused to give up their traditional faith were so executed. During the Maccabean period (167–40 <span>BC<\/span>), Alexander Janneus crucified 800 rebellious Pharisees in an attempt to reestablish his authority. Crucifixion was a widespread form of execution: it was used in most places in the Roman Empire, including India, North Africa, and Germany. Between 4 <span>BC<\/span> and <span>AD<\/span> 70, on some occasions the number of people crucified at one time reached into the thousands.<\/li>\n<p>Three types of crosses seem to have been used: a cross with the crossbar below the head of the upright bar (Latin cross); a T-shaped cross (St Anthony’s cross); and an X-shaped cross (St Andrew’s cross). Matthew records that an inscription, “This is Jesus, the King of the Jews,” was placed over Jesus’ head (Mt 27:37). That indicates that for Jesus’ crucifixion a Latin cross was used, as artists have traditionally depicted it. In crucifixions the victim was most likely affixed to the cross while it was still lying flat on the ground. Then the cross was raised into position and dropped into a hole. The hands were either nailed or bound to the cross; it is uncertain whether the feet were nailed with one or two nails. The weight of the body was supported by a piece of wood at the feet and possibly by another that was like a spike between the legs.<\/p>\n<li>5. Stoning was the most common Hebrew death penalty. The first stones were thrown by the prosecution witnesses, who were then joined by spectators. Stoning was the punishment for certain religious offenses (Lv 24:16; Nm 15:32-36; Dt 13:1-10; 17:2-5), adultery (Dt 22:23-24), child sacrifice (Lv 20:2), divination of spirits (Lv 20:27), and rebellion (Dt 21:18-21). Before his conversion, the apostle Paul witnessed and consented to the stoning of Stephen (Acts 7:58-59). Paul himself later survived a stoning at Lystra (14:19). In Roman times, a person would occasionally be stoned as he stood on a gallows.<\/li>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Conclusion\">Conclusion<\/p>\n<p>Hebrew law was part of the Torah (“instruction”) given by God to make his covenant people holy. At that time the Israelites were a seminomadic band of former slaves. Although there are similarities with the Code of Hammurabi and other laws of settled Near Eastern cultures, there are also many differences. Hebrew law often had a broader view, even in its less sophisticated cultural setting, as though its purpose was more to teach godly behavior than to stabilize society. The simplicity and directness of the Ten Commandments, in particular, continue to influence jurisprudence, even in modern secular society.<\/p>\n<p>The Bible’s primary message is God’s love for his covenant people, yet it never overlooks the harsh realities of life in a fallen world. Human beings sin and they commit crimes; they suffer estrangement from God because of their sin and are punished for their crimes. Christians are constantly reminded of the realism of God’s love by the cross as the symbol of Christian faith. They see the crucifixion of Jesus Christ as the fulfillment of OT prophecy that the Lord put our iniquity on him (Is 53:5-6). The NT conviction is that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures (1 Cor 15:3).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Civil Law and Justice; Courts and Trials; Hammurabi, Law Code of; Law, Biblical Concept of.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>CRIMINAL LAW AND PUNISHMENT*<\/h3>\n<p>The science or philosophy of law is called jurisprudence. Although modern jurisprudence bears little resemblance to biblical concepts of law, the Scriptures have played a definite role in its development. Today, criminal law is clearly distinguished from civil law; in Bible times the distinction was much less clear. Today, offenses against civil law (torts) are distinguished from minor crimes (misdemeanors) as well as from serious crimes (felonies). In the Bible, “crimes” included all punishable offenses, even religious offenses such as idolatry (worshiping a false god) or blasphemy (speaking or behaving with contempt toward God).<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Near Eastern Context<\/p>\n<p>• Hebrew Criminal Law<\/p>\n<p>• Punishment<\/p>\n<p>• Conclusion<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"NearEasternContext\">Near Eastern Context<\/p>\n<p>In ancient societies as in modern ones, laws were considered necessary to regulate individual behavior for the good of the community, state, or nation. Today laws are thought of as made by people for their own protection. In contrast, all ancient Near Eastern law codes were considered to have come directly from some divine source. Hebrew law, though distinct, followed the general pattern of Near Eastern law codes, as is known from those that have survived—such as the Code of Hammurabi and Assyrian and Hittite laws.<\/p>\n<p>Conclusions about the “origin” of ancient laws should be made cautiously. Although evidence indicates that Hammurabi based his legislation partially on earlier Sumerian codes, he declared that his code had been received from Shamash, god of justice. That declaration must have been intended to convey primarily that his code had the express sanction of Shamash, since at least some people would recognize it as a compilation based largely on earlier laws. Similarly, the clear biblical statements about Moses receiving the law on Mt Sinai (Ex 19–24) do not rule out the possibility that parts of the Decalogue (the Ten Commandments) may have existed in earlier codes. Possibly the Mosaic legislation included some social rules adapted from the period of Israel’s sojourn in Egypt.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"HebrewCriminalLaw\">Hebrew Criminal Law<\/p>\n<h5>Laws Governing Offenses against God<\/h5>\n<p>Since Hebrew law was designed for a group of people for whom religion was of paramount importance and whose faith was endangered by the influence of the beliefs of their pagan neighbors, it is not surprising that so much of Hebrew law dealt with crimes committed against God. The prohibition against worshiping idols is stated and repeated in the Torah, or Pentateuch (first five books of the Bible): “You shall not make for yourself a graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them or serve them” (Ex 20:4-5, <span>rsv<\/span>). Sacrifice of infants, practiced in some pagan religions, was specifically prohibited in Israel. The penalty for that crime, as for the other forms of murder, was stoning to death (Lv 20:2).<\/p>\n<p>In the book of Leviticus, death by stoning was recorded as the appropriate punishment for blaspheming the name of God (Lv 24:11-16). False prophecy was also a criminal offense; that accusation could apply to a person making a prediction in the name of a god other than the Lord, or implying falsely that one’s prophecy resulted from a communication with God. Jeremiah, whose prophecy of Nebuchadnezzar’s victory over the southern kingdom of Judah was for a time considered to be false, was almost lynched by a mob (Jer 26:8-9).<\/p>\n<p>The idea of keeping the seventh day holy stemmed from the celebration of God’s work in creating the universe in six days and resting on the seventh. Keeping the Sabbath required cessation of manual work for the entire family, including farm animals (Ex 16:23; 20:8-11). People were also required to meet together on the Sabbath for worship, which at a later period in Hebrew history included the reading of Scripture, prayer, and preaching. Anyone breaking the Sabbath could be sentenced to death, as happened to a man caught gathering firewood on the Sabbath (Nm 15:32-36).<\/p>\n<p>Any type of premeditated crime was considered an offense against God, the giver of all law; hence, it was punishable by death (Nm 15:30-31). Hebrew law also insisted on donation of the firstfruits of harvest to the Lord without delay. That requirement was sometimes carried over to include a first child, whose life was dedicated to service in the temple (Ex 22:29-30; Dt 15:19).<\/p>\n<h5>Personal Injury<\/h5>\n<p>Murder, an offense against “God’s image,” was one of many crimes punishable by death in OT times. The book of Exodus stated unequivocally that “anyone who hits a person hard enough to cause death must be put to death” (Ex 21:12, <span>nlt<\/span>). A murderer who killed by using a weapon such as a stone, a piece of wood, or iron could be killed in revenge by a relative of the deceased. If the original death happened accidentally, the community would sometimes help to conceal the killer and encourage him to hide in a nearby city of refuge, where he would be safe as long as he remained within its gates. He had to stay in that sanctuary until the death of the high priest then in office, after which he was free to return to his own city (Nm 35:10-28). The sixth commandment enjoined, “You shall not kill” (Ex 20:13). The Hebrew word referred specifically to murder, not to all forms of killing. Killing an enemy in battle and the execution of a murderer were considered necessary and were not prohibited. More than one witness was required for any conviction, particularly in a murder case (Nm 35:30; Dt 17:6; 19:15).<\/p>\n<p>In the Code of Hammurabi a man responsible for an accidental injury to another was required to pay for the services of the physician. If the victim died, a fine was payable according to the victim’s rank. In a sense the Hebrews went further by requiring payment for any loss of time suffered by the injured person (Ex 21:18-19).<\/p>\n<p>Kidnapping was punishable by death in the OT. Exodus states that “Kidnappers must be killed, whether they are caught in possession of their victims or have already sold them as slaves” (Ex 21:16, <span>nlt<\/span>). Joseph’s being sold into slavery by his brothers illustrates this kind of kidnapping.<\/p>\n<h5>Laws concerning Property<\/h5>\n<p>The book of Exodus is quite specific about anyone responsible for damage to the property or crops of another. If a field caught fire and the fire spread, damaging crops in other fields, the person who started the fire, or perhaps the owner of the first field to catch fire, was responsible for the damage (Ex 22:6). Hammurabi’s code cited a similar instance of a man who neglected to keep a dike in repair and was therefore responsible for flood damage to his neighbor’s crops.<\/p>\n<p>Injuries to animals, especially oxen, or injuries to people or property caused by such animals formed an important area of Hebrew law. If an ox that had been previously good-tempered killed a man, the owner would be blameless, although the ox would be put to death—a severe financial penalty for the owner. If an ox with a history of goring killed a man because its owner failed to restrain it adequately, both ox and owner would be put to death. The owner’s life could be ransomed by payment of an agreed-upon sum. If the person an ox gored was a servant, the ox was stoned and the owner paid a fine (Ex 21:28-32). The Code of Hammurabi also recommended no punishment for a first offense by an animal, but if the owner knew that the ox was dangerous and had taken no steps to prevent harm, a fine in silver was payable—a very large fine for an upper-class victim, slightly less if the victim was a slave. However bad the circumstances and however vicious the ox, the Code of Hammurabi stopped at a fine for the offense, never imposing a death penalty on either the animal or the owner.<\/p>\n<p>Negligence causing injury to an animal was also punished in Hebrew law. If an ox or a donkey fell into a pit carelessly left uncovered, the owner of the animal was reimbursed for its loss (Ex 21:33-36).<\/p>\n<p>In ancient cultures women were generally considered chattel (personal property), much like animals or slaves. A daughter was considered to be her father’s property until her marriage, then the property of her husband. Therefore, any offense against a married woman was regarded as an offense against the property of the husband. According to the Code of Hammurabi, a child could be sold into slavery as a servant or bondsman, usually in payment of the father’s debt (cf. Ex 21:2-7; Neh 5:5-8; Is 50:1). Parental authority was so highly regarded in biblical law that a stubborn and rebellious son could be brought before the elders on the grounds of being disobedient and a glutton or a drunkard. He might then be convicted and stoned to death on the spot by the men of the city (Dt 21:18-21). Even that, however, was a protection of the child’s rights; some Near Eastern legislation allowed a parent to order the death of his offspring without reference to the elders or to anyone else. With daughters in particular being held in such low esteem, it is perhaps remarkable that a daughter could inherit property if there were no sons (Nm 27:8).<\/p>\n<p>Adultery, prohibited in the Decalogue, was another crime against a man’s property, specifically his wife. The book of Deuteronomy goes into considerable detail about cases of adultery—the punishment for both persons being death (Dt 22:22). If a man seduced a young woman who was not betrothed, he was required to pay her father the bride price (50 silver shekels); he could not divorce her but had to keep her as his wife for the rest of his life (Ex 22:16; Dt 22:28-29).<\/p>\n<p>In a situation where a wife was accused of adultery but without evidence, a trial was conducted. The husband would bring his wife to a priest and present a small offering (a tenth of a measure of barley meal, with neither oil nor frankincense on it), indicating the low esteem in which he now held his wife. The woman then stood before the Lord holding an earthen jar of “holy water.” Dust from the floor of the tabernacle was mixed with the water, and the cereal offering was placed in her hands. Her hair was loosened by the priest to show not only her grief but also to give an impression of abandonment. She was then required to take an oath. After that, the priest pronounced a curse upon her to the effect that her womb would be fertilized easily, but that she would have many miscarriages. She had to give her consent to that pronouncement. The priest then wrote the curses in a book and symbolically washed them off into the “bitter water.” The woman was required to drink the water while the priest waved the cereal offering from her hands before the Lord and burned some of it on the altar. The priest told her that if she was guilty, the water would make her thigh rot and her abdomen swell. If that happened, she would become an outcast; but if she were proved innocent, she would be free. Whatever the result, no blame for false accusation fell upon the husband (Nm 5:12-31).<\/p>\n<p>If a slave was struck by his master in such a manner as to cause instant death, the slave’s death had to be avenged. If the slave lingered, possibly for days, he did not need to be avenged, his loss being a sufficient punishment for the owner (Ex 21:20-21). It is unlikely that the Hebrews had much experience with that law, which had no parallels in Hammurabi’s code. If an owner injured his slave by causing the loss of an eye or a tooth, Hebrew law required that the slave be set free (vv 26-27). The Code of Hammurabi gave an example of a man injuring another man’s slave; the owner had to be paid half the slave’s value.<\/p>\n<p>Little emphasis was placed on burglary or larceny in the Hebrew law code. A burglar was presumed to be repentant and ready to make restitution. After return of the stolen property and payment of a small additional fine, a thief could again “approach the Lord” (Lv 6:2-7). By contrast, the Code of Hammurabi prescribed the death penalty for burglary. In Hebrew law, theft of an animal required restitution to be made in the ratio of at least two to one; if a bull or a cow had been stolen or sold, the thief had to restore the property fivefold. The Code of Hammurabi contained a similar statute: “If a man steal ox or sheep, ass or pig, or goat—if it be from a god or a palace, he shall restore thirtyfold; if it be from a freeman, he shall render tenfold. If the thief have nothing wherewith to pay, he shall be put to death.” In Hebrew law goods stolen from a home were simply to be restored without additional penalty. If the thief no longer had the goods and was unable to pay the equivalent value, he might be sold into slavery until restitution was made (Ex 22:1-4).<\/p>\n<h5>General Laws<\/h5>\n<p>The Hebrew code as contained in Exodus and Deuteronomy included many general prohibitions. Some concerned business dealings such as the removal of boundary markers (Dt 19:14). The use of false weights and measures was condemned (Lv 19:35; Dt 25:15; Prv 11:1; 20:23; Mi 6:11). Bribery was strictly forbidden (Ex 23:8), yet no punishment was specified for those who broke that law. In the Code of Hammurabi, if a judge changed his decision and was unable to give a satisfactory explanation, particularly if bribery was suspected, the judge had to pay 12 times the amount of the penalty and lost his seat on the bench. In the Hebrew code, perjury was also dealt with, although again no punishment was specified. The Code of Hammurabi stated that for perjury in cases where the punishment was death, persons giving false testimony were to be sentenced to death themselves (cf. Ex 23:1).<\/p>\n<p>A number of Hebrew laws reflected concern for the poor. For example, poor people were not to be subjected to usury if they were in debt, or left cold at night if their coats were taken as a pledge. Widows, orphans, and strangers were also to be treated with mercy and understanding (Ex 22:21-27; 23:9; Dt 23:19; 24:17).<\/p>\n<p>Some Hebrew laws concerned family behavior, such as those previously mentioned who cursed or disobeyed their parents (Ex 21:17; Lv 20:9; Dt 27:16; cf. Prv 20:20; 30:17). Family responsibilities were strong; an entire family frequently suffered punishment for the crime of one of its individual members (Jos 7:20-26; 2 Sm 3:29; 21:1-9; 2 Kgs 5:27; Lam 5:7). Over a period of time, as individual responsibility came to be recognized, parents were no longer put to death for the crimes of their children, or vice versa (cf. Jer 31:29-30).<\/p>\n<p>Sorcery and witchcraft were forbidden. The book of Exodus stated explicitly, “A sorceress must not be allowed to live” (22:18, <span>nlt<\/span>). Sexual perversions, such as intercourse with animals, were forbidden under penalty of death. Regulations prohibiting marriage with close relatives were given in detail (Lv 20:17-21).<\/p>\n<p>In Hebrew law no parallel existed for some interesting items in the Code of Hammurabi concerning surgery. That code mentioned veterinary surgery and even operations on the human eye. A Babylonian surgeon had to be wary, for “if a physician makes a deep incision upon a man with his bronze lancet and causes the man’s death or operates on the eye socket of a man with his bronze lancet and destroys the man’s eye, then they shall cut off his hand.” Surgery was virtually unknown among the ancient Israelites except for the ritual practice of circumcision.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Punishment\">Punishment<\/p>\n<p>Near Eastern punishments for murder and personal injury were retaliatory and often of the same nature as the offense. Other methods of punishment tended to vary with individual countries or traditions. Many kinds of punishment were inflicted on people defeated in both a full-scale war or a small insurrection.<\/p>\n<h5>Physical Punishment<\/h5>\n<p>Many forms of punishment stopped short of killing but could nevertheless be quite severe.<\/p>\n<p>1. In the OT beating with rods or switches was the traditional form of discipline for children, fools, and slaves (Ex 21:20; Prv 13:24; 26:3). Scourging (also called flogging) was more severe than beating. The whip employed could be made of several strips of leather fastened at one end or of two interwoven leather strips. A whip nicknamed “scorpion” (because of the barbs in its end) was one of the cruelest instruments of punishment mentioned in the OT (1 Kgs 12:11, 14). The severity of punishment could be increased by inserting pieces of metal or bone into the leather.<\/p>\n<p>Before a scourging, the victim would be examined for physical fitness. If death resulted from the blows, no blame was attached to the person administering the punishment. The victim was stripped to the waist and tied to a pillar, his hands bound with leather thongs. The severity of a scourging depended on the crime, although the Mosaic law set an upper limit of 40 lashes (Dt 25:1-3). To guard against a miscount, that number was later lowered by one (2 Cor 11:24). Lashes might be administered both on the chest and the back. Under some law codes, scourging could be used as a private punishment; in that case, if the victim died, another life was forfeit.<\/p>\n<p>In offenses against the law, synagogue authorities administered scourgings (Mt 10:17). A husband might be scourged by the elders of the city for defamation of his wife’s character (Dt 22:18). Scourging was also used as a means of interrogating a prisoner—hence, a Roman captain’s comment that the apostle Paul should be “examined by scourging” (Acts 22:24).<\/p>\n<p>The Romans usually reserved scourging for non-Roman citizens, such as slaves or aliens, as well as for those condemned to death. Normally, criminals were scourged after they had been condemned to death; it is therefore unusual to find the scourging of Jesus taking place before his condemnation. Pilate may have hoped to soften the people’s hearts by Jesus’ suffering so that they would not demand the death penalty (Lk 23:16, 22; Jn 19:1).<\/p>\n<p>Citizens of the Roman Empire could never be beaten or scourged before sentencing (Acts 22:25). Hence, the magistrates were afraid when they heard that Paul, a Roman citizen, had been beaten under those circumstances (16:37-39).<\/p>\n<li>2. The gouging out of the eyes of prisoners and captives was a common practice in the Near East. The Philistines blinded Samson before imprisoning him (Jgs 16:21). The Babylonians did the same to King Zedekiah in 587 <span>BC<\/span> before taking him into captivity (2 Kgs 25:7). The Ammonite king Nahash was prepared to accept peace overtures from the men of the city of Jabesh on condition that all their right eyes be gouged out. Nahash’s purpose was to disgrace them and prevent them from further active participation in warfare (1 Sm 11:1-4).<\/li>\n<li>3. Several forms of mutilation served as punishments in the Near East. The Israelites considered their own bodies sacred and made in God’s image, but that did not prevent them from mutilating their enemies by cutting off their thumbs and large toes.<\/li>\n<p>The Code of Hammurabi and the Assyrian law code prescribed mutilation of the eye, nose, ear, breast, tongue, lip, hand, and finger as punishments for specific crimes. In Assyria, punishment was often inflicted by the victim of the crime under supervision of court officials. The Code of Hammurabi also contained safeguards so that criminals were not punished in excess of the law’s sentence.<\/p>\n<li>4. Stocks are mentioned as a form of punishment in the later OT period. The prophets Hanani (2 Chr 16:10) and Jeremiah (Jer 20:2-3) suffered the indignity of being placed in stocks. Both ankles, and sometimes the wrists and head as well, were placed in holes in two large pieces of wood. In Roman times, stocks were converted to a form of torture, with a prisoner’s legs stretched to holes increasingly far apart. In the NT, Paul and Silas had their feet placed in stocks by a Philippian jailer (Acts 16:24). The same Greek word, meaning “confinement,” can refer to fetters chaining a prisoner or to an iron collar like that worn by runaway Roman slaves.<\/li>\n<h5>Capital Punishment<\/h5>\n<p>Capital punishment was common in many Near Eastern countries. Several methods were used.<\/p>\n<p>1. Those who offended a king were beheaded with a sword (2 Sm 16:9; 2 Kgs 6:31-32), as were idolaters and murderers (according to the Mishnah, the Jewish commentary on the law). The sword was probably used for private executions as well. Inhabitants of entire cities were sometimes “put to the sword” for their denial of the faith (Ex 32:27; Dt 13:15).<\/p>\n<li>2. Certain sexual offenses were punished with death by burning (Lv 20:14; 21:9). Tamar, Judah’s daughter-in-law, was accused of adultery and ordered to be burned to death outside the city (Gn 38:24). The Lord instructed that anyone whose feet touched the holy ground of Mt Sinai was to be shot with arrows or stoned (Ex 19:13).<\/li>\n<li>3. Hanging may have been a form of execution in biblical times. But many scholars think the word translated “hanging” or “hanging on a tree” actually meant impalement (Nm 25:4; Dt 21:22-23; Jos 8:29; 2 Sm 21:6, 9; Est 9:14). A spiked wooden stake was set in the ground and the victim’s body was forced onto the spike, the tip of which probably protruded from the chest or mouth. Commonly practiced by the Assyrians, that form of execution was reserved for those guilty of the worst crimes and for prisoners of war or deserters. The Persian king Darius is reputed to have impaled 3,000 men when his army entered Babylon. Impalement was the penalty Darius set for changing his edict concerning the rebuilding of the temple (Ezr 6:11-12). It is not certain whether Haman was hung or impaled (see Est 7:9-10, <span>nlt<\/span> and mg notes).<\/li>\n<p>Usually “hanging” was a means of exhibiting a corpse as a warning to local inhabitants (Gn 40:19; Jos 8:29; 10:26; 2 Sm 4:12). Corpses were exhibited for only one day and were buried before nightfall. The hanging corpse was considered a defilement of the land that God had given (Dt 21:22-23). According to the Mishnah, the hands were tied together and the body hanged from the arm of a wooden gallows.<\/p>\n<li>4. Crucifixion was a punishment employed by the Syrian king Antiochus IV Epiphanes in 167–166 <span>BC<\/span>; according to Josephus, a first-century <span>AD<\/span> Jewish historian, Jews who refused to give up their traditional faith were so executed. During the Maccabean period (167–40 <span>BC<\/span>), Alexander Janneus crucified 800 rebellious Pharisees in an attempt to reestablish his authority. Crucifixion was a widespread form of execution: it was used in most places in the Roman Empire, including India, North Africa, and Germany. Between 4 <span>BC<\/span> and <span>AD<\/span> 70, on some occasions the number of people crucified at one time reached into the thousands.<\/li>\n<p>Three types of crosses seem to have been used: a cross with the crossbar below the head of the upright bar (Latin cross); a T-shaped cross (St Anthony’s cross); and an X-shaped cross (St Andrew’s cross). Matthew records that an inscription, “This is Jesus, the King of the Jews,” was placed over Jesus’ head (Mt 27:37). That indicates that for Jesus’ crucifixion a Latin cross was used, as artists have traditionally depicted it. In crucifixions the victim was most likely affixed to the cross while it was still lying flat on the ground. Then the cross was raised into position and dropped into a hole. The hands were either nailed or bound to the cross; it is uncertain whether the feet were nailed with one or two nails. The weight of the body was supported by a piece of wood at the feet and possibly by another that was like a spike between the legs.<\/p>\n<li>5. Stoning was the most common Hebrew death penalty. The first stones were thrown by the prosecution witnesses, who were then joined by spectators. Stoning was the punishment for certain religious offenses (Lv 24:16; Nm 15:32-36; Dt 13:1-10; 17:2-5), adultery (Dt 22:23-24), child sacrifice (Lv 20:2), divination of spirits (Lv 20:27), and rebellion (Dt 21:18-21). Before his conversion, the apostle Paul witnessed and consented to the stoning of Stephen (Acts 7:58-59). Paul himself later survived a stoning at Lystra (14:19). In Roman times, a person would occasionally be stoned as he stood on a gallows.<\/li>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Conclusion\">Conclusion<\/p>\n<p>Hebrew law was part of the Torah (“instruction”) given by God to make his covenant people holy. At that time the Israelites were a seminomadic band of former slaves. Although there are similarities with the Code of Hammurabi and other laws of settled Near Eastern cultures, there are also many differences. Hebrew law often had a broader view, even in its less sophisticated cultural setting, as though its purpose was more to teach godly behavior than to stabilize society. The simplicity and directness of the Ten Commandments, in particular, continue to influence jurisprudence, even in modern secular society.<\/p>\n<p>The Bible’s primary message is God’s love for his covenant people, yet it never overlooks the harsh realities of life in a fallen world. Human beings sin and they commit crimes; they suffer estrangement from God because of their sin and are punished for their crimes. Christians are constantly reminded of the realism of God’s love by the cross as the symbol of Christian faith. They see the crucifixion of Jesus Christ as the fulfillment of OT prophecy that the Lord put our iniquity on him (Is 53:5-6). The NT conviction is that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures (1 Cor 15:3).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Civil Law and Justice; Courts and Trials; Hammurabi, Law Code of; Law, Biblical Concept of.<\/p>","summary_ro":"CRIMINAL LAW AND PUNISHMENT* The science or philosophy of law is called jurisprudence. Although modern jurisprudence bears little resemblance to biblical concepts of law, the Scriptures have played a definite role in its development. Today, criminal law is clearly distinguished from civil law; in Bible times the distinction was much less clear. Today, offenses against civil law (torts) are distinguished from minor crimes (misdemeanors) as well as from serious crimes (felonies). In the Bible, ...","summary_en":"CRIMINAL LAW AND PUNISHMENT* The science or philosophy of law is called jurisprudence. Although modern jurisprudence bears little resemblance to biblical concepts of law, the Scriptures have played a definite role in its development. Today, criminal law is clearly distinguished from civil law; in Bible times the distinction was much less clear. Today, offenses against civil law (torts) are distinguished from minor crimes (misdemeanors) as well as from serious crimes (felonies). In the Bible, ...","source":"Articles\/C.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":28123,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Offense Offend","title_en":"Offense Offend","content_ro":"<h3>OFFEND, OFFENSE<\/h3>\n<p>Words used two ways in the Bible: doing what is wrong oneself, or causing someone else to do wrong or to stumble.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"DoingWrong\">Doing Wrong<\/p>\n<p>In both the Hebrew of the OT and the Greek of the NT there are several words for sin or wrongdoing having a variety of different translations. With the word “offend” or “offense,” the emphasis is on the sin being against a person or against the law, an offense against either God or man.<\/p>\n<p>Sin is fundamentally an offense against God. For example, the people of Edom had grievously offended in taking vengeance on Judah, and so the hand of the Lord was against them in judgment (Ez 25:12-13). Israel commited an offense in their worship of Baal (Hos 13:1). The breaking of God’s law is spoken of as an “offense committed” (Dt 19:15; cf. 22:26; 25:2). In the NT, James (Jas 2:10; 3:2) speaks of offenses against God and against his law.<\/p>\n<p>There are many passages in the Bible addressing one man’s offense against another: for example, Abraham’s against Abimelech (Gn 20:9), or Pharaoh’s chief butler and chief baker against their master (40:1). Sometimes it is an alleged offense and no actual wrong has been done (e.g., Gn 31:36; 2 Kgs 18:14; Jer 37:18). Paul, in his defense before the Roman governor Festus, said, “Neither against the law of the Jews, nor against the temple, nor against Caesar have I offended at all” (Acts 25:8, <span>rsv<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>Finally, the Bible speaks about dealing with real offenses against God and people. Offenses should be acknowledged and confessed (Hos 5:15). One’s proper resolution before God is “I will not offend any more” (Jb 34:31, <span>rsv<\/span>). One needs to make amends for offenses (Eccl 10:4) and to forgive the offenses of others (Prv 17:9; 19:11). Jesus Christ died for our offenses (Rom 4:25; 5:15-21), so that in turning to him there is forgiveness for all sins.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"CausingAnothertoSin\">Causing Another to Sin<\/p>\n<p>The noun “offense” and the verb “offend” are also used in reference to a person being caused to stumble or to do what is wrong. There are three ways in which this may happen:<\/p>\n<p>1. There may be something in the individual that causes him or her to stumble. Jesus expressed the seriousness of this, and though speaking metaphorically, he indicated the strenuous steps of prevention (Mt 5:29-30; 18:8-9).<\/p>\n<li>2. There may be something in a person that causes offense to others. Jesus said, “Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh!” (Mt 18:7, <span>kjv<\/span>). There are, in fact, many NT passages that insist that one should live so as not to cause others to stumble (Rom 14:13). The apostle Paul says, “Don’t tear apart the work of God over what you eat. Remember, there is nothing wrong with these things in themselves. But it is wrong to eat anything if it makes another person stumble. Don’t eat meat or drink wine or do anything else if it might cause another Christian to stumble” (Rom 14:20-21, <span>nlt<\/span>; cf. 1 Cor 10:32; 2 Cor 6:3).<\/li>\n<li>3. However, people may be offended at the truth through no fault of the person who presents it. Isaiah speaks of God as “a stone that causes people to stumble and a rock that makes them fall” (Is 8:14) in that people would not always accept his demands and the way of faith in him. The NT takes these same words and applies them to the offense of the gospel of Christ (Rom 9:32-33; 1 Pt 2:8). In the time of his ministry there were those who were offended at Jesus—at his lowly birth (Mt 13:57), at what he said and did (15:12), or because of the cost of following him (13:21). Even disciples were capable of being offended and turning aside (Jn 6:61). In the end all were offended and fled from him (Mt 26:31, 56). Finally, the apostle Paul spoke of the offense in the preaching of the cross of Christ. He could have chosen to preach a popular message and avoided persecution, a “message that doesn’t offend anyone” (Gal 5:11). He chose rather to preach the cross even though it was a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles (1 Cor 1:23).<\/li>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Sin.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>OFFEND, OFFENSE<\/h3>\n<p>Words used two ways in the Bible: doing what is wrong oneself, or causing someone else to do wrong or to stumble.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"DoingWrong\">Doing Wrong<\/p>\n<p>In both the Hebrew of the OT and the Greek of the NT there are several words for sin or wrongdoing having a variety of different translations. With the word “offend” or “offense,” the emphasis is on the sin being against a person or against the law, an offense against either God or man.<\/p>\n<p>Sin is fundamentally an offense against God. For example, the people of Edom had grievously offended in taking vengeance on Judah, and so the hand of the Lord was against them in judgment (Ez 25:12-13). Israel commited an offense in their worship of Baal (Hos 13:1). The breaking of God’s law is spoken of as an “offense committed” (Dt 19:15; cf. 22:26; 25:2). In the NT, James (Jas 2:10; 3:2) speaks of offenses against God and against his law.<\/p>\n<p>There are many passages in the Bible addressing one man’s offense against another: for example, Abraham’s against Abimelech (Gn 20:9), or Pharaoh’s chief butler and chief baker against their master (40:1). Sometimes it is an alleged offense and no actual wrong has been done (e.g., Gn 31:36; 2 Kgs 18:14; Jer 37:18). Paul, in his defense before the Roman governor Festus, said, “Neither against the law of the Jews, nor against the temple, nor against Caesar have I offended at all” (Acts 25:8, <span>rsv<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>Finally, the Bible speaks about dealing with real offenses against God and people. Offenses should be acknowledged and confessed (Hos 5:15). One’s proper resolution before God is “I will not offend any more” (Jb 34:31, <span>rsv<\/span>). One needs to make amends for offenses (Eccl 10:4) and to forgive the offenses of others (Prv 17:9; 19:11). Jesus Christ died for our offenses (Rom 4:25; 5:15-21), so that in turning to him there is forgiveness for all sins.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"CausingAnothertoSin\">Causing Another to Sin<\/p>\n<p>The noun “offense” and the verb “offend” are also used in reference to a person being caused to stumble or to do what is wrong. There are three ways in which this may happen:<\/p>\n<p>1. There may be something in the individual that causes him or her to stumble. Jesus expressed the seriousness of this, and though speaking metaphorically, he indicated the strenuous steps of prevention (Mt 5:29-30; 18:8-9).<\/p>\n<li>2. There may be something in a person that causes offense to others. Jesus said, “Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh!” (Mt 18:7, <span>kjv<\/span>). There are, in fact, many NT passages that insist that one should live so as not to cause others to stumble (Rom 14:13). The apostle Paul says, “Don’t tear apart the work of God over what you eat. Remember, there is nothing wrong with these things in themselves. But it is wrong to eat anything if it makes another person stumble. Don’t eat meat or drink wine or do anything else if it might cause another Christian to stumble” (Rom 14:20-21, <span>nlt<\/span>; cf. 1 Cor 10:32; 2 Cor 6:3).<\/li>\n<li>3. However, people may be offended at the truth through no fault of the person who presents it. Isaiah speaks of God as “a stone that causes people to stumble and a rock that makes them fall” (Is 8:14) in that people would not always accept his demands and the way of faith in him. The NT takes these same words and applies them to the offense of the gospel of Christ (Rom 9:32-33; 1 Pt 2:8). In the time of his ministry there were those who were offended at Jesus—at his lowly birth (Mt 13:57), at what he said and did (15:12), or because of the cost of following him (13:21). Even disciples were capable of being offended and turning aside (Jn 6:61). In the end all were offended and fled from him (Mt 26:31, 56). Finally, the apostle Paul spoke of the offense in the preaching of the cross of Christ. He could have chosen to preach a popular message and avoided persecution, a “message that doesn’t offend anyone” (Gal 5:11). He chose rather to preach the cross even though it was a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles (1 Cor 1:23).<\/li>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Sin.<\/p>","summary_ro":"OFFEND, OFFENSE Words used two ways in the Bible: doing what is wrong oneself, or causing someone else to do wrong or to stumble. Doing Wrong In both the Hebrew of the OT and the Greek of the NT there are several words for sin or wrongdoing having a variety of different translations. With the word “offend” or “offense,” the emphasis is on the sin being against a person or against the law, an offense against either God or man. Sin is fundamentally an offense against God. For example, the peopl...","summary_en":"OFFEND, OFFENSE Words used two ways in the Bible: doing what is wrong oneself, or causing someone else to do wrong or to stumble. Doing Wrong In both the Hebrew of the OT and the Greek of the NT there are several words for sin or wrongdoing having a variety of different translations. With the word “offend” or “offense,” the emphasis is on the sin being against a person or against the law, an offense against either God or man. Sin is fundamentally an offense against God. For example, the peopl...","source":"Articles\/O.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":38506,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Witness","title_en":"Witness","content_ro":"<h3>WITNESS<\/h3>\n<p>One who tells what he or she has seen or personally experienced, often in a court of law. The term may also refer to the testimony the person has given.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"WitnessintheOldTestament\">Witness in the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>In the judicial procedure outlined in the OT, one witness was not adequate for personal testimony against anyone, but two or three witnesses were required (Dt 17:6; 19:15). This principle was incorporated into Jewish law and is reiterated in the NT (cf. Mt 18:16; 2 Cor 13:1).<\/p>\n<p>The truth of testimony is so important that the Bible expressly forbids false witness in the ninth commandment (Ex 20:16; Dt 5:20; cf. Mk 10:19; Lk 18:20). The practical wisdom of Proverbs speaks out frequently against the false witness (e.g., Prv 6:19; 14:5; 25:18). Nevertheless, false witnesses did arise (Pss 27:12; 35:11), and there are notable examples of the bringing of more than one witness in order to bring about the death of an innocent person. The case of Naboth and his vineyard is notorious; here Jezebel, wife of King Ahab, bribed two men to bear false witness against Naboth so that he would be stoned to death and her wicked husband could take the vineyard he coveted so intensely (1 Kgs 21).<\/p>\n<p>Witnesses could be tested by the judges. If the testimony of an accuser was found to be false, that person was subjected to the punishment he had sought to have executed on the defendant (Dt 19:16-21). Proverbs also speaks of the punishment of the false witness (Prv 19:5, 9; 21:28).<\/p>\n<p>The OT records several accounts of legal proceedings in which witnesses are mentioned. Most of these involve the purchase or transfer of property. Ruth 4:7-12 relates the redemption of a field from Naomi by Boaz. Isaiah found “reliable witnesses” concerning a property title written on a large tablet (Is 8:1-2). To confirm the prophecy of the return of the exiles from Babylon, Jeremiah bought and paid for a field in the presence of witnesses, who also signed the deed for the property (Jer 32:6-15).<\/p>\n<p>At the conclusion of his farewell message at Shechem, Joshua declared that the Israelites themselves were witnesses that they had chosen to serve the Lord; then he set up a large stone and declared that it also was a witness (Jos 24:22-27). The people of Israel themselves were declared God’s witnesses (Is 43:10; 44:8-9). They were witnesses to the existence of God, to his uniqueness, holiness, power, and love. When they failed to acknowledge his uniqueness and holiness and turned to idolatry, he sent them into captivity, as he had warned, for they had failed in their witness and had given opportunity for the enemies of God to blaspheme.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"WitnessintheNewTestament\">Witness in the New Testament<\/p>\n<p>In the NT the various words for witness are mainly related to the verb <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">martureo<\/span><em>,<\/em> meaning “to bear witness, be a witness.” The word “martyr” shows the ultimate form of witness in that Christians have sacrificed their lives because of their witness for Jesus Christ.<\/p>\n<p>John the Baptist was both a witness and a martyr. As the forerunner of the Messiah, his mission was to bear witness to the light and to identify the Lamb of God (Jn 1:7-8, 19-36). The followers of Jesus, and particularly the 12 apostles, were witnesses to the person and character of Jesus. They knew him intimately, heard his teachings and observed his miracles; three were witnesses of his transfiguration (Mt 17:1-2; 2 Pt 1:17-18) and many were witnesses to his resurrection (Lk 24:48; 1 Cor 15:4-8). At the time of his ascension, the disciples were specifically commissioned to be his witnesses (Acts 1:8).<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>WITNESS<\/h3>\n<p>One who tells what he or she has seen or personally experienced, often in a court of law. The term may also refer to the testimony the person has given.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"WitnessintheOldTestament\">Witness in the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>In the judicial procedure outlined in the OT, one witness was not adequate for personal testimony against anyone, but two or three witnesses were required (Dt 17:6; 19:15). This principle was incorporated into Jewish law and is reiterated in the NT (cf. Mt 18:16; 2 Cor 13:1).<\/p>\n<p>The truth of testimony is so important that the Bible expressly forbids false witness in the ninth commandment (Ex 20:16; Dt 5:20; cf. Mk 10:19; Lk 18:20). The practical wisdom of Proverbs speaks out frequently against the false witness (e.g., Prv 6:19; 14:5; 25:18). Nevertheless, false witnesses did arise (Pss 27:12; 35:11), and there are notable examples of the bringing of more than one witness in order to bring about the death of an innocent person. The case of Naboth and his vineyard is notorious; here Jezebel, wife of King Ahab, bribed two men to bear false witness against Naboth so that he would be stoned to death and her wicked husband could take the vineyard he coveted so intensely (1 Kgs 21).<\/p>\n<p>Witnesses could be tested by the judges. If the testimony of an accuser was found to be false, that person was subjected to the punishment he had sought to have executed on the defendant (Dt 19:16-21). Proverbs also speaks of the punishment of the false witness (Prv 19:5, 9; 21:28).<\/p>\n<p>The OT records several accounts of legal proceedings in which witnesses are mentioned. Most of these involve the purchase or transfer of property. Ruth 4:7-12 relates the redemption of a field from Naomi by Boaz. Isaiah found “reliable witnesses” concerning a property title written on a large tablet (Is 8:1-2). To confirm the prophecy of the return of the exiles from Babylon, Jeremiah bought and paid for a field in the presence of witnesses, who also signed the deed for the property (Jer 32:6-15).<\/p>\n<p>At the conclusion of his farewell message at Shechem, Joshua declared that the Israelites themselves were witnesses that they had chosen to serve the Lord; then he set up a large stone and declared that it also was a witness (Jos 24:22-27). The people of Israel themselves were declared God’s witnesses (Is 43:10; 44:8-9). They were witnesses to the existence of God, to his uniqueness, holiness, power, and love. When they failed to acknowledge his uniqueness and holiness and turned to idolatry, he sent them into captivity, as he had warned, for they had failed in their witness and had given opportunity for the enemies of God to blaspheme.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"WitnessintheNewTestament\">Witness in the New Testament<\/p>\n<p>In the NT the various words for witness are mainly related to the verb <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">martureo<\/span><em>,<\/em> meaning “to bear witness, be a witness.” The word “martyr” shows the ultimate form of witness in that Christians have sacrificed their lives because of their witness for Jesus Christ.<\/p>\n<p>John the Baptist was both a witness and a martyr. As the forerunner of the Messiah, his mission was to bear witness to the light and to identify the Lamb of God (Jn 1:7-8, 19-36). The followers of Jesus, and particularly the 12 apostles, were witnesses to the person and character of Jesus. They knew him intimately, heard his teachings and observed his miracles; three were witnesses of his transfiguration (Mt 17:1-2; 2 Pt 1:17-18) and many were witnesses to his resurrection (Lk 24:48; 1 Cor 15:4-8). At the time of his ascension, the disciples were specifically commissioned to be his witnesses (Acts 1:8).<\/p>","summary_ro":"WITNESS One who tells what he or she has seen or personally experienced, often in a court of law. The term may also refer to the testimony the person has given. Witness in the Old Testament In the judicial procedure outlined in the OT, one witness was not adequate for personal testimony against anyone, but two or three witnesses were required (Dt 17:6; 19:15). This principle was incorporated into Jewish law and is reiterated in the NT (cf. Mt 18:16; 2 Cor 13:1). The truth of testimony is so i...","summary_en":"WITNESS One who tells what he or she has seen or personally experienced, often in a court of law. The term may also refer to the testimony the person has given. Witness in the Old Testament In the judicial procedure outlined in the OT, one witness was not adequate for personal testimony against anyone, but two or three witnesses were required (Dt 17:6; 19:15). This principle was incorporated into Jewish law and is reiterated in the NT (cf. Mt 18:16; 2 Cor 13:1). The truth of testimony is so i...","source":"Articles\/W.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":45091,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Deuteronomul 19:15","title_en":"Study Note: Deuteronomul 19:15","content_ro":"<p><strong>19:15<\/strong> The word of one witness alone would count no more than the word of the accused. However, <em>two or three witnesses<\/em> would confirm or discount each other’s testimony. For New Testament references to this law, see Matt 18:15-20; John 8:17-18; 2 Cor 13:1-2 and study note.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>19:15<\/strong> The word of one witness alone would count no more than the word of the accused. However, <em>two or three witnesses<\/em> would confirm or discount each other’s testimony. For New Testament references to this law, see Matt 18:15-20; John 8:17-18; 2 Cor 13:1-2 and study note.<\/p>","summary_ro":"19:15 The word of one witness alone would count no more than the word of the accused. However, two or three witnesses would confirm or discount each other’s testimony. For New Testament references to this law, see Matt 18:15-20; John 8:17-18; 2 Cor 13:1-2 and study note.","summary_en":"19:15 The word of one witness alone would count no more than the word of the accused. However, two or three witnesses would confirm or discount each other’s testimony. For New Testament references to this law, see Matt 18:15-20; John 8:17-18; 2 Cor 13:1-2 and study note.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":72717,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Deuteronomul 19:15","title_en":"Study Note: Deuteronomul 19:15","content_ro":"<p><strong>19:15<\/strong> The word of one witness alone would count no more than the word of the accused. However, <em>two or three witnesses<\/em> would confirm or discount each other’s testimony. For New Testament references to this law, see Matt 18:15-20; John 8:17-18; 2 Cor 13:1-2 and study note.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>19:15<\/strong> The word of one witness alone would count no more than the word of the accused. However, <em>two or three witnesses<\/em> would confirm or discount each other’s testimony. For New Testament references to this law, see Matt 18:15-20; John 8:17-18; 2 Cor 13:1-2 and study note.<\/p>","summary_ro":"19:15 The word of one witness alone would count no more than the word of the accused. However, two or three witnesses would confirm or discount each other’s testimony. For New Testament references to this law, see Matt 18:15-20; John 8:17-18; 2 Cor 13:1-2 and study note.","summary_en":"19:15 The word of one witness alone would count no more than the word of the accused. However, two or three witnesses would confirm or discount each other’s testimony. For New Testament references to this law, see Matt 18:15-20; John 8:17-18; 2 Cor 13:1-2 and study note.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":100343,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Deuteronomul 19:15","title_en":"Study Note: Deuteronomul 19:15","content_ro":"<p><strong>19:15<\/strong> The word of one witness alone would count no more than the word of the accused. However, <em>two or three witnesses<\/em> would confirm or discount each other’s testimony. For New Testament references to this law, see Matt 18:15-20; John 8:17-18; 2 Cor 13:1-2 and study note.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>19:15<\/strong> The word of one witness alone would count no more than the word of the accused. However, <em>two or three witnesses<\/em> would confirm or discount each other’s testimony. For New Testament references to this law, see Matt 18:15-20; John 8:17-18; 2 Cor 13:1-2 and study note.<\/p>","summary_ro":"19:15 The word of one witness alone would count no more than the word of the accused. However, two or three witnesses would confirm or discount each other’s testimony. For New Testament references to this law, see Matt 18:15-20; John 8:17-18; 2 Cor 13:1-2 and study note.","summary_en":"19:15 The word of one witness alone would count no more than the word of the accused. However, two or three witnesses would confirm or discount each other’s testimony. For New Testament references to this law, see Matt 18:15-20; John 8:17-18; 2 Cor 13:1-2 and study note.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":127969,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Deuteronomul 19:15","title_en":"Study Note: Deuteronomul 19:15","content_ro":"<p><strong>19:15<\/strong> The word of one witness alone would count no more than the word of the accused. However, <em>two or three witnesses<\/em> would confirm or discount each other’s testimony. For New Testament references to this law, see Matt 18:15-20; John 8:17-18; 2 Cor 13:1-2 and study note.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>19:15<\/strong> The word of one witness alone would count no more than the word of the accused. However, <em>two or three witnesses<\/em> would confirm or discount each other’s testimony. For New Testament references to this law, see Matt 18:15-20; John 8:17-18; 2 Cor 13:1-2 and study note.<\/p>","summary_ro":"19:15 The word of one witness alone would count no more than the word of the accused. However, two or three witnesses would confirm or discount each other’s testimony. For New Testament references to this law, see Matt 18:15-20; John 8:17-18; 2 Cor 13:1-2 and study note.","summary_en":"19:15 The word of one witness alone would count no more than the word of the accused. However, two or three witnesses would confirm or discount each other’s testimony. For New Testament references to this law, see Matt 18:15-20; John 8:17-18; 2 Cor 13:1-2 and study note.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"16":[{"id":38519,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Witness","title_en":"Witness","content_ro":"<h3>WITNESS<\/h3>\n<p>One who tells what he or she has seen or personally experienced, often in a court of law. The term may also refer to the testimony the person has given.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"WitnessintheOldTestament\">Witness in the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>In the judicial procedure outlined in the OT, one witness was not adequate for personal testimony against anyone, but two or three witnesses were required (Dt 17:6; 19:15). This principle was incorporated into Jewish law and is reiterated in the NT (cf. Mt 18:16; 2 Cor 13:1).<\/p>\n<p>The truth of testimony is so important that the Bible expressly forbids false witness in the ninth commandment (Ex 20:16; Dt 5:20; cf. Mk 10:19; Lk 18:20). The practical wisdom of Proverbs speaks out frequently against the false witness (e.g., Prv 6:19; 14:5; 25:18). Nevertheless, false witnesses did arise (Pss 27:12; 35:11), and there are notable examples of the bringing of more than one witness in order to bring about the death of an innocent person. The case of Naboth and his vineyard is notorious; here Jezebel, wife of King Ahab, bribed two men to bear false witness against Naboth so that he would be stoned to death and her wicked husband could take the vineyard he coveted so intensely (1 Kgs 21).<\/p>\n<p>Witnesses could be tested by the judges. If the testimony of an accuser was found to be false, that person was subjected to the punishment he had sought to have executed on the defendant (Dt 19:16-21). Proverbs also speaks of the punishment of the false witness (Prv 19:5, 9; 21:28).<\/p>\n<p>The OT records several accounts of legal proceedings in which witnesses are mentioned. Most of these involve the purchase or transfer of property. Ruth 4:7-12 relates the redemption of a field from Naomi by Boaz. Isaiah found “reliable witnesses” concerning a property title written on a large tablet (Is 8:1-2). To confirm the prophecy of the return of the exiles from Babylon, Jeremiah bought and paid for a field in the presence of witnesses, who also signed the deed for the property (Jer 32:6-15).<\/p>\n<p>At the conclusion of his farewell message at Shechem, Joshua declared that the Israelites themselves were witnesses that they had chosen to serve the Lord; then he set up a large stone and declared that it also was a witness (Jos 24:22-27). The people of Israel themselves were declared God’s witnesses (Is 43:10; 44:8-9). They were witnesses to the existence of God, to his uniqueness, holiness, power, and love. When they failed to acknowledge his uniqueness and holiness and turned to idolatry, he sent them into captivity, as he had warned, for they had failed in their witness and had given opportunity for the enemies of God to blaspheme.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"WitnessintheNewTestament\">Witness in the New Testament<\/p>\n<p>In the NT the various words for witness are mainly related to the verb <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">martureo<\/span><em>,<\/em> meaning “to bear witness, be a witness.” The word “martyr” shows the ultimate form of witness in that Christians have sacrificed their lives because of their witness for Jesus Christ.<\/p>\n<p>John the Baptist was both a witness and a martyr. As the forerunner of the Messiah, his mission was to bear witness to the light and to identify the Lamb of God (Jn 1:7-8, 19-36). The followers of Jesus, and particularly the 12 apostles, were witnesses to the person and character of Jesus. They knew him intimately, heard his teachings and observed his miracles; three were witnesses of his transfiguration (Mt 17:1-2; 2 Pt 1:17-18) and many were witnesses to his resurrection (Lk 24:48; 1 Cor 15:4-8). At the time of his ascension, the disciples were specifically commissioned to be his witnesses (Acts 1:8).<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>WITNESS<\/h3>\n<p>One who tells what he or she has seen or personally experienced, often in a court of law. The term may also refer to the testimony the person has given.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"WitnessintheOldTestament\">Witness in the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>In the judicial procedure outlined in the OT, one witness was not adequate for personal testimony against anyone, but two or three witnesses were required (Dt 17:6; 19:15). This principle was incorporated into Jewish law and is reiterated in the NT (cf. Mt 18:16; 2 Cor 13:1).<\/p>\n<p>The truth of testimony is so important that the Bible expressly forbids false witness in the ninth commandment (Ex 20:16; Dt 5:20; cf. Mk 10:19; Lk 18:20). The practical wisdom of Proverbs speaks out frequently against the false witness (e.g., Prv 6:19; 14:5; 25:18). Nevertheless, false witnesses did arise (Pss 27:12; 35:11), and there are notable examples of the bringing of more than one witness in order to bring about the death of an innocent person. The case of Naboth and his vineyard is notorious; here Jezebel, wife of King Ahab, bribed two men to bear false witness against Naboth so that he would be stoned to death and her wicked husband could take the vineyard he coveted so intensely (1 Kgs 21).<\/p>\n<p>Witnesses could be tested by the judges. If the testimony of an accuser was found to be false, that person was subjected to the punishment he had sought to have executed on the defendant (Dt 19:16-21). Proverbs also speaks of the punishment of the false witness (Prv 19:5, 9; 21:28).<\/p>\n<p>The OT records several accounts of legal proceedings in which witnesses are mentioned. Most of these involve the purchase or transfer of property. Ruth 4:7-12 relates the redemption of a field from Naomi by Boaz. Isaiah found “reliable witnesses” concerning a property title written on a large tablet (Is 8:1-2). To confirm the prophecy of the return of the exiles from Babylon, Jeremiah bought and paid for a field in the presence of witnesses, who also signed the deed for the property (Jer 32:6-15).<\/p>\n<p>At the conclusion of his farewell message at Shechem, Joshua declared that the Israelites themselves were witnesses that they had chosen to serve the Lord; then he set up a large stone and declared that it also was a witness (Jos 24:22-27). The people of Israel themselves were declared God’s witnesses (Is 43:10; 44:8-9). They were witnesses to the existence of God, to his uniqueness, holiness, power, and love. When they failed to acknowledge his uniqueness and holiness and turned to idolatry, he sent them into captivity, as he had warned, for they had failed in their witness and had given opportunity for the enemies of God to blaspheme.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"WitnessintheNewTestament\">Witness in the New Testament<\/p>\n<p>In the NT the various words for witness are mainly related to the verb <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">martureo<\/span><em>,<\/em> meaning “to bear witness, be a witness.” The word “martyr” shows the ultimate form of witness in that Christians have sacrificed their lives because of their witness for Jesus Christ.<\/p>\n<p>John the Baptist was both a witness and a martyr. As the forerunner of the Messiah, his mission was to bear witness to the light and to identify the Lamb of God (Jn 1:7-8, 19-36). The followers of Jesus, and particularly the 12 apostles, were witnesses to the person and character of Jesus. They knew him intimately, heard his teachings and observed his miracles; three were witnesses of his transfiguration (Mt 17:1-2; 2 Pt 1:17-18) and many were witnesses to his resurrection (Lk 24:48; 1 Cor 15:4-8). At the time of his ascension, the disciples were specifically commissioned to be his witnesses (Acts 1:8).<\/p>","summary_ro":"WITNESS One who tells what he or she has seen or personally experienced, often in a court of law. The term may also refer to the testimony the person has given. Witness in the Old Testament In the judicial procedure outlined in the OT, one witness was not adequate for personal testimony against anyone, but two or three witnesses were required (Dt 17:6; 19:15). This principle was incorporated into Jewish law and is reiterated in the NT (cf. Mt 18:16; 2 Cor 13:1). The truth of testimony is so i...","summary_en":"WITNESS One who tells what he or she has seen or personally experienced, often in a court of law. The term may also refer to the testimony the person has given. Witness in the Old Testament In the judicial procedure outlined in the OT, one witness was not adequate for personal testimony against anyone, but two or three witnesses were required (Dt 17:6; 19:15). This principle was incorporated into Jewish law and is reiterated in the NT (cf. Mt 18:16; 2 Cor 13:1). The truth of testimony is so i...","source":"Articles\/W.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"21":[{"id":15171,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Law Code of Hammurabi*","title_en":"Law Code of Hammurabi*","content_ro":"<h3>HAMMURABI*, Law Code of<\/h3>\n<p>Law code devised by Hammurabi, the last great king of the first Babylonian dynasty (c. 1790–1750 <span>BC<\/span>), to safeguard the rights and define the responsibilities of Babylonian citizens. The laws were inscribed on stelae, which were usually erected in marketplaces or near temples for all to see. The most complete example discovered so far dates from the latter part of his reign. The black diorite stele was found at Susa in 1901 by French archaeologists. It stood eight feet (2.4 meters) high and showed a bas-relief of Hammurabi receiving the symbols of kingship and law from the god Shamash. Beneath this was a poetic introduction, followed by the 282 articles of the code, and an epilogue in an equally poetic style extolling the virtues of Hammurabi, his concern for his people, and the way in which he had followed the wishes of the great god Marduk and the god of justice, Shamash. The gods are called upon to curse any who defy the stele.<\/p>\n<p>It had been carried to Susa as a battle trophy by the Elamites in 1160 <span>BC<\/span>, and it is now in the Louvre in Paris. The code is a collection of laws based on Sumerian and early Semitic laws. Similarities between the code of Hammurabi and those of the Assyrians, Hittites, and Hebrews are numerous.<\/p>\n<p>Hammurabi began his code by setting out punishments for the most obvious crimes, such as kidnapping, theft, receiving stolen property, breaking and entering, looting, perjury, false accusation, and harboring a fugitive. All these could be punished by death, especially where robbery involved the theft of temple or state property, and where perjury was committed by a witness giving testimony in a case involving a capital offense.<\/p>\n<p>All valid transactions took place before witnesses, and it was essential that their testimony was trustworthy in disputed cases. Summary justice was meted out to the man found guilty of breaking and entering: “If a man made a breach in a house, they shall put him to death in front of that breach and wall him in” (section 21), and to the looter at a fire: “If a fire broke out in a man’s house, and a man, who went to extinguish [it] cast his eye on the goods of the owner of the house and has appropriated the goods of the owner of the house, that man shall be thrown into that fire” (section 25).<\/p>\n<p>The protection of feudal rights and responsibilities are outlined in the next section. The officer was responsible for soldiers under his command in the same way that the soldier was required to fulfill his duty to the state. The law also protected his property while he was in the army. A tenant was under obligation to use his rented property carefully and advantageously. If a tenant rented land that became flooded before the harvest, the law protected him from having to pay rent for that year. He also had to be thoughtful toward his neighbors’ crops and ensure that he didn’t inundate their fields by his own overzealous irrigation (sections 30–56).<\/p>\n<p>The detail in which contracts and commercial laws are discussed indicates the extent and variety of such transactions. If money was borrowed from a merchant who foreclosed and the borrower was unable to repay the loan, he had to make payment in kind, for example, in dates from his own crop. The permissible interest rate was approximately 20 percent. The borrower was also protected by law from the practice of the lender’s using a small weight of grain or money and insisting on the return with interest at a large weight. Anyone caught doing this forfeited whatever he had lent. Female wine sellers were also cautioned against selling with short weight (section 108). High interest rates were prescribed for obtaining wine on credit, and it is unlikely that many took advantage of this early form of credit.<\/p>\n<p>To ensure an equal division in the breaking up of a partnership, the transaction was performed in the presence “of God,” presumably in the temple. A trader borrowing money at interest was expected to make a profit. If he did, he repaid the principal and the interest. If he did not, it was presumed that he was a poor trader, and he was penalized by having to repay the merchant double the amount that he had borrowed. If the money was loaned as a favor, however, and the trader then suffered a loss, the principal only was repayable without interest. A trader who was robbed by bandits was not required to make payment. Sealed receipts were used as a safeguard of fair trading practices. In disputes between a merchant and a trader over a loan, if the merchant proved his case, the trader had to return three times the amount of the money originally borrowed. Where the merchant disputed with a trader who then proved his case, the merchant paid the trader six times the amount of the principal involved (sections 98–107).<\/p>\n<p>A creditor could not come and take a debtor’s money or grain without his permission. If he did so, he had to return what he had taken and forfeit the loan. In several instances a person could be held as a pledge. If he died of natural causes during that period, no claim could be made, but if he died as a result of maltreatment, compensation was payable according to rank. If the pledge was a slave (the lowest level of Mesopotamian society), the amount payable was one-third of a mina of silver and the loan was forgiven. If the pledge was a man’s son, the creditor’s son was put to death as a recompense. Where a wife, son, or daughter was bound over for service to pay a debt, the maximum period of servitude was three years (sections 113–117).<\/p>\n<p>A man was responsible for the security of anything left with him for safekeeping. If the property was lost through robbery because the building was not secure, restitution had to be made to the owner of the property. Anyone claiming falsely that his property was lost had to pay the city council double the amount of his claim.<\/p>\n<p>There were also extensive laws related to sex and marriage (sections 127–162). Like most transactions, marriage was not valid without a contract. Adultery was frequently punished by death, but a man might plead to have his wife’s life spared. The victim of rape was not punished. (According to Mosaic law, such a person was equally guilty if the act took place within the city, as she was expected to scream for help. If it occurred outside the city walls, however, she was not held responsible, on the theory that her screams could not have been heard.) Hammurabi’s code shows concern for the woman who was deserted or whose husband was taken captive. She was permitted to live with another man if she had insufficient means to be self-supporting.<\/p>\n<p>A woman’s dowry was returned when she was divorced, or if there had been no dowry, a payment of one mina of silver was made to her, or one-third of a mina of silver if her husband was a peasant. If a woman neglected her household duties to set herself up in business, her husband might divorce her without payment or he might remarry without divorcing her, thus forcing her to live on in the house as a servant.<\/p>\n<p>A slave who had borne her master’s child could not be sold. If a man married a woman who was sick, and he then decided to marry another, the sick wife might continue to live in the house and her husband had to support her for the rest of her life. A woman who killed her husband for her lover was impaled on stakes (section 153). Incest was punishable by death or banishment. Breach of promise cases usually resulted in the repayment of double the value of the dowry. When a wife died, her dowry became part of her inheritance for her children, but if she died childless and her father returned her marriage price, her husband might not lay claim to her dowry, which had to be returned to her father (sections 162–163). The rights of a younger unmarried son were protected, as were those of the children of a master and his slave. A son was protected against being disinherited by his father unless he had committed some serious offense. A widow was protected against the overzealous financial demands of her children. If a free woman married a slave, their children were free. If the slave died, his widow retained her dowry and half the goods acquired since the marriage, the slave owner being entitled to the remainder. Women temple personnel were also protected by law.<\/p>\n<p>Under Hebrew law, it was a father’s duty to teach his son the means of earning a livelihood. Hammurabi’s code prescribed that an adopted son had to be similarly trained, and if in any way he was not reared as a natural child within the family, he might return to his own home.<\/p>\n<p>If a man subsequently had a family of his own and the foster child was sent away, he had the right to take with him one-third of the man’s goods, although none of his land or his house, since these were the inheritance of the natural children. If a child died in a nurse’s care and she took another assignment without informing the new employers of the previous death, her breast was cut off.<\/p>\n<p>The most famous section of Hammurabi’s law code concerns assault: “If a [man] has destroyed the eye of a member of the aristocracy, they shall destroy his eye.” Similarly, if he broke a man’s bone or knocked out a tooth, he would suffer the same fate (sections 196–197). If the injured person was a commoner, however, a fine of one mina of silver was charged for destroying an eye or breaking a bone. When the injured man was a slave, payment of half his value had to be made. Punishments for simple assault depended upon the rank of the two protagonists. Where a man swore that the blow was not deliberate, he might simply pay the physician’s bill. Other penalties were set out for instances where the blow was fatal or caused a woman to miscarry (sections 209–214).<\/p>\n<p>Surgeons’ fees were also specified. For saving a life or for eye surgery, the fee was ten shekels of silver when the patient was an aristocrat, but only five for a commoner, and two for a slave. If an aristocratic patient died under the surgeon’s bronze knife, or lost an eye, the surgeon could have his hand cut off (section 218). If a slave died during surgery, the surgeon had to replace the slave with another. For setting a broken bone or healing a sprained tendon, the physician charged five, three, or two shekels, depending on the patient’s status (sections 221–223).<\/p>\n<p>The final section of laws concerns the protection of people from the poor workmanship of house and boat builders, rules and regulations for those who rent animals or hire people, theft of agricultural implements, rates for hiring and paying wages, and rules for the purchase and sale of slaves (sections 228–282).<\/p>\n<p>A man who fraudulently let out his master’s oxen for hire rather than using them on his own fields would be required to pay the normal rental of grain for the field. If he was unable to do so, he was to be dragged through that field by the oxen.<\/p>\n<p>Because of similarities in culture, it is hardly surprising that there should be areas of correspondence between Hammurabi’s code and the Mosaic law. Thus both bodies of legislation prescribed the death penalty for adultery (Hammurabi section 129; Lv 20:10; Dt 22:22) and for the kidnapping and selling of an individual (Hammurabi section 114; Ex 21:16). The <em>lex talionis,<\/em> or principle of retaliation, in Exodus 21:23-25 and Deuteronomy 19:21 is reflected widely in Hammurabi’s laws, including sections 197, 210, and 230. The differences, however, are equally significant. Whereas Hammurabi’s legislation allowed women equal rights of divorce (section 142), these were denied under the Mosaic law by simply not being included (cf. Dt 24:1-4). Hammurabi’s code was basically pragmatic in nature, and although promulgated under the authority of Shamash, god of justice, the legislation took little notice of ethical and spiritual principles.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Civil Law and Justice; Criminal Law and Punishment; Law, Biblical Concept of.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>HAMMURABI*, Law Code of<\/h3>\n<p>Law code devised by Hammurabi, the last great king of the first Babylonian dynasty (c. 1790–1750 <span>BC<\/span>), to safeguard the rights and define the responsibilities of Babylonian citizens. The laws were inscribed on stelae, which were usually erected in marketplaces or near temples for all to see. The most complete example discovered so far dates from the latter part of his reign. The black diorite stele was found at Susa in 1901 by French archaeologists. It stood eight feet (2.4 meters) high and showed a bas-relief of Hammurabi receiving the symbols of kingship and law from the god Shamash. Beneath this was a poetic introduction, followed by the 282 articles of the code, and an epilogue in an equally poetic style extolling the virtues of Hammurabi, his concern for his people, and the way in which he had followed the wishes of the great god Marduk and the god of justice, Shamash. The gods are called upon to curse any who defy the stele.<\/p>\n<p>It had been carried to Susa as a battle trophy by the Elamites in 1160 <span>BC<\/span>, and it is now in the Louvre in Paris. The code is a collection of laws based on Sumerian and early Semitic laws. Similarities between the code of Hammurabi and those of the Assyrians, Hittites, and Hebrews are numerous.<\/p>\n<p>Hammurabi began his code by setting out punishments for the most obvious crimes, such as kidnapping, theft, receiving stolen property, breaking and entering, looting, perjury, false accusation, and harboring a fugitive. All these could be punished by death, especially where robbery involved the theft of temple or state property, and where perjury was committed by a witness giving testimony in a case involving a capital offense.<\/p>\n<p>All valid transactions took place before witnesses, and it was essential that their testimony was trustworthy in disputed cases. Summary justice was meted out to the man found guilty of breaking and entering: “If a man made a breach in a house, they shall put him to death in front of that breach and wall him in” (section 21), and to the looter at a fire: “If a fire broke out in a man’s house, and a man, who went to extinguish [it] cast his eye on the goods of the owner of the house and has appropriated the goods of the owner of the house, that man shall be thrown into that fire” (section 25).<\/p>\n<p>The protection of feudal rights and responsibilities are outlined in the next section. The officer was responsible for soldiers under his command in the same way that the soldier was required to fulfill his duty to the state. The law also protected his property while he was in the army. A tenant was under obligation to use his rented property carefully and advantageously. If a tenant rented land that became flooded before the harvest, the law protected him from having to pay rent for that year. He also had to be thoughtful toward his neighbors’ crops and ensure that he didn’t inundate their fields by his own overzealous irrigation (sections 30–56).<\/p>\n<p>The detail in which contracts and commercial laws are discussed indicates the extent and variety of such transactions. If money was borrowed from a merchant who foreclosed and the borrower was unable to repay the loan, he had to make payment in kind, for example, in dates from his own crop. The permissible interest rate was approximately 20 percent. The borrower was also protected by law from the practice of the lender’s using a small weight of grain or money and insisting on the return with interest at a large weight. Anyone caught doing this forfeited whatever he had lent. Female wine sellers were also cautioned against selling with short weight (section 108). High interest rates were prescribed for obtaining wine on credit, and it is unlikely that many took advantage of this early form of credit.<\/p>\n<p>To ensure an equal division in the breaking up of a partnership, the transaction was performed in the presence “of God,” presumably in the temple. A trader borrowing money at interest was expected to make a profit. If he did, he repaid the principal and the interest. If he did not, it was presumed that he was a poor trader, and he was penalized by having to repay the merchant double the amount that he had borrowed. If the money was loaned as a favor, however, and the trader then suffered a loss, the principal only was repayable without interest. A trader who was robbed by bandits was not required to make payment. Sealed receipts were used as a safeguard of fair trading practices. In disputes between a merchant and a trader over a loan, if the merchant proved his case, the trader had to return three times the amount of the money originally borrowed. Where the merchant disputed with a trader who then proved his case, the merchant paid the trader six times the amount of the principal involved (sections 98–107).<\/p>\n<p>A creditor could not come and take a debtor’s money or grain without his permission. If he did so, he had to return what he had taken and forfeit the loan. In several instances a person could be held as a pledge. If he died of natural causes during that period, no claim could be made, but if he died as a result of maltreatment, compensation was payable according to rank. If the pledge was a slave (the lowest level of Mesopotamian society), the amount payable was one-third of a mina of silver and the loan was forgiven. If the pledge was a man’s son, the creditor’s son was put to death as a recompense. Where a wife, son, or daughter was bound over for service to pay a debt, the maximum period of servitude was three years (sections 113–117).<\/p>\n<p>A man was responsible for the security of anything left with him for safekeeping. If the property was lost through robbery because the building was not secure, restitution had to be made to the owner of the property. Anyone claiming falsely that his property was lost had to pay the city council double the amount of his claim.<\/p>\n<p>There were also extensive laws related to sex and marriage (sections 127–162). Like most transactions, marriage was not valid without a contract. Adultery was frequently punished by death, but a man might plead to have his wife’s life spared. The victim of rape was not punished. (According to Mosaic law, such a person was equally guilty if the act took place within the city, as she was expected to scream for help. If it occurred outside the city walls, however, she was not held responsible, on the theory that her screams could not have been heard.) Hammurabi’s code shows concern for the woman who was deserted or whose husband was taken captive. She was permitted to live with another man if she had insufficient means to be self-supporting.<\/p>\n<p>A woman’s dowry was returned when she was divorced, or if there had been no dowry, a payment of one mina of silver was made to her, or one-third of a mina of silver if her husband was a peasant. If a woman neglected her household duties to set herself up in business, her husband might divorce her without payment or he might remarry without divorcing her, thus forcing her to live on in the house as a servant.<\/p>\n<p>A slave who had borne her master’s child could not be sold. If a man married a woman who was sick, and he then decided to marry another, the sick wife might continue to live in the house and her husband had to support her for the rest of her life. A woman who killed her husband for her lover was impaled on stakes (section 153). Incest was punishable by death or banishment. Breach of promise cases usually resulted in the repayment of double the value of the dowry. When a wife died, her dowry became part of her inheritance for her children, but if she died childless and her father returned her marriage price, her husband might not lay claim to her dowry, which had to be returned to her father (sections 162–163). The rights of a younger unmarried son were protected, as were those of the children of a master and his slave. A son was protected against being disinherited by his father unless he had committed some serious offense. A widow was protected against the overzealous financial demands of her children. If a free woman married a slave, their children were free. If the slave died, his widow retained her dowry and half the goods acquired since the marriage, the slave owner being entitled to the remainder. Women temple personnel were also protected by law.<\/p>\n<p>Under Hebrew law, it was a father’s duty to teach his son the means of earning a livelihood. Hammurabi’s code prescribed that an adopted son had to be similarly trained, and if in any way he was not reared as a natural child within the family, he might return to his own home.<\/p>\n<p>If a man subsequently had a family of his own and the foster child was sent away, he had the right to take with him one-third of the man’s goods, although none of his land or his house, since these were the inheritance of the natural children. If a child died in a nurse’s care and she took another assignment without informing the new employers of the previous death, her breast was cut off.<\/p>\n<p>The most famous section of Hammurabi’s law code concerns assault: “If a [man] has destroyed the eye of a member of the aristocracy, they shall destroy his eye.” Similarly, if he broke a man’s bone or knocked out a tooth, he would suffer the same fate (sections 196–197). If the injured person was a commoner, however, a fine of one mina of silver was charged for destroying an eye or breaking a bone. When the injured man was a slave, payment of half his value had to be made. Punishments for simple assault depended upon the rank of the two protagonists. Where a man swore that the blow was not deliberate, he might simply pay the physician’s bill. Other penalties were set out for instances where the blow was fatal or caused a woman to miscarry (sections 209–214).<\/p>\n<p>Surgeons’ fees were also specified. For saving a life or for eye surgery, the fee was ten shekels of silver when the patient was an aristocrat, but only five for a commoner, and two for a slave. If an aristocratic patient died under the surgeon’s bronze knife, or lost an eye, the surgeon could have his hand cut off (section 218). If a slave died during surgery, the surgeon had to replace the slave with another. For setting a broken bone or healing a sprained tendon, the physician charged five, three, or two shekels, depending on the patient’s status (sections 221–223).<\/p>\n<p>The final section of laws concerns the protection of people from the poor workmanship of house and boat builders, rules and regulations for those who rent animals or hire people, theft of agricultural implements, rates for hiring and paying wages, and rules for the purchase and sale of slaves (sections 228–282).<\/p>\n<p>A man who fraudulently let out his master’s oxen for hire rather than using them on his own fields would be required to pay the normal rental of grain for the field. If he was unable to do so, he was to be dragged through that field by the oxen.<\/p>\n<p>Because of similarities in culture, it is hardly surprising that there should be areas of correspondence between Hammurabi’s code and the Mosaic law. Thus both bodies of legislation prescribed the death penalty for adultery (Hammurabi section 129; Lv 20:10; Dt 22:22) and for the kidnapping and selling of an individual (Hammurabi section 114; Ex 21:16). The <em>lex talionis,<\/em> or principle of retaliation, in Exodus 21:23-25 and Deuteronomy 19:21 is reflected widely in Hammurabi’s laws, including sections 197, 210, and 230. The differences, however, are equally significant. Whereas Hammurabi’s legislation allowed women equal rights of divorce (section 142), these were denied under the Mosaic law by simply not being included (cf. Dt 24:1-4). Hammurabi’s code was basically pragmatic in nature, and although promulgated under the authority of Shamash, god of justice, the legislation took little notice of ethical and spiritual principles.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Civil Law and Justice; Criminal Law and Punishment; Law, Biblical Concept of.<\/p>","summary_ro":"HAMMURABI*, Law Code of Law code devised by Hammurabi, the last great king of the first Babylonian dynasty (c. 1790–1750 BC), to safeguard the rights and define the responsibilities of Babylonian citizens. The laws were inscribed on stelae, which were usually erected in marketplaces or near temples for all to see. The most complete example discovered so far dates from the latter part of his reign. The black diorite stele was found at Susa in 1901 by French archaeologists. It stood eight feet ...","summary_en":"HAMMURABI*, Law Code of Law code devised by Hammurabi, the last great king of the first Babylonian dynasty (c. 1790–1750 BC), to safeguard the rights and define the responsibilities of Babylonian citizens. The laws were inscribed on stelae, which were usually erected in marketplaces or near temples for all to see. The most complete example discovered so far dates from the latter part of his reign. The black diorite stele was found at Susa in 1901 by French archaeologists. It stood eight feet ...","source":"Articles\/H.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":45092,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Deuteronomul 19:21","title_en":"Study Note: Deuteronomul 19:21","content_ro":"<p><strong>19:21<\/strong> The legal principle described as <em>life for life<\/em> is known as <em>lex talionis<\/em> (“law of retaliation”), according to which the punishment must fit the crime (see Exod 21:23; Lev 24:20); it should be neither too lenient nor too severe. Appropriate punishment is a necessary function of government (cp. Rom 13:1-7), and it served to maintain Israel’s spiritual integrity as God’s people (see study note on Deut 17:7). But vengeance belongs to God, not individuals (see 1 Sam 25:26, 33; Matt 5:38-39; 1 Cor 6:1-8).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>19:21<\/strong> The legal principle described as <em>life for life<\/em> is known as <em>lex talionis<\/em> (“law of retaliation”), according to which the punishment must fit the crime (see Exod 21:23; Lev 24:20); it should be neither too lenient nor too severe. Appropriate punishment is a necessary function of government (cp. Rom 13:1-7), and it served to maintain Israel’s spiritual integrity as God’s people (see study note on Deut 17:7). But vengeance belongs to God, not individuals (see 1 Sam 25:26, 33; Matt 5:38-39; 1 Cor 6:1-8).<\/p>","summary_ro":"19:21 The legal principle described as life for life is known as lex talionis (“law of retaliation”), according to which the punishment must fit the crime (see Exod 21:23; Lev 24:20); it should be neither too lenient nor too severe. Appropriate punishment is a necessary function of government (cp. Rom 13:1-7), and it served to maintain Israel’s spiritual integrity as God’s people (see study note on Deut 17:7). But vengeance belongs to God, not individuals (see 1 Sam 25:26, 33; Matt 5:38-39; 1...","summary_en":"19:21 The legal principle described as life for life is known as lex talionis (“law of retaliation”), according to which the punishment must fit the crime (see Exod 21:23; Lev 24:20); it should be neither too lenient nor too severe. Appropriate punishment is a necessary function of government (cp. Rom 13:1-7), and it served to maintain Israel’s spiritual integrity as God’s people (see study note on Deut 17:7). But vengeance belongs to God, not individuals (see 1 Sam 25:26, 33; Matt 5:38-39; 1...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":72718,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Deuteronomul 19:21","title_en":"Study Note: Deuteronomul 19:21","content_ro":"<p><strong>19:21<\/strong> The legal principle described as <em>life for life<\/em> is known as <em>lex talionis<\/em> (“law of retaliation”), according to which the punishment must fit the crime (see Exod 21:23; Lev 24:20); it should be neither too lenient nor too severe. Appropriate punishment is a necessary function of government (cp. Rom 13:1-7), and it served to maintain Israel’s spiritual integrity as God’s people (see study note on Deut 17:7). But vengeance belongs to God, not individuals (see 1 Sam 25:26, 33; Matt 5:38-39; 1 Cor 6:1-8).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>19:21<\/strong> The legal principle described as <em>life for life<\/em> is known as <em>lex talionis<\/em> (“law of retaliation”), according to which the punishment must fit the crime (see Exod 21:23; Lev 24:20); it should be neither too lenient nor too severe. Appropriate punishment is a necessary function of government (cp. Rom 13:1-7), and it served to maintain Israel’s spiritual integrity as God’s people (see study note on Deut 17:7). But vengeance belongs to God, not individuals (see 1 Sam 25:26, 33; Matt 5:38-39; 1 Cor 6:1-8).<\/p>","summary_ro":"19:21 The legal principle described as life for life is known as lex talionis (“law of retaliation”), according to which the punishment must fit the crime (see Exod 21:23; Lev 24:20); it should be neither too lenient nor too severe. Appropriate punishment is a necessary function of government (cp. Rom 13:1-7), and it served to maintain Israel’s spiritual integrity as God’s people (see study note on Deut 17:7). But vengeance belongs to God, not individuals (see 1 Sam 25:26, 33; Matt 5:38-39; 1...","summary_en":"19:21 The legal principle described as life for life is known as lex talionis (“law of retaliation”), according to which the punishment must fit the crime (see Exod 21:23; Lev 24:20); it should be neither too lenient nor too severe. Appropriate punishment is a necessary function of government (cp. Rom 13:1-7), and it served to maintain Israel’s spiritual integrity as God’s people (see study note on Deut 17:7). But vengeance belongs to God, not individuals (see 1 Sam 25:26, 33; Matt 5:38-39; 1...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":100344,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Deuteronomul 19:21","title_en":"Study Note: Deuteronomul 19:21","content_ro":"<p><strong>19:21<\/strong> The legal principle described as <em>life for life<\/em> is known as <em>lex talionis<\/em> (“law of retaliation”), according to which the punishment must fit the crime (see Exod 21:23; Lev 24:20); it should be neither too lenient nor too severe. Appropriate punishment is a necessary function of government (cp. Rom 13:1-7), and it served to maintain Israel’s spiritual integrity as God’s people (see study note on Deut 17:7). But vengeance belongs to God, not individuals (see 1 Sam 25:26, 33; Matt 5:38-39; 1 Cor 6:1-8).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>19:21<\/strong> The legal principle described as <em>life for life<\/em> is known as <em>lex talionis<\/em> (“law of retaliation”), according to which the punishment must fit the crime (see Exod 21:23; Lev 24:20); it should be neither too lenient nor too severe. Appropriate punishment is a necessary function of government (cp. Rom 13:1-7), and it served to maintain Israel’s spiritual integrity as God’s people (see study note on Deut 17:7). But vengeance belongs to God, not individuals (see 1 Sam 25:26, 33; Matt 5:38-39; 1 Cor 6:1-8).<\/p>","summary_ro":"19:21 The legal principle described as life for life is known as lex talionis (“law of retaliation”), according to which the punishment must fit the crime (see Exod 21:23; Lev 24:20); it should be neither too lenient nor too severe. Appropriate punishment is a necessary function of government (cp. Rom 13:1-7), and it served to maintain Israel’s spiritual integrity as God’s people (see study note on Deut 17:7). But vengeance belongs to God, not individuals (see 1 Sam 25:26, 33; Matt 5:38-39; 1...","summary_en":"19:21 The legal principle described as life for life is known as lex talionis (“law of retaliation”), according to which the punishment must fit the crime (see Exod 21:23; Lev 24:20); it should be neither too lenient nor too severe. Appropriate punishment is a necessary function of government (cp. Rom 13:1-7), and it served to maintain Israel’s spiritual integrity as God’s people (see study note on Deut 17:7). But vengeance belongs to God, not individuals (see 1 Sam 25:26, 33; Matt 5:38-39; 1...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":127970,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Deuteronomul 19:21","title_en":"Study Note: Deuteronomul 19:21","content_ro":"<p><strong>19:21<\/strong> The legal principle described as <em>life for life<\/em> is known as <em>lex talionis<\/em> (“law of retaliation”), according to which the punishment must fit the crime (see Exod 21:23; Lev 24:20); it should be neither too lenient nor too severe. Appropriate punishment is a necessary function of government (cp. Rom 13:1-7), and it served to maintain Israel’s spiritual integrity as God’s people (see study note on Deut 17:7). But vengeance belongs to God, not individuals (see 1 Sam 25:26, 33; Matt 5:38-39; 1 Cor 6:1-8).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>19:21<\/strong> The legal principle described as <em>life for life<\/em> is known as <em>lex talionis<\/em> (“law of retaliation”), according to which the punishment must fit the crime (see Exod 21:23; Lev 24:20); it should be neither too lenient nor too severe. Appropriate punishment is a necessary function of government (cp. Rom 13:1-7), and it served to maintain Israel’s spiritual integrity as God’s people (see study note on Deut 17:7). But vengeance belongs to God, not individuals (see 1 Sam 25:26, 33; Matt 5:38-39; 1 Cor 6:1-8).<\/p>","summary_ro":"19:21 The legal principle described as life for life is known as lex talionis (“law of retaliation”), according to which the punishment must fit the crime (see Exod 21:23; Lev 24:20); it should be neither too lenient nor too severe. Appropriate punishment is a necessary function of government (cp. Rom 13:1-7), and it served to maintain Israel’s spiritual integrity as God’s people (see study note on Deut 17:7). But vengeance belongs to God, not individuals (see 1 Sam 25:26, 33; Matt 5:38-39; 1...","summary_en":"19:21 The legal principle described as life for life is known as lex talionis (“law of retaliation”), according to which the punishment must fit the crime (see Exod 21:23; Lev 24:20); it should be neither too lenient nor too severe. Appropriate punishment is a necessary function of government (cp. Rom 13:1-7), and it served to maintain Israel’s spiritual integrity as God’s people (see study note on Deut 17:7). But vengeance belongs to God, not individuals (see 1 Sam 25:26, 33; Matt 5:38-39; 1...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}]},"labels":{"article":"Articol","map":"Hartă","chart":"Diagramă","textbox":"Notă explicativă","picture":"Imagine","profile":"Profil","study_note":"Notă de studiu","theme_note":"Temă biblică"},"icons":{"article":"📖","map":"🗺️","chart":"📊","textbox":"💡","picture":"🖼️","profile":"👤","study_note":"📝","theme_note":"🎯"},"typeColors":{"article":"#d4af37","map":"#2d7d46","chart":"#3b82f6","textbox":"#8b5cf6","picture":"#ec4899","profile":"#f59e0b","study_note":"#06b6d4","theme_note":"#ef4444"}}
🔍
Niciun rezultat
Nu am găsit versete care să conțină textul căutat.
Deuteronom 19
— 21 versete
Deuteronom 19
📘 Info carte
Se încarcă...
📖 Resurse