Deuteronom 24
1 Când cineva îşi va lua o nevastă şi se va însura cu ea, şi s-ar întâmpla ca ea să nu mai aibă trecere înaintea lui, pentru că a descoperit ceva ruşinos în ea, să-i scrie o carte de despărţire, şi, după ce-i va da-o în mână, să-i dea drumul din casa lui.
2 Ea să iasă de la el, să plece, şi va putea să se mărite după un alt bărbat.
3 Dacă şi acesta din urmă începe s-o urască, îi scrie o carte de despărţire, şi după ce i-o dă în mână, îi dă drumul din casa lui; sau, dacă acest bărbat din urmă care a luat-o de nevastă, moare,
4 atunci bărbatul dintâi, care îi dăduse drumul, nu va putea s-o ia iarăş de nevastă, după ce s-a pângărit ea, căci lucrul acesta este o urâciune înaintea Domnului, şi să nu faci vinovată de păcat ţara pe care ţi-o dă de moştenire Domnul, Dumnezeul tău.
5 Când un om va fi însurat de curând, să nu se ducă la oaste, şi să nu se pună nici o sarcină peste el; să fie scutit, din pricina familiei, timp de un an, şi să veselească astfel pe nevasta pe care şi-a luat-o.
6 Să nu iei zălog cele două pietre de rîşniţă, nici chiar piatra de rîşniţă de deasupra; căci ar însemna că iei zălog însăş viaţa cuiva.
7 Dacă se va găsi cineva care să fi furat pe vreunul din fraţii lui, pe vreunul din copiii lui Israel, şi să-l fi făcut rob sau să-l fi vândut, hoţul acela să fie pedepsit cu moartea. Să curăţi astfel răul din mijlocul tău.
8 Ia seama bine şi păzeşte-te de rana leprei; şi să faceţi tot ce vă vor învăţa preoţii dintre Leviţi, să aveţi grijă să lucraţi după poruncile pe cari li le-am dat.
9 Adu-ţi aminte ce a făcut Domnul, Dumnezeul tău, Mariei, pe drum, la ieşirea voastră din Egipt.
10 Dacă ai vreo datorie la aproapele tău, să nu intri în casa lui ca să-i iei lucrul pus zălog;
11 ci să stai afară, şi cel pe care l-ai împrumutat să-ţi aducă afară lucrul pus zălog.
12 Dacă omul acela este sărac, să nu te culci cu lucrul luat zălog dela el la tine;
13 să i-l dai înapoi la apusul soarelui, ca să se culce în haina lui, şi să te binecuvinteze; şi lucrul acesta ţi se va socoti ca un lucru bun înaintea Domnului, Dumnezeului tău.
14 Să nu nedreptăţeşti pe simbriaşul sărac şi nevoiaş, fie că este unul din fraţii tăi, fie că este unul din străinii cari locuiesc în ţara ta, în cetăţile tale.
15 Să-i dai plata pentru ziua lui înainte de apusul soarelui; căci e sărac, şi o doreşte mult. Altfel, ar striga către Domnul împotriva ta, şi te-ai face vinovat de un păcat.
16 Să nu omori pe părinţi pentru copii, şi să nu omori pe copii pentru părinţi; fiecare să fie omorât pentru păcatul lui.
17 Să nu te atingi de dreptul străinului şi al orfanului, şi să nu iei zălog haina văduvei.
18 Să-ţi aduci aminte că ai fost rob în Egipt, şi că Domnul, Dumnezeul tău, te-a răscumpărat de acolo; de aceea îţi dau aceste porunci ca să le împlineşti.
19 Când îţi vei secera ogorul, şi vei uita un snop pe câmp, să nu te întorci să-l iei: să fie al străinului, al orfanului şi al văduvei, pentruca Domnul, Dumnezeul tău, să te binecuvinteze în tot lucrul mânilor tale.
20 Când îţi vei scutura măslinii, să nu culegi a două oară roadele rămase pe ramuri: ele să fie ale străinului, ale orfanului şi ale văduvei.
21 Când îţi vei culege via, să nu culegi a doua oară ciorchinele cari rămân pe urma ta: ele să fie ale străinului, ale orfanului şi ale văduvei.
22 Adu-ţi aminte că ai fost rob în ţara Egiptului; de aceea îţi dau poruncile acestea, ca să le împlineşti.
{"verseMap":{"1":[{"id":4877,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"of the Old Testament in the New Testament Bible*, Quotations","title_en":"of the Old Testament in the New Testament Bible*, Quotations","content_ro":"<h3>BIBLE*, Q<span>uotations of the Old Testament in the New Testament<\/span><\/h3>\n<p>OT passages cited or alluded to in the NT writings.<\/p>\n<p>One of the most complex problems in interpreting the Bible is in understanding how NT writers quoted the OT. Obviously nothing is so formative and authoritative for the NT writers as Scripture. However, the way that they used OT passages often seems strange to modern readers.<\/p>\n<p>The OT has provided the words and ideas for much of the NT. Unless one has a Bible that prints OT quotations in distinctive print, this may not be easily seen, for the NT writers often weave the OT words into their own without indicating they are borrowing from the OT. There are over 400 passages of the OT that are explicitly cited in the NT. Almost half of these are introduced by a statement like “Scripture says” to draw attention to the fact that the authority and thought of the OT is being implemented. For the others, however, the OT words are woven into the fabric of the author’s own statement.<\/p>\n<p>In addition to the over 400 passages cited explicitly, there are well over 1,000 places where there is an allusion to an OT text, event, or person. The difference between a quotation and an allusion is sometimes debated for particular texts, but usually the distinction is that in a quotation the author consciously uses the words of an OT passage, whereas with an allusion he has the texts in mind but is not consciously trying to use the words.<\/p>\n<p>Quotations are easy to identify if there is an introductory formula such as “the Scripture says” (as in Rom 10:11; cf. Is 28:16). Where there is no introductory formula, it is easy to overlook explicit quotations (Rom 10:13; cf. Jl 2:32). The allusions are, of course, harder still to recognize, but they often provide the key to interpretation. For example, John 1:14-18—with its mention of glory, grace and truth, Moses, and the fact that no one has seen God—is much more easily and profoundly understood when read in connection with Exodus 33:17–34:8. In the Exodus passage the glory of God and his grace and truth are revealed to Moses. The author was showing that a much more complete revelation of God was given in Jesus than was given Moses in the account recorded in Exodus.<\/p>\n<p>In addition, significant light is shed on many NT passages from OT passages with similar ideas and words even where the NT author may not have been consciously alluding to those texts (e.g. Mt 16:19; Is 22:22). What was behind the author’s thinking is not certain, but in such cases the NT reflects the thinking, the culture, and language of the OT period.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"DistributionofOldTestamentQuotations\">Distribution of Old Testament Quotations<\/p>\n<p>The books of the NT that show the most dependence on the OT are Matthew, John, Romans, Hebrews, 1 Peter, and Revelation. Such a statement can be misleading, however, because the writers have different methods.<\/p>\n<p>Matthew quotes or consciously reflects the wording of OT passages about 62 times, almost half of which have an introductory formula. The book of Revelation, on the other hand, never quotes the OT and never has an introductory formula but is probably more dependent on the OT than any other NT book. The book of Hebrews quotes or consciously reflects the OT about 59 times, again half of which have an introductory formula, but the Gospel of John does so only 18 times, nearly always with an introductory formula. However, the allusions to the OT are present on virtually every page of John’s Gospel, so much so that some scholars have argued that he has modeled his account on the exodus narrative, the Jewish feasts, or OT persons and images. Paul’s Letter to the Romans uses the OT 54 times (about three-fourths of which have introductory formulas), but nowhere else so frequently (e.g., 1 Cor 16 times, Gal 11 times, Phil one time, 1 Thes one time).<\/p>\n<p>In addition to the indication that Philippians and 1 Thessalonians use the OT only once each, some other books make explicit use of the OT rarely or never. Colossians, Titus, Philemon, and the Johannine letters do not use the OT at all; 2 Timothy and Jude use the OT only once; while 2 Peter and 1 Timothy make use of it twice.<\/p>\n<p>The important point is to realize that the OT is used most frequently in circumstances where the audience is familiar with the OT or where the OT is essential for describing the events relating to Christ and the church. The books using the OT most frequently (Mt, Jn, Rom, Heb, 1 Pt, Rv) either stem from or are addressed to a Jewish context or, as in the case of Romans and John, deal specifically with the relation of Jews and Christians. The Gospels make rather extensive use of the OT because the language of the OT is necessary to convey the identity and importance of Jesus in the purposes of God. Similarly 1 Peter uses the OT frequently because the author is trying to convey to his persecuted audience that they are the people of God and the inheritors of the promises of God.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"DifficultiesinInterpretation\">Difficulties in Interpretation<\/p>\n<p>Often when people think of quotations of the OT in the NT they think only in terms of prophecy. Some have been guilty of counting up the OT statements that the NT applies to Christ and the church and then claiming these OT texts as predictions that prove Jesus is the Messiah. Such a procedure is filled with problems because it is too simplistic and does not do justice to either the OT or to the way the NT uses it. Of course, the early church used the OT to show that Jesus fulfilled the promises of God and did God’s work, but the use the church made of the OT was quite varied and much of it cannot be classified as predictive prophecy. Prophecy itself is too complex to be limited to predictive thinking.<\/p>\n<p>Some of the most obvious examples of the difficulties appear in Matthew’s Gospel, although they are by no means confined there. Matthew 2:15—“Out of Egypt I called my son”—is a quotation of Hosea 11:1, but in Hosea these words do not refer to the Messiah. They refer to the nation of Israel. Similarly Matthew 2:18 quotes Jeremiah 31:15 (“A voice is heard in Ramah, weeping and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children and refusing to be comforted, because they are no more,” <span>niv<\/span>) as fulfilled in the slaughter of the innocent babies in Bethlehem, but in Jeremiah the weeping is over the destruction of Jerusalem. John 12:40 views Isaiah 6:10 as fulfilled in Jesus’ ministry, but this verse deals with the call of Isaiah and is not a prediction concerning the ministry of the Messiah. The examples could be multiplied but these should be sufficient to illustrate the problem. For this reason the NT writers have often been accused of twisting the Scriptures, but this charge is as simplistic as the thought that all prophecy is predictive and in fact springs from the same error. Therefore, any attempt to understand the use of the OT in the NT will have to deal with the variety of ways in which the OT is used and with the methods employed by the NT writers.<\/p>\n<p>There are other difficulties that are encountered as well. Sometimes the NT writer will indicate that some fact related to Christ is a fulfillment of the OT but the explicit text that he had in mind cannot be identified. For example, John 7:38 introduces the words “Out of his heart shall flow rivers of living water” with the statement “as Scripture has said.” No OT text reads this way. Possibly the allusion is to the rock that provided water in the wilderness (Ex 17:1), or to the waters that flowed from the new temple (Zec 14:8) or, more generally, it may be a reference to Isaiah 58:11. Similarly, the difficulty in determining the OT text behind the prophecy that Christ will be called a Nazarene (Mt 2:23) is notorious. Probably the reference is to Isaiah 11:1 and the Hebrew word there translated as “branch,” but the connection is not easily made and is not certain. A third example of this kind of difficulty is in 1 Corinthians 14:34, where Paul indicates that women should be in submission just as the Law says, but there is no OT text expressing this idea. His statement in probably to be understood as a summary rather than a quotation or allusion. Similarly on a few occasions an OT text is seemingly attributed to the wrong OT book. In Mark 1:2-3 an OT quotation is attributed to Isaiah but the quotation is really a conflation (or mixing) of Exodus 23:20, Malachi 3:1, and Isaiah 40:3. Matthew 27:9-10 quotes a passage that is said to be from Jeremiah, when really it is dependent on Zechariah 11:13 and might best be described as a summary of Zechariah 11:12-13, with certain words included from Jeremiah 32:6-9. These two examples do not create a major problem, however, for the determination of the origin of the words may be due to their use in collections of quotations from various prophets, in which case the more prominent prophets would be used to designate origin.<\/p>\n<p>The wording of the quotations of the OT text does not always conform to the modern form of the OT. Just as today there are numerous translations of the Bible, when the NT was being written there were various forms of the OT text. With regard to the Hebrew text (for the OT was written mostly in Hebrew), there were different traditions. Such differences in the Hebrew traditions would have been relatively small. Because of the increasing importance of Aramaic after the Babylonian captivity and of Greek after the conquests of Alexander the Great, the OT was also known and used in both these languages when the NT was being written. In fact, the Jews found it necessary in their synagogue services after reading the Hebrew OT to paraphrase the reading in Aramaic so that all could understand. These paraphrases were later written down and are known as Targums. The Greek translation of the OT that stems from the third century <span>BC<\/span> is known as the Septuagint, but there were also other Greek translations in use. This being the case, the wording of a NT quotation is not identical in every detail to the text of the Hebrew OT.<\/p>\n<p>Added to the fact that there were various forms of the text known in first-century <span>AD<\/span> Palestine is the complicating factor that NT writers often did not intend to quote the OT exactly. The use of formal quotation marks is a modern device, and ancient writers were not so taken by technical precision. They were more concerned with the intention of a text and consequently might copy or quote it verbatim, quote it from memory, use or adapt part of a verse, or even change certain words as they borrowed the verse to express their points. (The NT writers often use the OT words describing God’s actions in the past to explain what he has done in their time.) The importance of any differences between the NT quotation and the OT depends on the use to which the quotation is put and the degree to which the use is dependent on textual differences.<\/p>\n<p>Some examples should illustrate the nature of these difficulties. Ephesians 4:8 quotes Psalm 68:18. Whereas the Hebrew and Septuagint read, “You ascended to the heights, you lead captivity captive, you received gifts among mankind,” Ephesians records the verse as “After he ascended into the heights, <em>he<\/em> led captivity captive; he <em>gave<\/em> gifts to men.” Paul is stressing that Christ has given grace to people for ministry. He has either adapted the wording of the OT to make his point or he quoted a variant reading, <em>“he gave<\/em> gifts.” Some versions do have this reading. In fact, the Targum understands this verse as Moses giving the words of the law to the children of men, and Paul may well be adapting this understanding to the new revelation that has come in Christ.<\/p>\n<p>Matthew 1:23 quotes Isaiah 7:14, but there are distinct differences between the Hebrew text and the wording in Matthew. The Hebrew reads, “Behold the young woman will become pregnant and will bear a son and you will call his name Immanuel,” whereas Matthew’s text records “Behold, the <em>virgin<\/em> will become pregnant and will bear a son, and <em>they<\/em> will call his name Immanuel.” The Septuagint does have the specific word “virgin,” like Matthew, but is not the source of Matthew’s quotation since other differences exist. Some have argued that the change from “you will call” to “they will call” was made by Matthew when he applied the words to Jesus. However, there are several traditions known for this part of the quotation and partial support for the reading in Matthew is provided by the text of Isaiah found among the Dead Sea Scrolls.<\/p>\n<p>Romans 11:26-27 is a conflation of Isaiah 59:20-21 and part of Isaiah 27:9, but there are important differences. One of these is that the OT has “the redeemer will come to Zion,” whereas Romans has “the deliverer will come <em>from<\/em> Zion.” The change to “from Zion” could indicate that Paul had a different textual tradition, could be the result of an intentional change by Paul, or more probably, could reflect the wording of Psalm 14:7.<\/p>\n<p>An awareness of the difficulties involved in the quotations of the OT by the NT writers will prohibit a simplistic approach and will prevent hasty conclusions. Care to ask not only which text was used but also which form of the text was used and how is obviously essential in any serious study. In addition it is necessary to allow for the possibility that the NT writers knew forms of a text that are now lost.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheMethodsoftheNewTestamentWriters\">The Methods of the New Testament Writers<\/p>\n<p>The methods used by the NT writers were not unique to them. Many of these methods were also employed in first-century Judaism. In fact, both the technique used in quoting and the understanding of the OT text itself in many cases are paralleled in Judaism. For example, from the standpoint of technique used in quoting, the same kinds of formula introductions are used in the Dead Sea Scrolls, the rabbinic writings, and elsewhere. The rabbinic technique of “pearl stringing,” that is, of applying verses from various parts of the OT (the Law, the Prophets, the Writings) to a subject, can be seen especially in Paul’s writings (note Rom 9:12-19 or 11:8-10). Somewhat related is the practice of using quotations that all contain a key word or key words (note 1 Pt 2:6-8, which draws together quotations using the word “stone,” or Rom 15:9-12, which joins OT verses referring to the “nations”).<\/p>\n<p>The methods used in the NT to interpret an OT text are also displayed in Judaism. Some passages interpret the OT “literally,” such as Jesus’ replies during temptation (see the quotations of Dt 8:3; 6:16; 6:13; in Mt 4:3-10), his teachings on marriage based on Genesis 2:24 (Mt 19:5), or Paul’s use of Habakkuk 2:4 (Rom 1:17) or Genesis 15:6 (Rom 4:3-9). Many such examples could be given. With regard to prophecy, some of these statements are fulfilled in a “literal” or “direct” way in keeping with the intention of the OT (e.g., Mi 5:2, Bethlehem as the birthplace of the Messiah; Mt 2:4-6). Jeremiah 31:31-34, the promise of the new covenant, is viewed as directly fulfilled in Christ (Heb 8:7-13). The prophecy of Joel 2:28-32 concerning the pouring out of the Spirit of the Lord is directly fulfilled in the Pentecost event (Acts 2:17-21), but the changing of the sun to darkness and the moon to blood are certainly not understood literally in connection with this event.<\/p>\n<p>A different method of interpretation is based on the concept of <em>corporate solidarity.<\/em> This technical expression is an attempt to convey the idea that the individuals among God’s people are not merely individuals; they are part of a larger whole. Consequently, what is said about the individual can apply to the whole and vice versa. This is the reason the Servant of the Lord in Isaiah is seen both as the nation (44:1) and as an individual (52:13–53:12). Also the king is sometimes viewed as representative of the nation. The easiest places to see the concept of corporate solidarity are in the effect of the sin of Achan on all the people (Jos 7) or the sin of David in numbering the people (1 Chr 21:3-8).<\/p>\n<p><em>Correspondence in history<\/em> is not so much a method of interpretation as it is a way of thinking about God. It assumes that the things that happen to God’s people are the things that have happened to previous generations and that God is faithful and operates in the present as he has in the past. Consequently, the trials and deliverance of God’s people are often expressed with words borrowed from the previous accounts of God’s people. Isaiah describes the anticipated deliverance in terms of a second exodus (11:15-16). Ezekiel describes the king set up over the people in terms of a second David (Ez 37:25). In the NT, Revelation 22 describes the new heavens and the new earth in terms of the Garden of Eden (Gn 2–3). Sometimes this technique is described as “typology,” but this term has been used for so many questionable interpretations that it is misleading. The most important thing about this concept is that it is a view of God and his working among his people.<\/p>\n<p>With these two concepts, the way that the OT is quoted in the NT can be understood. The conviction that Jesus was the promised deliverer and that the last days had dawned in his ministry are evident everywhere. The quotation of Hosea 11:1 can be used in Matthew 2:15 because of corporate solidarity and correspondence in history. What was said of the nation is true of the one who is its representative, and there is correspondence in their respective histories. Jeremiah 31:15 can be used in Matthew 2:18 because of correspondence in history and especially because Jeremiah looked forward to God’s intention for Israel and prophesied a new covenant (31:17, 31-34). Matthew saw not only the correspondence in history but believed that in Jesus this promised salvation had been granted. John 12:40 can quote Isaiah 6:10 of Jesus’ ministry, not because he twists the meaning of the OT text, but because he saw that what had happened with God’s messenger before happened again and even <em>ultimately<\/em> in Jesus’ ministry. The instances of such correspondences in history are numerous.<\/p>\n<p>There are other texts where there seems to be an <em>actualization<\/em> of the OT text. Some quotations seem to be “lived out” in the ministry of Jesus. Because of their conviction about Jesus and his kingdom, the NT writers often saw certain OT texts as appropriated and made alive by Jesus. Psalm 118:22 was not intended as a prophecy of the Messiah, but Jesus saw it as descriptive of his ministry (Mt 21:42), and the early church saw this verse as actualized in his death and resurrection (Acts 4:11). Isaiah 53 is another text that the NT views as actualized in Jesus’ ministry (see Acts 8:32-35 and 1 Pt 2:22-25). Some Christians would view Psalm 22 as a prophecy of the crucifixion of Jesus, but it seems instead to be the lament of a righteous OT sufferer. Through correspondence in history, and because Christians saw so much of the psalmist’s plight actualized in Jesus’ crucifixion, the psalm became the easiest way to describe what once again had happened to God’s righteous sufferer. The words of Isaiah 40:3 describe the ministry of John the Baptist (Mt 3:3). Jews had come to see this verse as a prophecy of God’s end-time salvation, and the early church saw John the Baptist fulfilling this forerunner’s task. Luke made this identification (Lk 3:4-6), but he applied the same role to Jesus’ disciples (9:52; 10:1). This seems to be a further example of actualization and correspondence in history. In other places the church has applied to Christians ideas that were previously understood of Christ (e.g., the stone in 1 Pt 2:4-5; the ministry of the Suffering Servant in Acts 13:46-47).<\/p>\n<p>The most convenient term to describe the way the OT is “fulfilled” in Christ is to say that the OT finds its climax in Jesus. Even where actual quotations are not involved, the OT ideas such as prophet, priest, or king are climaxed in him as the ideal and embodiment of all the OT models. He could tell religious authorities that “one greater than Solomon is here” (Mt 12:42) or “one greater than the temple is here” (Mt 12:6). Those passages involving correspondence in history or actualization also lead to the conviction that he is the climax of the OT Scriptures.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"ThePurposesoftheUseoftheOldTestament\">The Purposes of the Use of the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>The variety of methods of interpretation and application of the OT parallels the fact that the OT was used for a variety of purposes. People tend to think only in terms of the use of the OT to show that Jesus was the Messiah, but there are a number of other uses with a variety of goals. Many OT texts are used to show Jesus is the Messiah, the fulfillment of the OT promises (Lk 4:16-21). Without lessening the fulfillment emphasis, however, other verses are applied to Jesus for other purposes: to evangelize (Acts 8:32-25); to demonstrate or convince (Acts 13:33-35); to rebuke (Mk 7:6-7; Rom 11:7-10); and to describe (Rv 1:12-15). On the other hand, many quotations of the OT in the NT are not directly related to the Messiah. OT passages are adapted to provide a word from God on some aspect of life or ethics. For example, Jesus used Genesis 2:24 to substantiate his teaching on divorce as he attempted to deal with the issues raised by the civil regulation of divorce (Dt 24:1; Mt 19:1-12). The stress on the OT commandments shows their importance for Christians (Mt 19:16-22; Rom 13:8-10). Often OT statements deal with specific problems. The problem of pride at Corinth is solved by the quotation of Jeremiah 9:24 (“Let the one boasting, boast in the Lord,” 1 Cor 1:31). First Peter 3:10-12 incorporates Psalm 34:12-16 as ethical instructions, and 3:14-15 borrows from Isaiah 8:12-13 to address the fear of suffering. The spiritual armor in Ephesians 6:14-17 is derived largely from OT passages. Such examples are so numerous that there can be no doubt that the OT is used to describe Christian existence. In fact, nearly every subject discussed in the NT is presented somewhere via OT terms and quotations. Frequently OT passages are used to describe the church as God’s end-time community. Hosea 2:23 is used to show that those who formerly were not God’s people now are (Rom 9:25-26; 1 Pt 2:10). Several OT texts contribute to the description of the church in 1 Peter 2:9. OT texts that speak of the word of God describe the apostles’ preaching (Rom 10:8; 1 Pt 1:24-25). OT quotations describe the sinful condition of humanity (Rom 3:10-20). Salvation is explained through OT concepts and symbols and is based on OT statements (Jn 6:31-33; Gal 3:6-13). The words of Daniel describe the Second Coming (7:13-14; cf. Mt 24:30). Even the worship of early Christians was expressed through use of the OT (see Acts 4:24; Rom 11:34-35).<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>BIBLE*, Q<span>uotations of the Old Testament in the New Testament<\/span><\/h3>\n<p>OT passages cited or alluded to in the NT writings.<\/p>\n<p>One of the most complex problems in interpreting the Bible is in understanding how NT writers quoted the OT. Obviously nothing is so formative and authoritative for the NT writers as Scripture. However, the way that they used OT passages often seems strange to modern readers.<\/p>\n<p>The OT has provided the words and ideas for much of the NT. Unless one has a Bible that prints OT quotations in distinctive print, this may not be easily seen, for the NT writers often weave the OT words into their own without indicating they are borrowing from the OT. There are over 400 passages of the OT that are explicitly cited in the NT. Almost half of these are introduced by a statement like “Scripture says” to draw attention to the fact that the authority and thought of the OT is being implemented. For the others, however, the OT words are woven into the fabric of the author’s own statement.<\/p>\n<p>In addition to the over 400 passages cited explicitly, there are well over 1,000 places where there is an allusion to an OT text, event, or person. The difference between a quotation and an allusion is sometimes debated for particular texts, but usually the distinction is that in a quotation the author consciously uses the words of an OT passage, whereas with an allusion he has the texts in mind but is not consciously trying to use the words.<\/p>\n<p>Quotations are easy to identify if there is an introductory formula such as “the Scripture says” (as in Rom 10:11; cf. Is 28:16). Where there is no introductory formula, it is easy to overlook explicit quotations (Rom 10:13; cf. Jl 2:32). The allusions are, of course, harder still to recognize, but they often provide the key to interpretation. For example, John 1:14-18—with its mention of glory, grace and truth, Moses, and the fact that no one has seen God—is much more easily and profoundly understood when read in connection with Exodus 33:17–34:8. In the Exodus passage the glory of God and his grace and truth are revealed to Moses. The author was showing that a much more complete revelation of God was given in Jesus than was given Moses in the account recorded in Exodus.<\/p>\n<p>In addition, significant light is shed on many NT passages from OT passages with similar ideas and words even where the NT author may not have been consciously alluding to those texts (e.g. Mt 16:19; Is 22:22). What was behind the author’s thinking is not certain, but in such cases the NT reflects the thinking, the culture, and language of the OT period.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"DistributionofOldTestamentQuotations\">Distribution of Old Testament Quotations<\/p>\n<p>The books of the NT that show the most dependence on the OT are Matthew, John, Romans, Hebrews, 1 Peter, and Revelation. Such a statement can be misleading, however, because the writers have different methods.<\/p>\n<p>Matthew quotes or consciously reflects the wording of OT passages about 62 times, almost half of which have an introductory formula. The book of Revelation, on the other hand, never quotes the OT and never has an introductory formula but is probably more dependent on the OT than any other NT book. The book of Hebrews quotes or consciously reflects the OT about 59 times, again half of which have an introductory formula, but the Gospel of John does so only 18 times, nearly always with an introductory formula. However, the allusions to the OT are present on virtually every page of John’s Gospel, so much so that some scholars have argued that he has modeled his account on the exodus narrative, the Jewish feasts, or OT persons and images. Paul’s Letter to the Romans uses the OT 54 times (about three-fourths of which have introductory formulas), but nowhere else so frequently (e.g., 1 Cor 16 times, Gal 11 times, Phil one time, 1 Thes one time).<\/p>\n<p>In addition to the indication that Philippians and 1 Thessalonians use the OT only once each, some other books make explicit use of the OT rarely or never. Colossians, Titus, Philemon, and the Johannine letters do not use the OT at all; 2 Timothy and Jude use the OT only once; while 2 Peter and 1 Timothy make use of it twice.<\/p>\n<p>The important point is to realize that the OT is used most frequently in circumstances where the audience is familiar with the OT or where the OT is essential for describing the events relating to Christ and the church. The books using the OT most frequently (Mt, Jn, Rom, Heb, 1 Pt, Rv) either stem from or are addressed to a Jewish context or, as in the case of Romans and John, deal specifically with the relation of Jews and Christians. The Gospels make rather extensive use of the OT because the language of the OT is necessary to convey the identity and importance of Jesus in the purposes of God. Similarly 1 Peter uses the OT frequently because the author is trying to convey to his persecuted audience that they are the people of God and the inheritors of the promises of God.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"DifficultiesinInterpretation\">Difficulties in Interpretation<\/p>\n<p>Often when people think of quotations of the OT in the NT they think only in terms of prophecy. Some have been guilty of counting up the OT statements that the NT applies to Christ and the church and then claiming these OT texts as predictions that prove Jesus is the Messiah. Such a procedure is filled with problems because it is too simplistic and does not do justice to either the OT or to the way the NT uses it. Of course, the early church used the OT to show that Jesus fulfilled the promises of God and did God’s work, but the use the church made of the OT was quite varied and much of it cannot be classified as predictive prophecy. Prophecy itself is too complex to be limited to predictive thinking.<\/p>\n<p>Some of the most obvious examples of the difficulties appear in Matthew’s Gospel, although they are by no means confined there. Matthew 2:15—“Out of Egypt I called my son”—is a quotation of Hosea 11:1, but in Hosea these words do not refer to the Messiah. They refer to the nation of Israel. Similarly Matthew 2:18 quotes Jeremiah 31:15 (“A voice is heard in Ramah, weeping and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children and refusing to be comforted, because they are no more,” <span>niv<\/span>) as fulfilled in the slaughter of the innocent babies in Bethlehem, but in Jeremiah the weeping is over the destruction of Jerusalem. John 12:40 views Isaiah 6:10 as fulfilled in Jesus’ ministry, but this verse deals with the call of Isaiah and is not a prediction concerning the ministry of the Messiah. The examples could be multiplied but these should be sufficient to illustrate the problem. For this reason the NT writers have often been accused of twisting the Scriptures, but this charge is as simplistic as the thought that all prophecy is predictive and in fact springs from the same error. Therefore, any attempt to understand the use of the OT in the NT will have to deal with the variety of ways in which the OT is used and with the methods employed by the NT writers.<\/p>\n<p>There are other difficulties that are encountered as well. Sometimes the NT writer will indicate that some fact related to Christ is a fulfillment of the OT but the explicit text that he had in mind cannot be identified. For example, John 7:38 introduces the words “Out of his heart shall flow rivers of living water” with the statement “as Scripture has said.” No OT text reads this way. Possibly the allusion is to the rock that provided water in the wilderness (Ex 17:1), or to the waters that flowed from the new temple (Zec 14:8) or, more generally, it may be a reference to Isaiah 58:11. Similarly, the difficulty in determining the OT text behind the prophecy that Christ will be called a Nazarene (Mt 2:23) is notorious. Probably the reference is to Isaiah 11:1 and the Hebrew word there translated as “branch,” but the connection is not easily made and is not certain. A third example of this kind of difficulty is in 1 Corinthians 14:34, where Paul indicates that women should be in submission just as the Law says, but there is no OT text expressing this idea. His statement in probably to be understood as a summary rather than a quotation or allusion. Similarly on a few occasions an OT text is seemingly attributed to the wrong OT book. In Mark 1:2-3 an OT quotation is attributed to Isaiah but the quotation is really a conflation (or mixing) of Exodus 23:20, Malachi 3:1, and Isaiah 40:3. Matthew 27:9-10 quotes a passage that is said to be from Jeremiah, when really it is dependent on Zechariah 11:13 and might best be described as a summary of Zechariah 11:12-13, with certain words included from Jeremiah 32:6-9. These two examples do not create a major problem, however, for the determination of the origin of the words may be due to their use in collections of quotations from various prophets, in which case the more prominent prophets would be used to designate origin.<\/p>\n<p>The wording of the quotations of the OT text does not always conform to the modern form of the OT. Just as today there are numerous translations of the Bible, when the NT was being written there were various forms of the OT text. With regard to the Hebrew text (for the OT was written mostly in Hebrew), there were different traditions. Such differences in the Hebrew traditions would have been relatively small. Because of the increasing importance of Aramaic after the Babylonian captivity and of Greek after the conquests of Alexander the Great, the OT was also known and used in both these languages when the NT was being written. In fact, the Jews found it necessary in their synagogue services after reading the Hebrew OT to paraphrase the reading in Aramaic so that all could understand. These paraphrases were later written down and are known as Targums. The Greek translation of the OT that stems from the third century <span>BC<\/span> is known as the Septuagint, but there were also other Greek translations in use. This being the case, the wording of a NT quotation is not identical in every detail to the text of the Hebrew OT.<\/p>\n<p>Added to the fact that there were various forms of the text known in first-century <span>AD<\/span> Palestine is the complicating factor that NT writers often did not intend to quote the OT exactly. The use of formal quotation marks is a modern device, and ancient writers were not so taken by technical precision. They were more concerned with the intention of a text and consequently might copy or quote it verbatim, quote it from memory, use or adapt part of a verse, or even change certain words as they borrowed the verse to express their points. (The NT writers often use the OT words describing God’s actions in the past to explain what he has done in their time.) The importance of any differences between the NT quotation and the OT depends on the use to which the quotation is put and the degree to which the use is dependent on textual differences.<\/p>\n<p>Some examples should illustrate the nature of these difficulties. Ephesians 4:8 quotes Psalm 68:18. Whereas the Hebrew and Septuagint read, “You ascended to the heights, you lead captivity captive, you received gifts among mankind,” Ephesians records the verse as “After he ascended into the heights, <em>he<\/em> led captivity captive; he <em>gave<\/em> gifts to men.” Paul is stressing that Christ has given grace to people for ministry. He has either adapted the wording of the OT to make his point or he quoted a variant reading, <em>“he gave<\/em> gifts.” Some versions do have this reading. In fact, the Targum understands this verse as Moses giving the words of the law to the children of men, and Paul may well be adapting this understanding to the new revelation that has come in Christ.<\/p>\n<p>Matthew 1:23 quotes Isaiah 7:14, but there are distinct differences between the Hebrew text and the wording in Matthew. The Hebrew reads, “Behold the young woman will become pregnant and will bear a son and you will call his name Immanuel,” whereas Matthew’s text records “Behold, the <em>virgin<\/em> will become pregnant and will bear a son, and <em>they<\/em> will call his name Immanuel.” The Septuagint does have the specific word “virgin,” like Matthew, but is not the source of Matthew’s quotation since other differences exist. Some have argued that the change from “you will call” to “they will call” was made by Matthew when he applied the words to Jesus. However, there are several traditions known for this part of the quotation and partial support for the reading in Matthew is provided by the text of Isaiah found among the Dead Sea Scrolls.<\/p>\n<p>Romans 11:26-27 is a conflation of Isaiah 59:20-21 and part of Isaiah 27:9, but there are important differences. One of these is that the OT has “the redeemer will come to Zion,” whereas Romans has “the deliverer will come <em>from<\/em> Zion.” The change to “from Zion” could indicate that Paul had a different textual tradition, could be the result of an intentional change by Paul, or more probably, could reflect the wording of Psalm 14:7.<\/p>\n<p>An awareness of the difficulties involved in the quotations of the OT by the NT writers will prohibit a simplistic approach and will prevent hasty conclusions. Care to ask not only which text was used but also which form of the text was used and how is obviously essential in any serious study. In addition it is necessary to allow for the possibility that the NT writers knew forms of a text that are now lost.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheMethodsoftheNewTestamentWriters\">The Methods of the New Testament Writers<\/p>\n<p>The methods used by the NT writers were not unique to them. Many of these methods were also employed in first-century Judaism. In fact, both the technique used in quoting and the understanding of the OT text itself in many cases are paralleled in Judaism. For example, from the standpoint of technique used in quoting, the same kinds of formula introductions are used in the Dead Sea Scrolls, the rabbinic writings, and elsewhere. The rabbinic technique of “pearl stringing,” that is, of applying verses from various parts of the OT (the Law, the Prophets, the Writings) to a subject, can be seen especially in Paul’s writings (note Rom 9:12-19 or 11:8-10). Somewhat related is the practice of using quotations that all contain a key word or key words (note 1 Pt 2:6-8, which draws together quotations using the word “stone,” or Rom 15:9-12, which joins OT verses referring to the “nations”).<\/p>\n<p>The methods used in the NT to interpret an OT text are also displayed in Judaism. Some passages interpret the OT “literally,” such as Jesus’ replies during temptation (see the quotations of Dt 8:3; 6:16; 6:13; in Mt 4:3-10), his teachings on marriage based on Genesis 2:24 (Mt 19:5), or Paul’s use of Habakkuk 2:4 (Rom 1:17) or Genesis 15:6 (Rom 4:3-9). Many such examples could be given. With regard to prophecy, some of these statements are fulfilled in a “literal” or “direct” way in keeping with the intention of the OT (e.g., Mi 5:2, Bethlehem as the birthplace of the Messiah; Mt 2:4-6). Jeremiah 31:31-34, the promise of the new covenant, is viewed as directly fulfilled in Christ (Heb 8:7-13). The prophecy of Joel 2:28-32 concerning the pouring out of the Spirit of the Lord is directly fulfilled in the Pentecost event (Acts 2:17-21), but the changing of the sun to darkness and the moon to blood are certainly not understood literally in connection with this event.<\/p>\n<p>A different method of interpretation is based on the concept of <em>corporate solidarity.<\/em> This technical expression is an attempt to convey the idea that the individuals among God’s people are not merely individuals; they are part of a larger whole. Consequently, what is said about the individual can apply to the whole and vice versa. This is the reason the Servant of the Lord in Isaiah is seen both as the nation (44:1) and as an individual (52:13–53:12). Also the king is sometimes viewed as representative of the nation. The easiest places to see the concept of corporate solidarity are in the effect of the sin of Achan on all the people (Jos 7) or the sin of David in numbering the people (1 Chr 21:3-8).<\/p>\n<p><em>Correspondence in history<\/em> is not so much a method of interpretation as it is a way of thinking about God. It assumes that the things that happen to God’s people are the things that have happened to previous generations and that God is faithful and operates in the present as he has in the past. Consequently, the trials and deliverance of God’s people are often expressed with words borrowed from the previous accounts of God’s people. Isaiah describes the anticipated deliverance in terms of a second exodus (11:15-16). Ezekiel describes the king set up over the people in terms of a second David (Ez 37:25). In the NT, Revelation 22 describes the new heavens and the new earth in terms of the Garden of Eden (Gn 2–3). Sometimes this technique is described as “typology,” but this term has been used for so many questionable interpretations that it is misleading. The most important thing about this concept is that it is a view of God and his working among his people.<\/p>\n<p>With these two concepts, the way that the OT is quoted in the NT can be understood. The conviction that Jesus was the promised deliverer and that the last days had dawned in his ministry are evident everywhere. The quotation of Hosea 11:1 can be used in Matthew 2:15 because of corporate solidarity and correspondence in history. What was said of the nation is true of the one who is its representative, and there is correspondence in their respective histories. Jeremiah 31:15 can be used in Matthew 2:18 because of correspondence in history and especially because Jeremiah looked forward to God’s intention for Israel and prophesied a new covenant (31:17, 31-34). Matthew saw not only the correspondence in history but believed that in Jesus this promised salvation had been granted. John 12:40 can quote Isaiah 6:10 of Jesus’ ministry, not because he twists the meaning of the OT text, but because he saw that what had happened with God’s messenger before happened again and even <em>ultimately<\/em> in Jesus’ ministry. The instances of such correspondences in history are numerous.<\/p>\n<p>There are other texts where there seems to be an <em>actualization<\/em> of the OT text. Some quotations seem to be “lived out” in the ministry of Jesus. Because of their conviction about Jesus and his kingdom, the NT writers often saw certain OT texts as appropriated and made alive by Jesus. Psalm 118:22 was not intended as a prophecy of the Messiah, but Jesus saw it as descriptive of his ministry (Mt 21:42), and the early church saw this verse as actualized in his death and resurrection (Acts 4:11). Isaiah 53 is another text that the NT views as actualized in Jesus’ ministry (see Acts 8:32-35 and 1 Pt 2:22-25). Some Christians would view Psalm 22 as a prophecy of the crucifixion of Jesus, but it seems instead to be the lament of a righteous OT sufferer. Through correspondence in history, and because Christians saw so much of the psalmist’s plight actualized in Jesus’ crucifixion, the psalm became the easiest way to describe what once again had happened to God’s righteous sufferer. The words of Isaiah 40:3 describe the ministry of John the Baptist (Mt 3:3). Jews had come to see this verse as a prophecy of God’s end-time salvation, and the early church saw John the Baptist fulfilling this forerunner’s task. Luke made this identification (Lk 3:4-6), but he applied the same role to Jesus’ disciples (9:52; 10:1). This seems to be a further example of actualization and correspondence in history. In other places the church has applied to Christians ideas that were previously understood of Christ (e.g., the stone in 1 Pt 2:4-5; the ministry of the Suffering Servant in Acts 13:46-47).<\/p>\n<p>The most convenient term to describe the way the OT is “fulfilled” in Christ is to say that the OT finds its climax in Jesus. Even where actual quotations are not involved, the OT ideas such as prophet, priest, or king are climaxed in him as the ideal and embodiment of all the OT models. He could tell religious authorities that “one greater than Solomon is here” (Mt 12:42) or “one greater than the temple is here” (Mt 12:6). Those passages involving correspondence in history or actualization also lead to the conviction that he is the climax of the OT Scriptures.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"ThePurposesoftheUseoftheOldTestament\">The Purposes of the Use of the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>The variety of methods of interpretation and application of the OT parallels the fact that the OT was used for a variety of purposes. People tend to think only in terms of the use of the OT to show that Jesus was the Messiah, but there are a number of other uses with a variety of goals. Many OT texts are used to show Jesus is the Messiah, the fulfillment of the OT promises (Lk 4:16-21). Without lessening the fulfillment emphasis, however, other verses are applied to Jesus for other purposes: to evangelize (Acts 8:32-25); to demonstrate or convince (Acts 13:33-35); to rebuke (Mk 7:6-7; Rom 11:7-10); and to describe (Rv 1:12-15). On the other hand, many quotations of the OT in the NT are not directly related to the Messiah. OT passages are adapted to provide a word from God on some aspect of life or ethics. For example, Jesus used Genesis 2:24 to substantiate his teaching on divorce as he attempted to deal with the issues raised by the civil regulation of divorce (Dt 24:1; Mt 19:1-12). The stress on the OT commandments shows their importance for Christians (Mt 19:16-22; Rom 13:8-10). Often OT statements deal with specific problems. The problem of pride at Corinth is solved by the quotation of Jeremiah 9:24 (“Let the one boasting, boast in the Lord,” 1 Cor 1:31). First Peter 3:10-12 incorporates Psalm 34:12-16 as ethical instructions, and 3:14-15 borrows from Isaiah 8:12-13 to address the fear of suffering. The spiritual armor in Ephesians 6:14-17 is derived largely from OT passages. Such examples are so numerous that there can be no doubt that the OT is used to describe Christian existence. In fact, nearly every subject discussed in the NT is presented somewhere via OT terms and quotations. Frequently OT passages are used to describe the church as God’s end-time community. Hosea 2:23 is used to show that those who formerly were not God’s people now are (Rom 9:25-26; 1 Pt 2:10). Several OT texts contribute to the description of the church in 1 Peter 2:9. OT texts that speak of the word of God describe the apostles’ preaching (Rom 10:8; 1 Pt 1:24-25). OT quotations describe the sinful condition of humanity (Rom 3:10-20). Salvation is explained through OT concepts and symbols and is based on OT statements (Jn 6:31-33; Gal 3:6-13). The words of Daniel describe the Second Coming (7:13-14; cf. Mt 24:30). Even the worship of early Christians was expressed through use of the OT (see Acts 4:24; Rom 11:34-35).<\/p>","summary_ro":"BIBLE*, Quotations of the Old Testament in the New Testament OT passages cited or alluded to in the NT writings. One of the most complex problems in interpreting the Bible is in understanding how NT writers quoted the OT. Obviously nothing is so formative and authoritative for the NT writers as Scripture. However, the way that they used OT passages often seems strange to modern readers. The OT has provided the words and ideas for much of the NT. Unless one has a Bible that prints OT quotation...","summary_en":"BIBLE*, Quotations of the Old Testament in the New Testament OT passages cited or alluded to in the NT writings. One of the most complex problems in interpreting the Bible is in understanding how NT writers quoted the OT. Obviously nothing is so formative and authoritative for the NT writers as Scripture. However, the way that they used OT passages often seems strange to modern readers. The OT has provided the words and ideas for much of the NT. Unless one has a Bible that prints OT quotation...","source":"Articles\/B.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":9782,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Divorce","title_en":"Divorce","content_ro":"<h3>DIVORCE<\/h3>\n<p>Biblical provisions regulating divorce are closely bound up with the various definitions given to marriage within the successive phases of God’s progressive revelation in history.<\/p>\n<p>In the Genesis Creation account, marriage is defined as the “one flesh” union established by God in the context of a sinless environment (Gn 2:24). Given such conditions, the dissolution of the marriage relationship was inconceivable. During his ministry, Jesus affirmed this aspect of God’s original design for marriage. He described the implications of the “one flesh” relationship as the abrogation of the separatedness of the spouses and the creation of an inviolable union (Mt 19:6).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheOldTestamentsViewonDivorce\">The Old Testament’s View on Divorce<\/p>\n<p>The disruptions brought about by the fall had grievous consequences for the male\/female relationship. Having allowed sin to sever their primary dependency on God, man and woman became respectively subject to the elements from which they had been originally made. Man became subject to the dust of the ground whence he had come (Gn 2:7; 3:19), and woman became subject to the man from whom she had been formed (2:22; 3:16). Prior to the fall, man and woman had enjoyed a relationship of equality as cosharers in the divine image (1:27) and as partners in the divine mandate to exercise dominion over creation (v 28). After the fall man became ruler over woman, and woman became subject to man (3:16).<\/p>\n<p>As a result of these new conditions, man assumed rights of disposition over woman that he did not possess prior to the fall. The “one flesh” relation was violated when the right of rulership opened the way for the male ruler to multiply the number of his female subjects. This disparity between male and female resulted in the practice of polygamy (Gn 4:19; 16:3; 29:30) and of serial monogamy, which required the termination of each successive marriage by an act of divorce (Dt 24:1-4). Thus, the emergence of the practice of divorce appeared as the inevitable consequence of the principle of male rulership. Neither rulership nor divorce was part of God’s original design for the marriage relationship. The Mosaic regulation on divorce was a concession made by God to the fallen condition of mankind (Mt 19:8). Characteristically, the option of divorce was a right available only to the male rulers. As subjects of their male rulers, wives became the victims of divorce. Men could divorce their wives; women could not divorce their husbands.<\/p>\n<p>As unfair as it may seem, the Deuteronomic provisions for divorce were actually intended to offer a modicum of protection for its female victims. A husband had to justify a divorce action against his wife by citing something indecent about her. He was to give his divorced wife a bill of divorce that accounted for her marriage to him (Dt 24:1). Moreover, a divorced husband was forbidden to remarry his ex-wife after her subsequent marriage, since his original divorce was viewed as a defilement of her (v 4).<\/p>\n<p>Although the Mosaic dispositions on divorce were granted as a divine concession to Israel’s hardness of heart, the OT emphatically states that God hates divorce (Mal 2:16). The right of divorce was grudgingly granted as an accommodation to the principle of male rulership that had resulted from the fall. But God’s original design, reflected in the “one flesh” marital relation, remained the standard for the union of man and woman in marriage.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"JesusTeachingonDivorce\">Jesus’ Teaching on Divorce<\/p>\n<p>Inasmuch as Christ’s ministry of redemption signaled a return to God’s original purposes in Creation, the old covenant regulations on divorce were abrogated in the Christian community. In order to justify the inviolability of the marriage bond among his followers, Jesus directed them to the creational model. Referring negatively to the intervening Mosaic allowance for divorce, Jesus upheld God’s original creation order by stating that “from the beginning it was not so” (Mt 19:8). Christ repudiated the fall and affirmed the Creation design.<\/p>\n<p>In Matthew 5:31-32 Jesus explicitly abrogated the Mosaic legislation that allowed men to divorce their wives. He viewed the practice as a violation of the integrity of women. Adulterous men who divorce their wives reduce them to the status of whores, using them as commodities to be passed around through the expediency of easy divorce. By divorcing their wives, men treat them as adulteresses. By marrying a woman discarded from a previous marriage, a man perpetuates the demeaning process and becomes guilty of adultery.<\/p>\n<p>Jesus deliberately withdrew from men the ruler’s right of discarding a wife at will and reinstated the creational pattern of the lifelong “one flesh” union. His disciples understood his intent accurately. But the principle of male privilege was so deeply ingrained in their mentality that they declared the freedom available in celibacy preferable to a commitment to lifelong monogamous marriage (Mt 19:10).<\/p>\n<p>Not only did Jesus reaffirm the validity of the “one flesh” union for the community of redemption, but the NT reinforced the inviolability of the marriage bond by defining it as an earthly copy of the relationship between Christ and the church (Eph 5:25).<\/p>\n<p>Despite such strong sanctions for the permanency of the marriage bond, the NT permits divorce as an exception intended to protect the innocent spouse in the case of immorality and desertion. Jesus made exceptions that established the right of a spouse wronged by an unfaithful mate to press for divorce (Mt 5:32; 19:9). Obviously, the wronged spouse has the option of maintaining the marriage bond despite the breach of commitment by the unfaithful mate. But in view of the exception allowed by Scripture, the obligation to maintain or reinstate the disrupted marriage may not be imposed upon the innocent spouse.<\/p>\n<p>The other exception that justifies divorce, according to the NT, is desertion. Although the provisions of 1 Corinthians 7:15 refer primarily to desertion by an unbelieving spouse, it should be noted that a believer guilty of desertion is to be treated as an unbeliever (1 Tm 5:8). Behavior equivalent to the abandonment of the marriage relationship constitutes a breach of conjugal commitment and becomes subject to the provision stated in 1 Corinthians 7:15.<\/p>\n<p>In either case, adultery or desertion, the aggrieved party has the right to seek divorce from the offending spouse and, having obtained it, becomes again a single person. Should repentance and reconciliation fail to restore the violated union, the aggrieved spouse is not bound to the marriage. According to Scripture, a person who is not bound is free to remarry, but only “in the Lord,” meaning to another Christian (1 Cor 7:39). The injunction for a single person who does not have the gift of celibacy to marry (v 9) applies to a person formerly married but who has become single by a scripturally legitimate divorce. In keeping with Christ’s teaching in Mark 10:11-12 and Luke 16:18, the remarriage of believers may not be approved when the divorce has been used as a means of changing mates, since such intent makes the divorce adulterous.<\/p>\n<p>Many factors usually combine to destroy a marriage; therefore, the church must deal with each case of divorce and remarriage on an individual basis, taking into account God’s inexhaustible capacity to forgive sin and to restore broken lives. Obviously, the scriptural restrictions on divorce do not apply to believers whose broken marriages predate their conversion, since God’s forgiveness wipes clean the sin of their pre-Christian past and makes them new creatures in Christ.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Adultery; Civil Law and Justice; Marriage, Marriage Customs; Sex, Sexuality.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>DIVORCE<\/h3>\n<p>Biblical provisions regulating divorce are closely bound up with the various definitions given to marriage within the successive phases of God’s progressive revelation in history.<\/p>\n<p>In the Genesis Creation account, marriage is defined as the “one flesh” union established by God in the context of a sinless environment (Gn 2:24). Given such conditions, the dissolution of the marriage relationship was inconceivable. During his ministry, Jesus affirmed this aspect of God’s original design for marriage. He described the implications of the “one flesh” relationship as the abrogation of the separatedness of the spouses and the creation of an inviolable union (Mt 19:6).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheOldTestamentsViewonDivorce\">The Old Testament’s View on Divorce<\/p>\n<p>The disruptions brought about by the fall had grievous consequences for the male\/female relationship. Having allowed sin to sever their primary dependency on God, man and woman became respectively subject to the elements from which they had been originally made. Man became subject to the dust of the ground whence he had come (Gn 2:7; 3:19), and woman became subject to the man from whom she had been formed (2:22; 3:16). Prior to the fall, man and woman had enjoyed a relationship of equality as cosharers in the divine image (1:27) and as partners in the divine mandate to exercise dominion over creation (v 28). After the fall man became ruler over woman, and woman became subject to man (3:16).<\/p>\n<p>As a result of these new conditions, man assumed rights of disposition over woman that he did not possess prior to the fall. The “one flesh” relation was violated when the right of rulership opened the way for the male ruler to multiply the number of his female subjects. This disparity between male and female resulted in the practice of polygamy (Gn 4:19; 16:3; 29:30) and of serial monogamy, which required the termination of each successive marriage by an act of divorce (Dt 24:1-4). Thus, the emergence of the practice of divorce appeared as the inevitable consequence of the principle of male rulership. Neither rulership nor divorce was part of God’s original design for the marriage relationship. The Mosaic regulation on divorce was a concession made by God to the fallen condition of mankind (Mt 19:8). Characteristically, the option of divorce was a right available only to the male rulers. As subjects of their male rulers, wives became the victims of divorce. Men could divorce their wives; women could not divorce their husbands.<\/p>\n<p>As unfair as it may seem, the Deuteronomic provisions for divorce were actually intended to offer a modicum of protection for its female victims. A husband had to justify a divorce action against his wife by citing something indecent about her. He was to give his divorced wife a bill of divorce that accounted for her marriage to him (Dt 24:1). Moreover, a divorced husband was forbidden to remarry his ex-wife after her subsequent marriage, since his original divorce was viewed as a defilement of her (v 4).<\/p>\n<p>Although the Mosaic dispositions on divorce were granted as a divine concession to Israel’s hardness of heart, the OT emphatically states that God hates divorce (Mal 2:16). The right of divorce was grudgingly granted as an accommodation to the principle of male rulership that had resulted from the fall. But God’s original design, reflected in the “one flesh” marital relation, remained the standard for the union of man and woman in marriage.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"JesusTeachingonDivorce\">Jesus’ Teaching on Divorce<\/p>\n<p>Inasmuch as Christ’s ministry of redemption signaled a return to God’s original purposes in Creation, the old covenant regulations on divorce were abrogated in the Christian community. In order to justify the inviolability of the marriage bond among his followers, Jesus directed them to the creational model. Referring negatively to the intervening Mosaic allowance for divorce, Jesus upheld God’s original creation order by stating that “from the beginning it was not so” (Mt 19:8). Christ repudiated the fall and affirmed the Creation design.<\/p>\n<p>In Matthew 5:31-32 Jesus explicitly abrogated the Mosaic legislation that allowed men to divorce their wives. He viewed the practice as a violation of the integrity of women. Adulterous men who divorce their wives reduce them to the status of whores, using them as commodities to be passed around through the expediency of easy divorce. By divorcing their wives, men treat them as adulteresses. By marrying a woman discarded from a previous marriage, a man perpetuates the demeaning process and becomes guilty of adultery.<\/p>\n<p>Jesus deliberately withdrew from men the ruler’s right of discarding a wife at will and reinstated the creational pattern of the lifelong “one flesh” union. His disciples understood his intent accurately. But the principle of male privilege was so deeply ingrained in their mentality that they declared the freedom available in celibacy preferable to a commitment to lifelong monogamous marriage (Mt 19:10).<\/p>\n<p>Not only did Jesus reaffirm the validity of the “one flesh” union for the community of redemption, but the NT reinforced the inviolability of the marriage bond by defining it as an earthly copy of the relationship between Christ and the church (Eph 5:25).<\/p>\n<p>Despite such strong sanctions for the permanency of the marriage bond, the NT permits divorce as an exception intended to protect the innocent spouse in the case of immorality and desertion. Jesus made exceptions that established the right of a spouse wronged by an unfaithful mate to press for divorce (Mt 5:32; 19:9). Obviously, the wronged spouse has the option of maintaining the marriage bond despite the breach of commitment by the unfaithful mate. But in view of the exception allowed by Scripture, the obligation to maintain or reinstate the disrupted marriage may not be imposed upon the innocent spouse.<\/p>\n<p>The other exception that justifies divorce, according to the NT, is desertion. Although the provisions of 1 Corinthians 7:15 refer primarily to desertion by an unbelieving spouse, it should be noted that a believer guilty of desertion is to be treated as an unbeliever (1 Tm 5:8). Behavior equivalent to the abandonment of the marriage relationship constitutes a breach of conjugal commitment and becomes subject to the provision stated in 1 Corinthians 7:15.<\/p>\n<p>In either case, adultery or desertion, the aggrieved party has the right to seek divorce from the offending spouse and, having obtained it, becomes again a single person. Should repentance and reconciliation fail to restore the violated union, the aggrieved spouse is not bound to the marriage. According to Scripture, a person who is not bound is free to remarry, but only “in the Lord,” meaning to another Christian (1 Cor 7:39). The injunction for a single person who does not have the gift of celibacy to marry (v 9) applies to a person formerly married but who has become single by a scripturally legitimate divorce. In keeping with Christ’s teaching in Mark 10:11-12 and Luke 16:18, the remarriage of believers may not be approved when the divorce has been used as a means of changing mates, since such intent makes the divorce adulterous.<\/p>\n<p>Many factors usually combine to destroy a marriage; therefore, the church must deal with each case of divorce and remarriage on an individual basis, taking into account God’s inexhaustible capacity to forgive sin and to restore broken lives. Obviously, the scriptural restrictions on divorce do not apply to believers whose broken marriages predate their conversion, since God’s forgiveness wipes clean the sin of their pre-Christian past and makes them new creatures in Christ.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Adultery; Civil Law and Justice; Marriage, Marriage Customs; Sex, Sexuality.<\/p>","summary_ro":"DIVORCE Biblical provisions regulating divorce are closely bound up with the various definitions given to marriage within the successive phases of God’s progressive revelation in history. In the Genesis Creation account, marriage is defined as the “one flesh” union established by God in the context of a sinless environment (Gn 2:24). Given such conditions, the dissolution of the marriage relationship was inconceivable. During his ministry, Jesus affirmed this aspect of God’s original design f...","summary_en":"DIVORCE Biblical provisions regulating divorce are closely bound up with the various definitions given to marriage within the successive phases of God’s progressive revelation in history. In the Genesis Creation account, marriage is defined as the “one flesh” union established by God in the context of a sinless environment (Gn 2:24). Given such conditions, the dissolution of the marriage relationship was inconceivable. During his ministry, Jesus affirmed this aspect of God’s original design f...","source":"Articles\/D.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":9797,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"of Divorce*, Certificate","title_en":"of Divorce*, Certificate","content_ro":"<h3>DIVORCE*, Certificate of<\/h3>\n<p>A document declaring the separation of a husband and wife, mandated by Mosaic law (Dt 24:1-4; see Mt 5:31; 19:7; Mk 10:4). The certificate of divorce protected the woman’s rights, providing evidence of her freedom and ensuring that her husband could not claim her dowry. An example of the wording of such a document is Hosea 2:2: “She is no longer my wife, and I am no longer her husband” (<span>nlt<\/span>). The OT prophets used this statement figuratively to portray God’s desire to separate himself from his rebellious people (Is 50:1; Jer 3:8).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Civil Law and Justice; Divorce; Marriage, Marriage Customs.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>DIVORCE*, Certificate of<\/h3>\n<p>A document declaring the separation of a husband and wife, mandated by Mosaic law (Dt 24:1-4; see Mt 5:31; 19:7; Mk 10:4). The certificate of divorce protected the woman’s rights, providing evidence of her freedom and ensuring that her husband could not claim her dowry. An example of the wording of such a document is Hosea 2:2: “She is no longer my wife, and I am no longer her husband” (<span>nlt<\/span>). The OT prophets used this statement figuratively to portray God’s desire to separate himself from his rebellious people (Is 50:1; Jer 3:8).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Civil Law and Justice; Divorce; Marriage, Marriage Customs.<\/p>","summary_ro":"DIVORCE*, Certificate of A document declaring the separation of a husband and wife, mandated by Mosaic law (Dt 24:1-4; see Mt 5:31; 19:7; Mk 10:4). The certificate of divorce protected the woman’s rights, providing evidence of her freedom and ensuring that her husband could not claim her dowry. An example of the wording of such a document is Hosea 2:2: “She is no longer my wife, and I am no longer her husband” (nlt). The OT prophets used this statement figuratively to portray God’s desire to ...","summary_en":"DIVORCE*, Certificate of A document declaring the separation of a husband and wife, mandated by Mosaic law (Dt 24:1-4; see Mt 5:31; 19:7; Mk 10:4). The certificate of divorce protected the woman’s rights, providing evidence of her freedom and ensuring that her husband could not claim her dowry. An example of the wording of such a document is Hosea 2:2: “She is no longer my wife, and I am no longer her husband” (nlt). The OT prophets used this statement figuratively to portray God’s desire to ...","source":"Articles\/D.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":15172,"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":24472,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Marriage Customs Marriage","title_en":"Marriage Customs Marriage","content_ro":"<h3>MARRIAGE, MARRIAGE CUSTOMS<\/h3>\n<p>The joining together of male and female in matrimony, as practiced by various cultures.<\/p>\n<p>The idea of marriage was ordained by God in his instruction to Adam that a man should leave his father and mother, and that he and his wife should be as one flesh (Gn 2:24).<\/p>\n<p>Several forms of marriage are referred to in the OT, the earliest of which seems to be based on a matrilineal principle. Although there appears to be some evidence for this in the middle Bronze Age and in the early monarchy, it is difficult to be certain about the matter, despite the importance in Egypt, and perhaps elsewhere, of the role of the mother in determining descent.<\/p>\n<p>Generally, the bride left her parents when she married and went to live with her husband’s clan, as Rebekah did (Gn 24:58-59). The phrase “to marry a wife” is from a root meaning to “become master” (Dt 21:13), and the wife frequently treated her husband as, and referred to him as, master.<\/p>\n<p>Hebrew genealogical lists indicate that descent was reckoned through the male line (Gn 5:10; 36:9-43; Nm 1:1-15; Ru 4:18-22; 1 Chr 1:1-9). The important right of naming a child, indicating power and authority over that child, was exercised almost equally between father and mother in biblical references (cf. Gn 4:1, 25-26; 5:29; 35:18; 1 Sm 1:20; 4:21; Is 8:3; Hos 1:4-9). Sons were frequently named after their fathers and were identified with them.<\/p>\n<p>The father was the authority figure in the home in a patriarchal society. His wife and children were regarded as his possessions in somewhat the same way as his fields and livestock (Ex 20:17; Dt 5:21). He had the right to sell his daughters (Ex 21:7; Neh 5:5), and even had the power of life and death over his children.<\/p>\n<p>The ease with which a man could terminate a marriage by divorcing his wife also shows the measure of his authority in the family (Dt 24:1-4; cf. 22:13-21).<\/p>\n<p>A levirate marriage was instituted to preserve a family name and inheritance. When a man died, the responsibility for maintaining his widow and any children that she might have fell upon her husband’s closest male relative. The order of responsibility is set out in Deuteronomy 25:5-10. Normally, the brother of the deceased husband living with the clan was expected to enter into a levirate marriage with the widow. If she was childless, the firstborn of the new marriage was regarded as a child of the deceased. Levirate marriage was also known to the Canaanites, Assyrians, and Hittites.<\/p>\n<p>The most familiar levirate situation in the OT, although not conforming strictly to the law of Deuteronomy 25, is described in the book of Ruth. It was essential for Ruth to find some close male relative to marry her so that the family name and property could be preserved. The closest male relative declined the responsibility, feeling that it was a double imposition, first, to have to purchase the land and support Ruth, and second, to know that the first son would be regarded as her dead husband’s child, bearing his name and inheriting the land. Boaz agreed to undertake the responsibility (Ru 2:20–4:10).<\/p>\n<p>Despite numerous examples of polygamy cited in the OT, there is no doubt that the vast majority of the Israelites were monogamous. There are no examples given of large polygamous marriages in the families of commoners.<\/p>\n<p>The original instruction to Adam was that a “man . . . cleaves to his wife” (Gn 2:24). Hebrew laws generally imply that a marriage with one wife is the most acceptable form of marriage (Ex 20:17; 21:5; Lv 18:8, 16-20; 20:10; Nm 5:12; Dt 5:21). Although this seems to have become the norm by the time of the monarchy, a king such as Solomon did not follow Hebrew traditions in this matter. In the postexilic period marriages were predominantly monogamous, although they were being terminated increasingly by divorce. In the NT period monogamy seems to have been the rule, although persons such as Herod the Great were polygamous. Christ taught that marriage should last the lifetime of the partners, and if a man divorced his wife and married another woman during his previous spouse’s lifetime, he committed adultery (Mt 5:31-32).<\/p>\n<p>Marriage generally took place with those who were close to the immediate family circle, and it was imperative, therefore, that limits on acceptable consanguinity should be imposed. In patriarchal times a man could marry his half sister on his father’s side (Gn 20:12), and this continued to be the case even under David (2 Sm 13:13), although it was specifically forbidden in Leviticus 20:17. As there is some contradiction between the marriage laws of Deuteronomy and those in the Law of Holiness (Dt 25:5; Lv 18:16), it is possible that there was some modification of the stricter Levitical regulations. Marriages between cousins, such as Isaac with Rebekah, and Jacob with Rachel and Leah, were common. When a close relative was interested in marriage, it was almost impossible to refuse (Tb 6:13; 7:11-12). Moses was the offspring of a marriage between nephew and aunt (Ex 6:20; Nm 26:59), which would have been forbidden in Leviticus 18:12-13 and 20:19, as would Jacob’s marriage with two sisters at the same time (Gn 29:30).<\/p>\n<p>When the Israelites settled in Canaan, many of them married Canaanite women, much to the consternation of those who desired to maintain the purity of the Hebrew religion (1 Kgs 11:4). Such intermarriage was prohibited under Mosaic law (Ex 34:15-16; Dt 7:3-4), although many Israelites ignored these regulations and continued to indulge in mixed marriages. If a woman was captured in war and was prepared to abandon her native country, an exception could be made (Dt 21:10-14). By contrast, Samson married a Philistine woman who remained with her own people, but who received conjugal visits from her husband periodically (Jgs 14:8–15:2).<\/p>\n<p>The danger of intermarriage affecting the purity of Hebrew religion was considered so great that in the postexilic period wholesale divorce was ordered where Jews had married foreign wives (Ezr 9:2; 10:3, 16-17). The intent was that the national religion should remain pure, even though homes and families were destroyed. Even in NT times, Paul denounced marriage with non-Christians (2 Cor 6:14-15).<\/p>\n<p>It is difficult to estimate at what age young people married. A boy was considered to be a man by his early teens, and late in Jewish tradition this transition was celebrated by the bar mitzvah, which generally occurred when the boy was 13.<\/p>\n<p>Normally the young man’s parents chose the bride. The resulting discussion about the marriage occurred between the groom’s parents and the bride’s parents, and often neither of the young people was consulted. It was not essential for the eldest in the family to be married first (Gn 29:26). When Abraham decided that Isaac should be married, a servant was sent to choose a bride from among Abraham’s relatives in Mesopotamia. The servant made contact with the bride’s brother and mother (24:33-53), and it was only afterward that Rebekah was asked to give her consent (vv 57-58). Her father was possibly incapacitated; otherwise, it would have been unlikely that her consent would have been asked at all.<\/p>\n<p>One of the reasons why the average young man would not have been able to afford more than one wife was the practice of the bride-price, which had to be paid to the bride’s father. It was possible to substitute service for the bride-price (Gn 29:15-30), or the completion of an appointed task (1 Sm 18:25-27). A specific sum is mentioned for the bride-price in the case of a virgin who had been raped and who had to be purchased by her seducer. The price was set at 50 shekels, but this was considered to be a punishment; it is probable that the normal amount was between 10 and 320 shekels (Lv 27:4-5).<\/p>\n<p>At the time of the second temple, a virgin bride was considered to be worth 50 shekels, and a widow or divorced woman about half that sum. During this period, a virgin bride was normally married in midweek so that, if her husband found her not to be a virgin, he could bring proof to the court the following day, which would still be in advance of the Sabbath. A widow or a divorced woman normally married on the equivalent of a Thursday, giving her a full day with her husband before the Sabbath.<\/p>\n<p>Marriage was a covenant or alliance between two families. It thus united them, and by extending the kinship, the overall size of the group was increased. This was important in a society where responsibilities for relatives, however distant, were accepted unhesitatingly. The covenant concept also could have political overtones, as with the marriage between Solomon and the Egyptian princess (1 Kgs 11:1) or Ahab of Israel and Jezebel of Tyre (16:31).<\/p>\n<p>The sealing of the covenant included the transfer of gifts, which would establish the wealth and status of the donor and of the bride (Gn 34:12). In the ancient Near East, the giving of a gift was thought to include a part of the donor, so that the giver was actually offering a portion of himself. The gift that sealed the covenant also established the donor’s authority over the bride.<\/p>\n<p>The next stage in the marriage procedure was the betrothal. First mentioned in Exodus 22:16, the term is used several times in Deuteronomy (Dt 20:7; 22:23-24). The betrothal had the legal status of a marriage (Dt 28:30; 2 Sm 3:14), and anyone violating a betrothed virgin would be stoned, according to the law of Deuteronomy, for violating his neighbor’s “wife” (Dt 22:23-24). The meaning of a betrothal involved taking possession, in a manner similar to that of receiving tribute. Nevertheless, there remained a distinction between betrothing a woman and taking her as a wife (20:7). During the period of betrothal, the prospective groom was exempt from military service. It was assumed that the betrothal was a formal part of a permanent relationship (Mt 1:18; Lk 1:27; 2:5).<\/p>\n<p>A man who was to marry another’s daughter was already regarded as a son-in-law at the time of betrothal (Gn 19:14). Mary, as Joseph’s betrothed, was actually considered his wife, although he did not have intercourse with her until after the birth of Jesus.<\/p>\n<p>The first biblical record of a wedding being celebrated by a feast is in the story of Jacob (Gn 29:22). There was no actual marriage contract recorded until its mention in the book of Tobit (Tb 7:12). This contract was not considered valid until the couple had cohabited for a week (Gn 29:27; Jgs 14:12, 18). When Samson left his bride before the end of the seven-day period, the bride’s parents considered the marriage void and gave her to another man (Jgs 14:20).<\/p>\n<p>The wedding was an occasion of great family rejoicing. The special clothing of the bride and groom (Is 61:10; Ez 16:9-13) included for the bride a fine dress often adorned with jewels (Ps 45:14-15; Is 61:10) and other ornaments, while the bridegroom had fine clothing and wore a diadem (Sg 3:11; Is 61:10). The bride wore a veil (Gn 24:65; Sg 4:3), which was removed in the bridal chamber. This would account for Rebekah’s need to veil herself in the presence of Isaac, her fiancé (Gn 24:65), and also for the ease with which Laban was able to replace Rachel with Leah on Jacob’s wedding night (29:23-25).<\/p>\n<p>Symbolic ceremonies may sometimes have been included as part of the betrothal or wedding ceremonies, such as Ruth’s request that Boaz spread his skirt over her to indicate that he was taking her to wife (Ru 3:9). Another ritual may have been the ceremonial removal of the bride’s girdle by the groom in the nuptial chamber, which was a room or tent specially prepared for the newly married couple. The marriage was normally consummated on the first night (Gn 29:23; Tb 8:1), and the stained linen would be retained as evidence of the bride’s virginity.<\/p>\n<p>In a contrast to the elaborate procession and feasting of the marriage, divorce was simple. A man could divorce his wife if he found fault with her in any particular matter, and this right was not abolished until the 11th century <span>AD<\/span>. Divorce was discouraged, however, and gradually the procedure became more complex, being hedged about with a number of deterrents.<\/p>\n<p>As the laws regarding divorce became more complex, so the procedure became increasingly expensive. At a later time a lawyer, or sometimes a rabbi, would give advice, especially on such matters as the return of property rightly belonging to the bride or her family.<\/p>\n<p>If a bride was found to have committed adultery, the husband was thought to be entitled to a divorce. This was also the case if he even suspected her of infidelity. He could also divorce his wife if he felt that she had violated normal morality, had become apostate, or had been less than efficient in the management of her household. If a woman refused her husband his conjugal rights for a period of at least one year, she could be divorced. Other grounds for divorcing a wife included insulting behavior to a husband or his relatives, contracting an incurable disease, or refusing to accompany her husband when he moved the domicile to a new area.<\/p>\n<p>In general, the status of the wife was low. Despite the fact that she gave advice, managed the household, educated the young children, and worked alongside her husband when necessary, he was still her master, and her role was to obey. She was little more than a servant, although better than a slave, for she could not be sold even though she could be divorced.<\/p>\n<p>In the frequent figurative uses of marriage in the OT, the Hebrew people and God are referred to in terms of bride and bridegroom (Is 62:4-5; Jer 2:2). The desolation that is about to overtake Judah is contrasted by Jeremiah with the celebration of a wedding feast (Jer 7:34; 16:9; 25:10). Figurative forms are used again in Hosea, where God rejects the relationship with his wife, Israel (Hos 2:2), but is prepared to accept her again if she resumes her faithful practices (vv 19-20).<\/p>\n<p>In the NT, John the Baptist compares his sense of joy with that of a friend of the groom at a wedding (Jn 3:29), while Jesus himself made reference to the wedding preparations in the parable of the wise and foolish virgins (Mt 25:1-12). In the story of the marriage feast (22:1-14) Christ mentions quite incidentally the fact that wedding robes were provided for the guests at such ceremonies. The theme of the Christian church as the bride of Christ occurs in such books as 2 Corinthians, Ephesians, and Revelation.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"JesusTeachingsonMarriageandAdultery\">Jesus’ Teachings on Marriage and Adultery<\/p>\n<p>In the realm of civil law there are changes of emphasis in Jesus’ teaching over against the OT. For example, the OT did not regard infidelity by a husband as adultery against his wife. When challenged by the Jews, Jesus said that originally God had made one wife for a man; therefore, there should be no divorce (Mk 10:2-9). Further, he stated if a man does divorce his wife and marry again, he “commits adultery against her” (v 11). Thus, Jesus made man and woman equal as regards adultery. An unfaithful husband is just as adulterous as an unfaithful wife. This revolutionary teaching struck the disciples as severe (see Mt 19:10), but it illustrates what Jesus meant when he said their righteousness must be greater than that of the Jewish leaders (5:20).<\/p>\n<p>There is a slight difference in Matthew’s account of Jesus’ teaching, which has led some scholars to argue that Jesus was not quite as strict as the above summary suggests. According to Matthew 19:9, a wife’s “unchastity” (probably some sexual misconduct) allows an aggrieved husband to divorce her and marry again. If this remark concluded the passage, this interpretation would be the simplest. However, from the context it is more likely that Jesus allowed innocent spouses to separate from their wives but not to remarry. This explains why the disciples were so shocked and why Jesus went on to speak about some who refuse to marry for the sake of the kingdom of heaven (Mt 19:12). This was also the way the church interpreted the passage for the first five centuries. They allowed Christians to separate but not to remarry (cf. 1 Cor 7:11).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Adultery; Civil Law and Justice; Concubinage, Concubines; Divorce; Family Life and Relations; Sex, Sexuality; Virgin.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>MARRIAGE, MARRIAGE CUSTOMS<\/h3>\n<p>The joining together of male and female in matrimony, as practiced by various cultures.<\/p>\n<p>The idea of marriage was ordained by God in his instruction to Adam that a man should leave his father and mother, and that he and his wife should be as one flesh (Gn 2:24).<\/p>\n<p>Several forms of marriage are referred to in the OT, the earliest of which seems to be based on a matrilineal principle. Although there appears to be some evidence for this in the middle Bronze Age and in the early monarchy, it is difficult to be certain about the matter, despite the importance in Egypt, and perhaps elsewhere, of the role of the mother in determining descent.<\/p>\n<p>Generally, the bride left her parents when she married and went to live with her husband’s clan, as Rebekah did (Gn 24:58-59). The phrase “to marry a wife” is from a root meaning to “become master” (Dt 21:13), and the wife frequently treated her husband as, and referred to him as, master.<\/p>\n<p>Hebrew genealogical lists indicate that descent was reckoned through the male line (Gn 5:10; 36:9-43; Nm 1:1-15; Ru 4:18-22; 1 Chr 1:1-9). The important right of naming a child, indicating power and authority over that child, was exercised almost equally between father and mother in biblical references (cf. Gn 4:1, 25-26; 5:29; 35:18; 1 Sm 1:20; 4:21; Is 8:3; Hos 1:4-9). Sons were frequently named after their fathers and were identified with them.<\/p>\n<p>The father was the authority figure in the home in a patriarchal society. His wife and children were regarded as his possessions in somewhat the same way as his fields and livestock (Ex 20:17; Dt 5:21). He had the right to sell his daughters (Ex 21:7; Neh 5:5), and even had the power of life and death over his children.<\/p>\n<p>The ease with which a man could terminate a marriage by divorcing his wife also shows the measure of his authority in the family (Dt 24:1-4; cf. 22:13-21).<\/p>\n<p>A levirate marriage was instituted to preserve a family name and inheritance. When a man died, the responsibility for maintaining his widow and any children that she might have fell upon her husband’s closest male relative. The order of responsibility is set out in Deuteronomy 25:5-10. Normally, the brother of the deceased husband living with the clan was expected to enter into a levirate marriage with the widow. If she was childless, the firstborn of the new marriage was regarded as a child of the deceased. Levirate marriage was also known to the Canaanites, Assyrians, and Hittites.<\/p>\n<p>The most familiar levirate situation in the OT, although not conforming strictly to the law of Deuteronomy 25, is described in the book of Ruth. It was essential for Ruth to find some close male relative to marry her so that the family name and property could be preserved. The closest male relative declined the responsibility, feeling that it was a double imposition, first, to have to purchase the land and support Ruth, and second, to know that the first son would be regarded as her dead husband’s child, bearing his name and inheriting the land. Boaz agreed to undertake the responsibility (Ru 2:20–4:10).<\/p>\n<p>Despite numerous examples of polygamy cited in the OT, there is no doubt that the vast majority of the Israelites were monogamous. There are no examples given of large polygamous marriages in the families of commoners.<\/p>\n<p>The original instruction to Adam was that a “man . . . cleaves to his wife” (Gn 2:24). Hebrew laws generally imply that a marriage with one wife is the most acceptable form of marriage (Ex 20:17; 21:5; Lv 18:8, 16-20; 20:10; Nm 5:12; Dt 5:21). Although this seems to have become the norm by the time of the monarchy, a king such as Solomon did not follow Hebrew traditions in this matter. In the postexilic period marriages were predominantly monogamous, although they were being terminated increasingly by divorce. In the NT period monogamy seems to have been the rule, although persons such as Herod the Great were polygamous. Christ taught that marriage should last the lifetime of the partners, and if a man divorced his wife and married another woman during his previous spouse’s lifetime, he committed adultery (Mt 5:31-32).<\/p>\n<p>Marriage generally took place with those who were close to the immediate family circle, and it was imperative, therefore, that limits on acceptable consanguinity should be imposed. In patriarchal times a man could marry his half sister on his father’s side (Gn 20:12), and this continued to be the case even under David (2 Sm 13:13), although it was specifically forbidden in Leviticus 20:17. As there is some contradiction between the marriage laws of Deuteronomy and those in the Law of Holiness (Dt 25:5; Lv 18:16), it is possible that there was some modification of the stricter Levitical regulations. Marriages between cousins, such as Isaac with Rebekah, and Jacob with Rachel and Leah, were common. When a close relative was interested in marriage, it was almost impossible to refuse (Tb 6:13; 7:11-12). Moses was the offspring of a marriage between nephew and aunt (Ex 6:20; Nm 26:59), which would have been forbidden in Leviticus 18:12-13 and 20:19, as would Jacob’s marriage with two sisters at the same time (Gn 29:30).<\/p>\n<p>When the Israelites settled in Canaan, many of them married Canaanite women, much to the consternation of those who desired to maintain the purity of the Hebrew religion (1 Kgs 11:4). Such intermarriage was prohibited under Mosaic law (Ex 34:15-16; Dt 7:3-4), although many Israelites ignored these regulations and continued to indulge in mixed marriages. If a woman was captured in war and was prepared to abandon her native country, an exception could be made (Dt 21:10-14). By contrast, Samson married a Philistine woman who remained with her own people, but who received conjugal visits from her husband periodically (Jgs 14:8–15:2).<\/p>\n<p>The danger of intermarriage affecting the purity of Hebrew religion was considered so great that in the postexilic period wholesale divorce was ordered where Jews had married foreign wives (Ezr 9:2; 10:3, 16-17). The intent was that the national religion should remain pure, even though homes and families were destroyed. Even in NT times, Paul denounced marriage with non-Christians (2 Cor 6:14-15).<\/p>\n<p>It is difficult to estimate at what age young people married. A boy was considered to be a man by his early teens, and late in Jewish tradition this transition was celebrated by the bar mitzvah, which generally occurred when the boy was 13.<\/p>\n<p>Normally the young man’s parents chose the bride. The resulting discussion about the marriage occurred between the groom’s parents and the bride’s parents, and often neither of the young people was consulted. It was not essential for the eldest in the family to be married first (Gn 29:26). When Abraham decided that Isaac should be married, a servant was sent to choose a bride from among Abraham’s relatives in Mesopotamia. The servant made contact with the bride’s brother and mother (24:33-53), and it was only afterward that Rebekah was asked to give her consent (vv 57-58). Her father was possibly incapacitated; otherwise, it would have been unlikely that her consent would have been asked at all.<\/p>\n<p>One of the reasons why the average young man would not have been able to afford more than one wife was the practice of the bride-price, which had to be paid to the bride’s father. It was possible to substitute service for the bride-price (Gn 29:15-30), or the completion of an appointed task (1 Sm 18:25-27). A specific sum is mentioned for the bride-price in the case of a virgin who had been raped and who had to be purchased by her seducer. The price was set at 50 shekels, but this was considered to be a punishment; it is probable that the normal amount was between 10 and 320 shekels (Lv 27:4-5).<\/p>\n<p>At the time of the second temple, a virgin bride was considered to be worth 50 shekels, and a widow or divorced woman about half that sum. During this period, a virgin bride was normally married in midweek so that, if her husband found her not to be a virgin, he could bring proof to the court the following day, which would still be in advance of the Sabbath. A widow or a divorced woman normally married on the equivalent of a Thursday, giving her a full day with her husband before the Sabbath.<\/p>\n<p>Marriage was a covenant or alliance between two families. It thus united them, and by extending the kinship, the overall size of the group was increased. This was important in a society where responsibilities for relatives, however distant, were accepted unhesitatingly. The covenant concept also could have political overtones, as with the marriage between Solomon and the Egyptian princess (1 Kgs 11:1) or Ahab of Israel and Jezebel of Tyre (16:31).<\/p>\n<p>The sealing of the covenant included the transfer of gifts, which would establish the wealth and status of the donor and of the bride (Gn 34:12). In the ancient Near East, the giving of a gift was thought to include a part of the donor, so that the giver was actually offering a portion of himself. The gift that sealed the covenant also established the donor’s authority over the bride.<\/p>\n<p>The next stage in the marriage procedure was the betrothal. First mentioned in Exodus 22:16, the term is used several times in Deuteronomy (Dt 20:7; 22:23-24). The betrothal had the legal status of a marriage (Dt 28:30; 2 Sm 3:14), and anyone violating a betrothed virgin would be stoned, according to the law of Deuteronomy, for violating his neighbor’s “wife” (Dt 22:23-24). The meaning of a betrothal involved taking possession, in a manner similar to that of receiving tribute. Nevertheless, there remained a distinction between betrothing a woman and taking her as a wife (20:7). During the period of betrothal, the prospective groom was exempt from military service. It was assumed that the betrothal was a formal part of a permanent relationship (Mt 1:18; Lk 1:27; 2:5).<\/p>\n<p>A man who was to marry another’s daughter was already regarded as a son-in-law at the time of betrothal (Gn 19:14). Mary, as Joseph’s betrothed, was actually considered his wife, although he did not have intercourse with her until after the birth of Jesus.<\/p>\n<p>The first biblical record of a wedding being celebrated by a feast is in the story of Jacob (Gn 29:22). There was no actual marriage contract recorded until its mention in the book of Tobit (Tb 7:12). This contract was not considered valid until the couple had cohabited for a week (Gn 29:27; Jgs 14:12, 18). When Samson left his bride before the end of the seven-day period, the bride’s parents considered the marriage void and gave her to another man (Jgs 14:20).<\/p>\n<p>The wedding was an occasion of great family rejoicing. The special clothing of the bride and groom (Is 61:10; Ez 16:9-13) included for the bride a fine dress often adorned with jewels (Ps 45:14-15; Is 61:10) and other ornaments, while the bridegroom had fine clothing and wore a diadem (Sg 3:11; Is 61:10). The bride wore a veil (Gn 24:65; Sg 4:3), which was removed in the bridal chamber. This would account for Rebekah’s need to veil herself in the presence of Isaac, her fiancé (Gn 24:65), and also for the ease with which Laban was able to replace Rachel with Leah on Jacob’s wedding night (29:23-25).<\/p>\n<p>Symbolic ceremonies may sometimes have been included as part of the betrothal or wedding ceremonies, such as Ruth’s request that Boaz spread his skirt over her to indicate that he was taking her to wife (Ru 3:9). Another ritual may have been the ceremonial removal of the bride’s girdle by the groom in the nuptial chamber, which was a room or tent specially prepared for the newly married couple. The marriage was normally consummated on the first night (Gn 29:23; Tb 8:1), and the stained linen would be retained as evidence of the bride’s virginity.<\/p>\n<p>In a contrast to the elaborate procession and feasting of the marriage, divorce was simple. A man could divorce his wife if he found fault with her in any particular matter, and this right was not abolished until the 11th century <span>AD<\/span>. Divorce was discouraged, however, and gradually the procedure became more complex, being hedged about with a number of deterrents.<\/p>\n<p>As the laws regarding divorce became more complex, so the procedure became increasingly expensive. At a later time a lawyer, or sometimes a rabbi, would give advice, especially on such matters as the return of property rightly belonging to the bride or her family.<\/p>\n<p>If a bride was found to have committed adultery, the husband was thought to be entitled to a divorce. This was also the case if he even suspected her of infidelity. He could also divorce his wife if he felt that she had violated normal morality, had become apostate, or had been less than efficient in the management of her household. If a woman refused her husband his conjugal rights for a period of at least one year, she could be divorced. Other grounds for divorcing a wife included insulting behavior to a husband or his relatives, contracting an incurable disease, or refusing to accompany her husband when he moved the domicile to a new area.<\/p>\n<p>In general, the status of the wife was low. Despite the fact that she gave advice, managed the household, educated the young children, and worked alongside her husband when necessary, he was still her master, and her role was to obey. She was little more than a servant, although better than a slave, for she could not be sold even though she could be divorced.<\/p>\n<p>In the frequent figurative uses of marriage in the OT, the Hebrew people and God are referred to in terms of bride and bridegroom (Is 62:4-5; Jer 2:2). The desolation that is about to overtake Judah is contrasted by Jeremiah with the celebration of a wedding feast (Jer 7:34; 16:9; 25:10). Figurative forms are used again in Hosea, where God rejects the relationship with his wife, Israel (Hos 2:2), but is prepared to accept her again if she resumes her faithful practices (vv 19-20).<\/p>\n<p>In the NT, John the Baptist compares his sense of joy with that of a friend of the groom at a wedding (Jn 3:29), while Jesus himself made reference to the wedding preparations in the parable of the wise and foolish virgins (Mt 25:1-12). In the story of the marriage feast (22:1-14) Christ mentions quite incidentally the fact that wedding robes were provided for the guests at such ceremonies. The theme of the Christian church as the bride of Christ occurs in such books as 2 Corinthians, Ephesians, and Revelation.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"JesusTeachingsonMarriageandAdultery\">Jesus’ Teachings on Marriage and Adultery<\/p>\n<p>In the realm of civil law there are changes of emphasis in Jesus’ teaching over against the OT. For example, the OT did not regard infidelity by a husband as adultery against his wife. When challenged by the Jews, Jesus said that originally God had made one wife for a man; therefore, there should be no divorce (Mk 10:2-9). Further, he stated if a man does divorce his wife and marry again, he “commits adultery against her” (v 11). Thus, Jesus made man and woman equal as regards adultery. An unfaithful husband is just as adulterous as an unfaithful wife. This revolutionary teaching struck the disciples as severe (see Mt 19:10), but it illustrates what Jesus meant when he said their righteousness must be greater than that of the Jewish leaders (5:20).<\/p>\n<p>There is a slight difference in Matthew’s account of Jesus’ teaching, which has led some scholars to argue that Jesus was not quite as strict as the above summary suggests. According to Matthew 19:9, a wife’s “unchastity” (probably some sexual misconduct) allows an aggrieved husband to divorce her and marry again. If this remark concluded the passage, this interpretation would be the simplest. However, from the context it is more likely that Jesus allowed innocent spouses to separate from their wives but not to remarry. This explains why the disciples were so shocked and why Jesus went on to speak about some who refuse to marry for the sake of the kingdom of heaven (Mt 19:12). This was also the way the church interpreted the passage for the first five centuries. They allowed Christians to separate but not to remarry (cf. 1 Cor 7:11).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Adultery; Civil Law and Justice; Concubinage, Concubines; Divorce; Family Life and Relations; Sex, Sexuality; Virgin.<\/p>","summary_ro":"MARRIAGE, MARRIAGE CUSTOMS The joining together of male and female in matrimony, as practiced by various cultures. The idea of marriage was ordained by God in his instruction to Adam that a man should leave his father and mother, and that he and his wife should be as one flesh (Gn 2:24). Several forms of marriage are referred to in the OT, the earliest of which seems to be based on a matrilineal principle. Although there appears to be some evidence for this in the middle Bronze Age and in the...","summary_en":"MARRIAGE, MARRIAGE CUSTOMS The joining together of male and female in matrimony, as practiced by various cultures. The idea of marriage was ordained by God in his instruction to Adam that a man should leave his father and mother, and that he and his wife should be as one flesh (Gn 2:24). Several forms of marriage are referred to in the OT, the earliest of which seems to be based on a matrilineal principle. Although there appears to be some evidence for this in the middle Bronze Age and in the...","source":"Articles\/M.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":45139,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Deuteronomul 24:1","title_en":"Study Note: Deuteronomul 24:1","content_ro":"<p><strong>24:1<\/strong> <em>something wrong:<\/em> This phrase indicates sexual impurity or some other impropriety. It does not pertain to adultery, which would have required the death penalty (22:22). • <em>a document of divorce:<\/em> This procedure was a concession; initiating a divorce in such cases was optional and not necessarily desirable (see Mal 2:16; Matt 5:31-32; Mark 10:2-12).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>24:1<\/strong> <em>something wrong:<\/em> This phrase indicates sexual impurity or some other impropriety. It does not pertain to adultery, which would have required the death penalty (22:22). • <em>a document of divorce:<\/em> This procedure was a concession; initiating a divorce in such cases was optional and not necessarily desirable (see Mal 2:16; Matt 5:31-32; Mark 10:2-12).<\/p>","summary_ro":"24:1 something wrong: This phrase indicates sexual impurity or some other impropriety. It does not pertain to adultery, which would have required the death penalty (22:22). • a document of divorce: This procedure was a concession; initiating a divorce in such cases was optional and not necessarily desirable (see Mal 2:16; Matt 5:31-32; Mark 10:2-12).","summary_en":"24:1 something wrong: This phrase indicates sexual impurity or some other impropriety. It does not pertain to adultery, which would have required the death penalty (22:22). • a document of divorce: This procedure was a concession; initiating a divorce in such cases was optional and not necessarily desirable (see Mal 2:16; Matt 5:31-32; Mark 10:2-12).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":72765,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Deuteronomul 24:1","title_en":"Study Note: Deuteronomul 24:1","content_ro":"<p><strong>24:1<\/strong> <em>something wrong:<\/em> This phrase indicates sexual impurity or some other impropriety. It does not pertain to adultery, which would have required the death penalty (22:22). • <em>a document of divorce:<\/em> This procedure was a concession; initiating a divorce in such cases was optional and not necessarily desirable (see Mal 2:16; Matt 5:31-32; Mark 10:2-12).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>24:1<\/strong> <em>something wrong:<\/em> This phrase indicates sexual impurity or some other impropriety. It does not pertain to adultery, which would have required the death penalty (22:22). • <em>a document of divorce:<\/em> This procedure was a concession; initiating a divorce in such cases was optional and not necessarily desirable (see Mal 2:16; Matt 5:31-32; Mark 10:2-12).<\/p>","summary_ro":"24:1 something wrong: This phrase indicates sexual impurity or some other impropriety. It does not pertain to adultery, which would have required the death penalty (22:22). • a document of divorce: This procedure was a concession; initiating a divorce in such cases was optional and not necessarily desirable (see Mal 2:16; Matt 5:31-32; Mark 10:2-12).","summary_en":"24:1 something wrong: This phrase indicates sexual impurity or some other impropriety. It does not pertain to adultery, which would have required the death penalty (22:22). • a document of divorce: This procedure was a concession; initiating a divorce in such cases was optional and not necessarily desirable (see Mal 2:16; Matt 5:31-32; Mark 10:2-12).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":100391,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Deuteronomul 24:1","title_en":"Study Note: Deuteronomul 24:1","content_ro":"<p><strong>24:1<\/strong> <em>something wrong:<\/em> This phrase indicates sexual impurity or some other impropriety. It does not pertain to adultery, which would have required the death penalty (22:22). • <em>a document of divorce:<\/em> This procedure was a concession; initiating a divorce in such cases was optional and not necessarily desirable (see Mal 2:16; Matt 5:31-32; Mark 10:2-12).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>24:1<\/strong> <em>something wrong:<\/em> This phrase indicates sexual impurity or some other impropriety. It does not pertain to adultery, which would have required the death penalty (22:22). • <em>a document of divorce:<\/em> This procedure was a concession; initiating a divorce in such cases was optional and not necessarily desirable (see Mal 2:16; Matt 5:31-32; Mark 10:2-12).<\/p>","summary_ro":"24:1 something wrong: This phrase indicates sexual impurity or some other impropriety. It does not pertain to adultery, which would have required the death penalty (22:22). • a document of divorce: This procedure was a concession; initiating a divorce in such cases was optional and not necessarily desirable (see Mal 2:16; Matt 5:31-32; Mark 10:2-12).","summary_en":"24:1 something wrong: This phrase indicates sexual impurity or some other impropriety. It does not pertain to adultery, which would have required the death penalty (22:22). • a document of divorce: This procedure was a concession; initiating a divorce in such cases was optional and not necessarily desirable (see Mal 2:16; Matt 5:31-32; Mark 10:2-12).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":128017,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Deuteronomul 24:1","title_en":"Study Note: Deuteronomul 24:1","content_ro":"<p><strong>24:1<\/strong> <em>something wrong:<\/em> This phrase indicates sexual impurity or some other impropriety. It does not pertain to adultery, which would have required the death penalty (22:22). • <em>a document of divorce:<\/em> This procedure was a concession; initiating a divorce in such cases was optional and not necessarily desirable (see Mal 2:16; Matt 5:31-32; Mark 10:2-12).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>24:1<\/strong> <em>something wrong:<\/em> This phrase indicates sexual impurity or some other impropriety. It does not pertain to adultery, which would have required the death penalty (22:22). • <em>a document of divorce:<\/em> This procedure was a concession; initiating a divorce in such cases was optional and not necessarily desirable (see Mal 2:16; Matt 5:31-32; Mark 10:2-12).<\/p>","summary_ro":"24:1 something wrong: This phrase indicates sexual impurity or some other impropriety. It does not pertain to adultery, which would have required the death penalty (22:22). • a document of divorce: This procedure was a concession; initiating a divorce in such cases was optional and not necessarily desirable (see Mal 2:16; Matt 5:31-32; Mark 10:2-12).","summary_en":"24:1 something wrong: This phrase indicates sexual impurity or some other impropriety. It does not pertain to adultery, which would have required the death penalty (22:22). • a document of divorce: This procedure was a concession; initiating a divorce in such cases was optional and not necessarily desirable (see Mal 2:16; Matt 5:31-32; Mark 10:2-12).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"4":[{"id":9784,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Divorce","title_en":"Divorce","content_ro":"<h3>DIVORCE<\/h3>\n<p>Biblical provisions regulating divorce are closely bound up with the various definitions given to marriage within the successive phases of God’s progressive revelation in history.<\/p>\n<p>In the Genesis Creation account, marriage is defined as the “one flesh” union established by God in the context of a sinless environment (Gn 2:24). Given such conditions, the dissolution of the marriage relationship was inconceivable. During his ministry, Jesus affirmed this aspect of God’s original design for marriage. He described the implications of the “one flesh” relationship as the abrogation of the separatedness of the spouses and the creation of an inviolable union (Mt 19:6).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheOldTestamentsViewonDivorce\">The Old Testament’s View on Divorce<\/p>\n<p>The disruptions brought about by the fall had grievous consequences for the male\/female relationship. Having allowed sin to sever their primary dependency on God, man and woman became respectively subject to the elements from which they had been originally made. Man became subject to the dust of the ground whence he had come (Gn 2:7; 3:19), and woman became subject to the man from whom she had been formed (2:22; 3:16). Prior to the fall, man and woman had enjoyed a relationship of equality as cosharers in the divine image (1:27) and as partners in the divine mandate to exercise dominion over creation (v 28). After the fall man became ruler over woman, and woman became subject to man (3:16).<\/p>\n<p>As a result of these new conditions, man assumed rights of disposition over woman that he did not possess prior to the fall. The “one flesh” relation was violated when the right of rulership opened the way for the male ruler to multiply the number of his female subjects. This disparity between male and female resulted in the practice of polygamy (Gn 4:19; 16:3; 29:30) and of serial monogamy, which required the termination of each successive marriage by an act of divorce (Dt 24:1-4). Thus, the emergence of the practice of divorce appeared as the inevitable consequence of the principle of male rulership. Neither rulership nor divorce was part of God’s original design for the marriage relationship. The Mosaic regulation on divorce was a concession made by God to the fallen condition of mankind (Mt 19:8). Characteristically, the option of divorce was a right available only to the male rulers. As subjects of their male rulers, wives became the victims of divorce. Men could divorce their wives; women could not divorce their husbands.<\/p>\n<p>As unfair as it may seem, the Deuteronomic provisions for divorce were actually intended to offer a modicum of protection for its female victims. A husband had to justify a divorce action against his wife by citing something indecent about her. He was to give his divorced wife a bill of divorce that accounted for her marriage to him (Dt 24:1). Moreover, a divorced husband was forbidden to remarry his ex-wife after her subsequent marriage, since his original divorce was viewed as a defilement of her (v 4).<\/p>\n<p>Although the Mosaic dispositions on divorce were granted as a divine concession to Israel’s hardness of heart, the OT emphatically states that God hates divorce (Mal 2:16). The right of divorce was grudgingly granted as an accommodation to the principle of male rulership that had resulted from the fall. But God’s original design, reflected in the “one flesh” marital relation, remained the standard for the union of man and woman in marriage.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"JesusTeachingonDivorce\">Jesus’ Teaching on Divorce<\/p>\n<p>Inasmuch as Christ’s ministry of redemption signaled a return to God’s original purposes in Creation, the old covenant regulations on divorce were abrogated in the Christian community. In order to justify the inviolability of the marriage bond among his followers, Jesus directed them to the creational model. Referring negatively to the intervening Mosaic allowance for divorce, Jesus upheld God’s original creation order by stating that “from the beginning it was not so” (Mt 19:8). Christ repudiated the fall and affirmed the Creation design.<\/p>\n<p>In Matthew 5:31-32 Jesus explicitly abrogated the Mosaic legislation that allowed men to divorce their wives. He viewed the practice as a violation of the integrity of women. Adulterous men who divorce their wives reduce them to the status of whores, using them as commodities to be passed around through the expediency of easy divorce. By divorcing their wives, men treat them as adulteresses. By marrying a woman discarded from a previous marriage, a man perpetuates the demeaning process and becomes guilty of adultery.<\/p>\n<p>Jesus deliberately withdrew from men the ruler’s right of discarding a wife at will and reinstated the creational pattern of the lifelong “one flesh” union. His disciples understood his intent accurately. But the principle of male privilege was so deeply ingrained in their mentality that they declared the freedom available in celibacy preferable to a commitment to lifelong monogamous marriage (Mt 19:10).<\/p>\n<p>Not only did Jesus reaffirm the validity of the “one flesh” union for the community of redemption, but the NT reinforced the inviolability of the marriage bond by defining it as an earthly copy of the relationship between Christ and the church (Eph 5:25).<\/p>\n<p>Despite such strong sanctions for the permanency of the marriage bond, the NT permits divorce as an exception intended to protect the innocent spouse in the case of immorality and desertion. Jesus made exceptions that established the right of a spouse wronged by an unfaithful mate to press for divorce (Mt 5:32; 19:9). Obviously, the wronged spouse has the option of maintaining the marriage bond despite the breach of commitment by the unfaithful mate. But in view of the exception allowed by Scripture, the obligation to maintain or reinstate the disrupted marriage may not be imposed upon the innocent spouse.<\/p>\n<p>The other exception that justifies divorce, according to the NT, is desertion. Although the provisions of 1 Corinthians 7:15 refer primarily to desertion by an unbelieving spouse, it should be noted that a believer guilty of desertion is to be treated as an unbeliever (1 Tm 5:8). Behavior equivalent to the abandonment of the marriage relationship constitutes a breach of conjugal commitment and becomes subject to the provision stated in 1 Corinthians 7:15.<\/p>\n<p>In either case, adultery or desertion, the aggrieved party has the right to seek divorce from the offending spouse and, having obtained it, becomes again a single person. Should repentance and reconciliation fail to restore the violated union, the aggrieved spouse is not bound to the marriage. According to Scripture, a person who is not bound is free to remarry, but only “in the Lord,” meaning to another Christian (1 Cor 7:39). The injunction for a single person who does not have the gift of celibacy to marry (v 9) applies to a person formerly married but who has become single by a scripturally legitimate divorce. In keeping with Christ’s teaching in Mark 10:11-12 and Luke 16:18, the remarriage of believers may not be approved when the divorce has been used as a means of changing mates, since such intent makes the divorce adulterous.<\/p>\n<p>Many factors usually combine to destroy a marriage; therefore, the church must deal with each case of divorce and remarriage on an individual basis, taking into account God’s inexhaustible capacity to forgive sin and to restore broken lives. Obviously, the scriptural restrictions on divorce do not apply to believers whose broken marriages predate their conversion, since God’s forgiveness wipes clean the sin of their pre-Christian past and makes them new creatures in Christ.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Adultery; Civil Law and Justice; Marriage, Marriage Customs; Sex, Sexuality.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>DIVORCE<\/h3>\n<p>Biblical provisions regulating divorce are closely bound up with the various definitions given to marriage within the successive phases of God’s progressive revelation in history.<\/p>\n<p>In the Genesis Creation account, marriage is defined as the “one flesh” union established by God in the context of a sinless environment (Gn 2:24). Given such conditions, the dissolution of the marriage relationship was inconceivable. During his ministry, Jesus affirmed this aspect of God’s original design for marriage. He described the implications of the “one flesh” relationship as the abrogation of the separatedness of the spouses and the creation of an inviolable union (Mt 19:6).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheOldTestamentsViewonDivorce\">The Old Testament’s View on Divorce<\/p>\n<p>The disruptions brought about by the fall had grievous consequences for the male\/female relationship. Having allowed sin to sever their primary dependency on God, man and woman became respectively subject to the elements from which they had been originally made. Man became subject to the dust of the ground whence he had come (Gn 2:7; 3:19), and woman became subject to the man from whom she had been formed (2:22; 3:16). Prior to the fall, man and woman had enjoyed a relationship of equality as cosharers in the divine image (1:27) and as partners in the divine mandate to exercise dominion over creation (v 28). After the fall man became ruler over woman, and woman became subject to man (3:16).<\/p>\n<p>As a result of these new conditions, man assumed rights of disposition over woman that he did not possess prior to the fall. The “one flesh” relation was violated when the right of rulership opened the way for the male ruler to multiply the number of his female subjects. This disparity between male and female resulted in the practice of polygamy (Gn 4:19; 16:3; 29:30) and of serial monogamy, which required the termination of each successive marriage by an act of divorce (Dt 24:1-4). Thus, the emergence of the practice of divorce appeared as the inevitable consequence of the principle of male rulership. Neither rulership nor divorce was part of God’s original design for the marriage relationship. The Mosaic regulation on divorce was a concession made by God to the fallen condition of mankind (Mt 19:8). Characteristically, the option of divorce was a right available only to the male rulers. As subjects of their male rulers, wives became the victims of divorce. Men could divorce their wives; women could not divorce their husbands.<\/p>\n<p>As unfair as it may seem, the Deuteronomic provisions for divorce were actually intended to offer a modicum of protection for its female victims. A husband had to justify a divorce action against his wife by citing something indecent about her. He was to give his divorced wife a bill of divorce that accounted for her marriage to him (Dt 24:1). Moreover, a divorced husband was forbidden to remarry his ex-wife after her subsequent marriage, since his original divorce was viewed as a defilement of her (v 4).<\/p>\n<p>Although the Mosaic dispositions on divorce were granted as a divine concession to Israel’s hardness of heart, the OT emphatically states that God hates divorce (Mal 2:16). The right of divorce was grudgingly granted as an accommodation to the principle of male rulership that had resulted from the fall. But God’s original design, reflected in the “one flesh” marital relation, remained the standard for the union of man and woman in marriage.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"JesusTeachingonDivorce\">Jesus’ Teaching on Divorce<\/p>\n<p>Inasmuch as Christ’s ministry of redemption signaled a return to God’s original purposes in Creation, the old covenant regulations on divorce were abrogated in the Christian community. In order to justify the inviolability of the marriage bond among his followers, Jesus directed them to the creational model. Referring negatively to the intervening Mosaic allowance for divorce, Jesus upheld God’s original creation order by stating that “from the beginning it was not so” (Mt 19:8). Christ repudiated the fall and affirmed the Creation design.<\/p>\n<p>In Matthew 5:31-32 Jesus explicitly abrogated the Mosaic legislation that allowed men to divorce their wives. He viewed the practice as a violation of the integrity of women. Adulterous men who divorce their wives reduce them to the status of whores, using them as commodities to be passed around through the expediency of easy divorce. By divorcing their wives, men treat them as adulteresses. By marrying a woman discarded from a previous marriage, a man perpetuates the demeaning process and becomes guilty of adultery.<\/p>\n<p>Jesus deliberately withdrew from men the ruler’s right of discarding a wife at will and reinstated the creational pattern of the lifelong “one flesh” union. His disciples understood his intent accurately. But the principle of male privilege was so deeply ingrained in their mentality that they declared the freedom available in celibacy preferable to a commitment to lifelong monogamous marriage (Mt 19:10).<\/p>\n<p>Not only did Jesus reaffirm the validity of the “one flesh” union for the community of redemption, but the NT reinforced the inviolability of the marriage bond by defining it as an earthly copy of the relationship between Christ and the church (Eph 5:25).<\/p>\n<p>Despite such strong sanctions for the permanency of the marriage bond, the NT permits divorce as an exception intended to protect the innocent spouse in the case of immorality and desertion. Jesus made exceptions that established the right of a spouse wronged by an unfaithful mate to press for divorce (Mt 5:32; 19:9). Obviously, the wronged spouse has the option of maintaining the marriage bond despite the breach of commitment by the unfaithful mate. But in view of the exception allowed by Scripture, the obligation to maintain or reinstate the disrupted marriage may not be imposed upon the innocent spouse.<\/p>\n<p>The other exception that justifies divorce, according to the NT, is desertion. Although the provisions of 1 Corinthians 7:15 refer primarily to desertion by an unbelieving spouse, it should be noted that a believer guilty of desertion is to be treated as an unbeliever (1 Tm 5:8). Behavior equivalent to the abandonment of the marriage relationship constitutes a breach of conjugal commitment and becomes subject to the provision stated in 1 Corinthians 7:15.<\/p>\n<p>In either case, adultery or desertion, the aggrieved party has the right to seek divorce from the offending spouse and, having obtained it, becomes again a single person. Should repentance and reconciliation fail to restore the violated union, the aggrieved spouse is not bound to the marriage. According to Scripture, a person who is not bound is free to remarry, but only “in the Lord,” meaning to another Christian (1 Cor 7:39). The injunction for a single person who does not have the gift of celibacy to marry (v 9) applies to a person formerly married but who has become single by a scripturally legitimate divorce. In keeping with Christ’s teaching in Mark 10:11-12 and Luke 16:18, the remarriage of believers may not be approved when the divorce has been used as a means of changing mates, since such intent makes the divorce adulterous.<\/p>\n<p>Many factors usually combine to destroy a marriage; therefore, the church must deal with each case of divorce and remarriage on an individual basis, taking into account God’s inexhaustible capacity to forgive sin and to restore broken lives. Obviously, the scriptural restrictions on divorce do not apply to believers whose broken marriages predate their conversion, since God’s forgiveness wipes clean the sin of their pre-Christian past and makes them new creatures in Christ.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Adultery; Civil Law and Justice; Marriage, Marriage Customs; Sex, Sexuality.<\/p>","summary_ro":"DIVORCE Biblical provisions regulating divorce are closely bound up with the various definitions given to marriage within the successive phases of God’s progressive revelation in history. In the Genesis Creation account, marriage is defined as the “one flesh” union established by God in the context of a sinless environment (Gn 2:24). Given such conditions, the dissolution of the marriage relationship was inconceivable. During his ministry, Jesus affirmed this aspect of God’s original design f...","summary_en":"DIVORCE Biblical provisions regulating divorce are closely bound up with the various definitions given to marriage within the successive phases of God’s progressive revelation in history. In the Genesis Creation account, marriage is defined as the “one flesh” union established by God in the context of a sinless environment (Gn 2:24). Given such conditions, the dissolution of the marriage relationship was inconceivable. During his ministry, Jesus affirmed this aspect of God’s original design f...","source":"Articles\/D.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":45140,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Deuteronomul 24:4","title_en":"Study Note: Deuteronomul 24:4","content_ro":"<p><strong>24:4<\/strong> Perhaps the woman is described as <em>defiled<\/em> because she had two husbands; returning to the first husband would be considered adultery. • <em>guilt upon the land:<\/em> The concept of community was so strong in ancient Israel that the individual’s identity almost merged with that of the community. The sin of one individual had collective, corporate consequences.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>24:4<\/strong> Perhaps the woman is described as <em>defiled<\/em> because she had two husbands; returning to the first husband would be considered adultery. • <em>guilt upon the land:<\/em> The concept of community was so strong in ancient Israel that the individual’s identity almost merged with that of the community. The sin of one individual had collective, corporate consequences.<\/p>","summary_ro":"24:4 Perhaps the woman is described as defiled because she had two husbands; returning to the first husband would be considered adultery. • guilt upon the land: The concept of community was so strong in ancient Israel that the individual’s identity almost merged with that of the community. The sin of one individual had collective, corporate consequences.","summary_en":"24:4 Perhaps the woman is described as defiled because she had two husbands; returning to the first husband would be considered adultery. • guilt upon the land: The concept of community was so strong in ancient Israel that the individual’s identity almost merged with that of the community. The sin of one individual had collective, corporate consequences.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":72766,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Deuteronomul 24:4","title_en":"Study Note: Deuteronomul 24:4","content_ro":"<p><strong>24:4<\/strong> Perhaps the woman is described as <em>defiled<\/em> because she had two husbands; returning to the first husband would be considered adultery. • <em>guilt upon the land:<\/em> The concept of community was so strong in ancient Israel that the individual’s identity almost merged with that of the community. The sin of one individual had collective, corporate consequences.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>24:4<\/strong> Perhaps the woman is described as <em>defiled<\/em> because she had two husbands; returning to the first husband would be considered adultery. • <em>guilt upon the land:<\/em> The concept of community was so strong in ancient Israel that the individual’s identity almost merged with that of the community. The sin of one individual had collective, corporate consequences.<\/p>","summary_ro":"24:4 Perhaps the woman is described as defiled because she had two husbands; returning to the first husband would be considered adultery. • guilt upon the land: The concept of community was so strong in ancient Israel that the individual’s identity almost merged with that of the community. The sin of one individual had collective, corporate consequences.","summary_en":"24:4 Perhaps the woman is described as defiled because she had two husbands; returning to the first husband would be considered adultery. • guilt upon the land: The concept of community was so strong in ancient Israel that the individual’s identity almost merged with that of the community. The sin of one individual had collective, corporate consequences.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":100392,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Deuteronomul 24:4","title_en":"Study Note: Deuteronomul 24:4","content_ro":"<p><strong>24:4<\/strong> Perhaps the woman is described as <em>defiled<\/em> because she had two husbands; returning to the first husband would be considered adultery. • <em>guilt upon the land:<\/em> The concept of community was so strong in ancient Israel that the individual’s identity almost merged with that of the community. The sin of one individual had collective, corporate consequences.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>24:4<\/strong> Perhaps the woman is described as <em>defiled<\/em> because she had two husbands; returning to the first husband would be considered adultery. • <em>guilt upon the land:<\/em> The concept of community was so strong in ancient Israel that the individual’s identity almost merged with that of the community. The sin of one individual had collective, corporate consequences.<\/p>","summary_ro":"24:4 Perhaps the woman is described as defiled because she had two husbands; returning to the first husband would be considered adultery. • guilt upon the land: The concept of community was so strong in ancient Israel that the individual’s identity almost merged with that of the community. The sin of one individual had collective, corporate consequences.","summary_en":"24:4 Perhaps the woman is described as defiled because she had two husbands; returning to the first husband would be considered adultery. • guilt upon the land: The concept of community was so strong in ancient Israel that the individual’s identity almost merged with that of the community. The sin of one individual had collective, corporate consequences.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":128018,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Deuteronomul 24:4","title_en":"Study Note: Deuteronomul 24:4","content_ro":"<p><strong>24:4<\/strong> Perhaps the woman is described as <em>defiled<\/em> because she had two husbands; returning to the first husband would be considered adultery. • <em>guilt upon the land:<\/em> The concept of community was so strong in ancient Israel that the individual’s identity almost merged with that of the community. The sin of one individual had collective, corporate consequences.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>24:4<\/strong> Perhaps the woman is described as <em>defiled<\/em> because she had two husbands; returning to the first husband would be considered adultery. • <em>guilt upon the land:<\/em> The concept of community was so strong in ancient Israel that the individual’s identity almost merged with that of the community. The sin of one individual had collective, corporate consequences.<\/p>","summary_ro":"24:4 Perhaps the woman is described as defiled because she had two husbands; returning to the first husband would be considered adultery. • guilt upon the land: The concept of community was so strong in ancient Israel that the individual’s identity almost merged with that of the community. The sin of one individual had collective, corporate consequences.","summary_en":"24:4 Perhaps the woman is described as defiled because she had two husbands; returning to the first husband would be considered adultery. • guilt upon the land: The concept of community was so strong in ancient Israel that the individual’s identity almost merged with that of the community. The sin of one individual had collective, corporate consequences.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"5":[{"id":38164,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Warfare","title_en":"Warfare","content_ro":"<h3>WARFARE<\/h3>\n<p>The means by which one nation seeks to impose its will upon another by force. An index to the importance of warfare in antiquity is provided by the amount of technical skill directed to perfecting devices for destruction and defense.<\/p>\n\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"MethodsofWarfare\">Methods of Warfare<\/p>\n<h5>Standard Combat<\/h5>\n<p>Cavalry units were introduced at the close of the second millennium <span>BC<\/span> and the beginning of the first. The cavalry charge provided a shock force to the great armies, and the cavalry’s mobility permitted concentration of firepower at decisive points. When the Assyrians coordinated their infantry, cavalry, and chariot corps into a powerful battle machine, smaller neighboring nations were more and more compelled to retreat behind their fortifications. They could not hope to engage the massive Assyrian army in standard combat in open terrain. No period is richer in illustrated monuments than Iron Age II; the Assyrian war reliefs present detailed illustrations of their conquests and the size of fortified cities. The few scenes depicting standard combat in open terrain show chariots charging from all directions and engaging the enemy at all stages of a battle. Other formations carry out mopping-up operations, finishing off pockets of enemy resistance remaining after the chariot charge.<\/p>\n<p>The factor of terrain was always very important. In standard combat on open terrain it became conventional to place the best troops on the right side of the line. A Greek commander, Epaminodas (d. 362 <span>BC<\/span>), introduced the variant of a slanting attack by a strengthened left wing, taking the Spartan army completely by surprise. Philip of Macedon and his son Alexander continued to surprise their enemies with variations on a plan of attack based on the phalanx.<\/p>\n\n<h5>Battle in Open Terrain: The Duel<\/h5>\n<p>During certain periods in the ancient Near East, the duel presented an alternative to standard combat. The duel was a contest between two champions who represented the contending forces. The two armies would agree in advance to abide by the outcome of the fight. The duel was meant to avoid the heavy casualties of full-scale warfare. The earliest detailed written account of this unique form of warfare occurs in the Tale of Sinuhe. A chamberlain in the royal court of the 12th dynasty, Sinuhe voluntarily went into exile and traveled to northern Palestine and Syria, where he lived among Semitic tribes. There he was challenged to a duel by a local champion, whom he defeated and whose goods he then plundered.<\/p>\n<p>Although the duel was common among other armies in subsequent periods, it was evidently unknown to Israel before the encounter between David and Goliath (1 Sm 17). The Philistine army had penetrated Judah as far as Socoh and were arrayed on one hill. Drawn up against them on an opposite hill was the army of Saul. The valley of Elah separated the two camps. The Israelites were challenged daily by the Philistine champion, Goliath, who proposed that the battle be decided through combat between two warriors. David accepted his proposal, but when he killed Goliath, the Philistines fled, unwilling to honor the terms of the prior agreement. The Israelite army then entered the contest, pursuing the Philistines and inflicting heavy casualties.<\/p>\n<h5>Assaults on Fortified Cities<\/h5>\n<p>Most cities in the ancient Near East were located at sites that could be defended against attack and that possessed economic advantages. An assault on a fortified city presented opposite problems for attacker and defender. The actions of one were a direct response to the actions of the other. Systems of defense were intended to thwart methods of attack, which in turn were designed to penetrate systems of defense.<\/p>\n<p>There were five possible ways of conquering a fortified city: penetration from above the fortifications; direct penetration through the fortifications; penetration from below the fortifications; siege; and penetration by ruse. On many occasions, a combination of two or more methods was necessary to breach the defensive network.<\/p>\n<p>The biblical narrative of the conquest of Shechem by Abimelech (Jgs 9) gives an account of an assault on a fortified city in the period of the judges (Iron Age I). When the people of Shechem and their allies rebelled against Abimelech, he retaliated by attacking the city, advancing his army of mercenaries by night and launching an assault from ambush positions at dawn (9:32-35). The men of Shechem engaged in open battle outside the city gates but were forced to retreat behind the security of the city walls. The next day Abimelech directed his assault against the city itself. Dividing his forces into three groups, he assumed direct command of one, which he committed to an attack on the city gates at the decisive moment of battle (vv 43-44). The gate was breached and the main walls seized, but the city’s surviving defenders fled to an inner citadel, the temple of Baal-berith.<\/p>\n<p>Many reliefs depict groups of soldiers defending an inner citadel after a city’s wall was breached. Archaeological excavations at Shechem confirm that its temple, like those in other Canaanite cities, was built in the form of a fortified tower, supported by stout bastions near the entrance. The tower of Shechem was thus strongly fortified and occupied only a small area, enabling its defenders to concentrate their firepower on Abimelech’s troops. Since it could not be taken by storm, Abimelech ordered his soldiers to use their battle-axes to cut brushwood, which was piled against the stronghold and set on fire (Jgs 9:48-49). All of the defenders within the tower died.<\/p>\n<p>An assault on an inner citadel was always a hazardous undertaking for an attacking army, as shown in the sequel to the capture of Shechem’s tower. Abimelech turned his attention next to the city of Thebez and followed the same plan of assault that had proved successful at Shechem. But as he was preparing to burn the door of the tower to which the defenders had fled, his skull was crushed by a piece of millstone dropped on him by a woman (Jgs 9:50-53). The incident was remembered and became proverbial for the danger of approaching too closely the walls of a fortified tower (2 Sm 11:19-21).<\/p>\n<h5>Communications and Intelligence<\/h5>\n<p>From the patriarchal period (middle Bronze period), we have detailed written information on the use of communications systems in wartime. The documents from Mari on the Euphrates provide evidence for a well-developed communications system based on signaling. Signals were flashed by torches or firebrands at night in accordance with a prearranged code. The system was widely used in Mesopotamia and elsewhere to call for immediate help when a city was under attack.<\/p>\n<p>In the late Bronze period horsemen were sometimes employed for isolated communication functions. Intelligence services played a role in planning and executing military operations. The importance of intelligence and the use of spies or scouts is stressed in the biblical accounts of the conquest of the land of Canaan. Before entering the land, Moses sent men on an espionage mission. He instructed them to gather information on the topography of the land, to observe the relative strength of its inhabitants, to determine whether the land was fertile, to survey the cities and see if they were fortified, and to report on the character of the land—whether it was capable of sustaining a large population (Nm 13:17-20).<\/p>\n<p>Tactical intelligence was very important. Joshua dispatched spies to Jericho and to Ai before beginning military operations against them (Jos 2:1; 7:2). The reports he received about the offensive spirit and strength of the Canaanites enabled him to formulate an attack plan. In the period of the judges the conquest of Bethel (Jgs 1:22-26) was due directly to intelligence gathered by a reconnaissance patrol. The tribes of Joseph sent out scouts to keep the city under observation. It was strongly fortified and seemed impregnable. The scouts captured a man who emerged from the city—presumably not through the main gate, which was shut tight, but through a concealed postern or tunnel. In exchange for his own life and the safety of his family, he disclosed the location of the passage leading beneath the walls. The city was penetrated through the tunnel and captured.<\/p>\n<h5>Attack and Penetration: The Breach<\/h5>\n<p>Direct penetration through the fortifications of an ancient city meant breaching the gate or the main walls by using hammers, axes, pikes, spears, swords, or a battering ram. Illustrated monuments and written documents indicate that early in the middle Bronze period fortified cities were being attacked with battering rams. The earliest known illustration of a ram appears in a siege scene in the wall paintings from Beni Hasan (20th century <span>BC<\/span>). The ram pictured is a relatively simple device, consisting of a hutlike structure with a slightly pointed roof, which could be moved near a fortress with the help of two parallel crossbars. The structure provided cover for two or three soldiers who operated by hand a very long pole with a sharp tip, presumably of metal.<\/p>\n<p>The Mari documents provide information for the period 200 years later. They mention the effectiveness of battering rams constructed largely of wood. Although very heavy, the siege weapon could be moved over long distances. One document speaks of the use of a wagon drawn by draft animals and of a boat to transport a battering ram to the site of a besieged city.<\/p>\n<p>Moving a battering ram into position always exposed the demolition unit to heavy fire from defenders on the walls above them. Its heaviness made it cumbersome to move. Moreover, the ground adjacent to the walls was usually rough, rocky, and steep. When the chosen point of penetration was a section of the wall, an assault force had to construct an earthen ramp, occasionally strengthened on the top surface and sides with wooden planks or stones. The ramp provided a track along which the battering ram could be moved from the foot of the slope to the outer wall. Once moved into operational position, the ram had to be braked to prevent it from rolling back. The building of such a ramp was evidently necessary in Joab’s campaign against the fortified city of Abel in Beth-maacah (2 Sm 20:15). The biblical account indicates that some sort of battering ram was in use in Israel under King David during the early monarchy.<\/p>\n<p>The earliest Assyrian reliefs show that protection of the penetration units was a major consideration. High, mobile assault towers constructed of wood operated in tandem with a battering ram. Such towers, moved into position near a breach operation and manned by archers, provided covering fire directed against the defenders on the wall. Siege towers neutralized the defenders’ advantage in firepower and drew fire away from the crew engaged in breaching the walls.<\/p>\n<p>The details of the Assyrian reliefs make it possible to visualize clearly the fate of Jerusalem, as announced to the prophet Ezekiel (Ez 4:1-3; 21:22). The gate was the focal point of attack because it was the weakest point in the wall. Moreover, the path leading up to the gate made construction of a special ramp unnecessary. In the demolition of a gate, swords were sometimes used to pry the doors loose and to tear down hinges. Wooden doors unprotected by metal were often set on fire.<\/p>\n<p>The battering ram continued to be used as an engine for breaching walls in the Hellenistic-Roman period. In 63 <span>BC<\/span> the Roman commander Pompey brought up battering rams from Tyre against the defenders of Jerusalem, and with them penetrated the fortified wall that enclosed the temple. The siege machine shown on Trajan’s column had a beam with an iron head shaped like a ram. It was moved up to a wall in a frame protected by a wooden roof covered with clay or hides. A variation equipped for boring into a wall was used by Titus when besieging Jerusalem in <span>AD<\/span> 70.<\/p>\n<p>The battering ram was not the only device used to effect a breach in a wall. Troops trained as sappers would tear down a section of the wall by using sharp-headed levers (pikes, swords, spears) or even sledgehammers (cf. Ez 26:8-9). In Ashurnasirpal’s army such men were issued full-length coats of mail to cover their whole bodies. Under later Assyrian kings, they were protected by both round and rectangular shields, which they carried on their backs when engaged in demolition. Later, Ashurbanipal relied exclusively on such sappers for direct penetration of a fortified city. He designed for their protection a huge shield, the curved head of which could be propped against the wall, screening the sapper from missiles while he worked beneath it.<\/p>\n<h5>Scaling the Walls<\/h5>\n<p>A battle scene depicted on limestone in the tomb of Anta at Dashashe in Upper Egypt (24th century <span>BC<\/span>) provides the earliest known representation of siege activities. It shows the Egyptians raising a scaling ladder against the walls of a fortified city. By the time of Sargon, the thickness of walls was increased considerably, which permitted construction of much higher walls, more resistant to scaling. Such solid, massive walls also tended to blunt the effectiveness of a battering ram. Sargon, and especially his successor Ashurbanipal, responded by constructing longer scaling ladders, some of which could reach a height of from 25 to 30 feet (7.6 to 9.1 meters), judging from the number of rungs.<\/p>\n<h5>Penetration beneath the Walls<\/h5>\n<p>A tunneling operation could be started beyond the range of any weapons at the disposal of the defenders. Once underground, the penetration unit was shielded from enemy fire. The tunneling could be accomplished under cover of night, so that the element of surprise could be exploited to the maximum. It was, however, a lengthy process requiring considerable technical skill. Moreover, if the operation was detected by the defenders before its completion, they could destroy the penetration unit as it emerged from the tunnel. Attempts to penetrate fortified cities by tunneling beneath the walls was a characteristic feature of warfare in Iron Age II. That is confirmed by reliefs, written documents, and archaeological excavation of sites dating to this period, where the remains of attack tunnels have been discovered.<\/p>\n<h5>Siege<\/h5>\n<p>Particularly when a walled city was situated on a high hill, an extended siege provided an alternate method of conquering it. By encircling the city and preventing aid or supplies from reaching its defenders, the attacking army could starve the inhabitants out. That procedure minimized the element of risk for the attacking army. Its success depended upon their capacity to prevent outside assistance from reaching the city and the defenders from leaving it. An army would generally resort to siege when a city’s fortifications were too powerful for direct penetration. The siege of Samaria by the Assyrians lasted for three years (2 Kgs 18:9-10).<\/p>\n<p>The peculiar conditions of siege produced the catapult, a major innovation of Greek artillery and a logical improvement on the bow and the sling. Designed originally as a strengthened bow mounted on a stand and used to fire arrows only, it was introduced around 400 <span>BC<\/span> by Demetrius I. He may have borrowed the idea from the Phoenicians at Carthage.<\/p>\n<p>In the course of time the instrument was improved. The perfect weapon, called the torsion catapult, derived its power from many tightly twisted strands of elastic material, frequently supplied by women’s hair, which could be tightened with a windlass and then released suddenly. Firing arrows, large stones, or fire-baskets with an effective range of 200 yards (182.9 meters), a catapult could clear a wall of its defenders while a battering ram breached it or a boarding party attacked from a mobile tower.<\/p>\n<p>For those in a besieged city, the critical problems were food and water supplies. The horror of famine is stressed in the biblical account of the siege of Samaria by the Syrian Ben-hadad in the days of the prophet Elisha. On that occasion women were reduced to eating their children (2 Kgs 6:26-29). A besieging army would do everything in its power to aggravate such conditions. In one of the siege reliefs of Ashurnasirpal II, a defender has lowered a bucket from the wall to draw water from a stream below; an Assyrian soldier is shown cutting the rope with his dagger.<\/p>\n<h5>Ruses and Stratagems<\/h5>\n<p>Various ruses and stratagems could draw the defenders out of a city or infiltrate troops into the city. If a small force could enter a city by a cunning stratagem, it could overpower the guards and open the city gates to an attacking army. A city’s fortifications were of little value once an enemy had entered the city. Moreover, penetrating a city’s defenses at any one point frequently caused the entire defense system to collapse. The story of the Trojan horse is probably the most celebrated account of a stratagem circumventing the defense of a strongly fortified ancient city.<\/p>\n<p>In the biblical account of the siege of Samaria by Ben-hadad, a sudden lifting of the Syrian siege led Joram, the king of Israel, to suspect a ruse. He refused to believe the report of four lepers that the Syrians had gone, leaving behind large food supplies (2 Kgs 7:12). That was the same kind of tactic that Joshua had employed at Ai (Jos 8:3-8).<\/p>\n<p>On other occasions, powerful armies sought to break down resistance by psychological warfare, as in the unsuccessful attempt by Sennacherib to capture Jerusalem in the time of Hezekiah (2 Kgs 18–19). The dialogue between the Assyrian general and Hezekiah’s delegates reveals that the Assyrian was trying to shake the confidence of the city’s defenders.<\/p>\n<p>The ambush was a type of ruse used to trap and destroy an enemy at a moment when he was least able to counter a sudden, unexpected blow. Its effectiveness depended almost entirely on the element of surprise. By taking advantage of good intelligence, knowledge of the terrain, and the cover of night, a small force could stage a devastating ambush against vastly superior numbers.<\/p>\n<p>The ambush was a standard method of combat during the period of the conquest of Canaan. The fall of Ai, for example, was due directly to the tactical success of an ambush (Jos 8:1-23). Under cover of night, Joshua was able to move a large force to a concealed position behind the city. He then led the remainder of the Israelite army to the edge of a valley north of the fortified city, giving the appearance of a planned assault on the city. The diversion, as calculated, drew the main force of Ai away from the city to engage Israel on the plain of Arabah. When the Israelites fell back, appearing to be badly beaten, the remaining defenders of the city were summoned to pursue Joshua’s fleeing army. With the city left undefended, the main Israelite strike force rose from its ambush position, poured into the city, and set it on fire. Too late, the men of Ai saw the smoke from their burning city and realized the stratagem. Joshua’s army turned to counterattack their pursuers, who found themselves trapped between two bodies of Israelite forces. Assaulted from both front and rear, the king of Ai’s army was annihilated, victim of an effectively laid ambush.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"FortificationsandDefense\">Fortifications and Defense<\/p>\n<p>The earliest known fortifications in the world, dated by some to about 7000 <span>BC<\/span>, were discovered in 1954 at Jericho. They were impressive in conception and construction. The core of the defense system was a wall, part of which, bordering the western edge of the ancient city, was still standing to a height of 21 feet (6.4 meters). Further excavation uncovered a large moat that had been carved out of solid rock at the base of the wall, 27 feet (8.2 meters) wide and 9 feet (2.7 meters) deep. How that feat was accomplished when the only tools assumed to have been available were made of stone is a complete mystery. A third component of Jericho’s defense system was a huge stone circular tower 30 feet (9.1 meters) high, once evidently attached to the inner side of the western part of the wall. The exact purpose of the tower has not yet been determined, but Neolithic Jericho provides the earliest evidence of a fortified city supported by a wall, tower, and moat.<\/p>\n<p>By the middle Bronze period, there were four components in a standard defense system: a moat, an advance (outer) wall, the main (inner) wall, and a well-fortified gate structure. The moat, advance wall, and subsidiary fortifications protecting the steep slope and lower portion of the main wall were intended to prevent breaching by a battering ram.<\/p>\n<h5>City Walls<\/h5>\n<p>Erection of a simple wall could halt a hostile advance only temporarily, since walls could be scaled or breached. Walls therefore provided a firing platform so defenders could repel attacks. The wall system consisted of three principal components: the wall itself, constituting the barrier; an upper structure, which provided the firing platform and cover for the defenders; and a series of obstacles and traps erected in front of the wall to keep archers at a distance and to prevent operation of a battering ram.<\/p>\n<p>The battlement—a parapet built along the outer top edge of the wall—provided the defenders with a measure of security, freedom for mobility, and openings through which fire could be directed. From a distance the square notches looked like a row of teeth with gaps between them. The teeth, called merlons, provided a protective barrier against hostile missiles. The gaps, called embrasures or crenels, supplied openings through which the defenders could discharge their weapons. Special towers protruded from the outer face of the wall, spaced at a distance no greater than the double range of a bow. Such towers enabled the defenders to fire at troops who managed to reach the walls. One way of protecting the main wall was to construct an outer or advance wall that could be breached or climbed only under heavy fire from defending units on the battlements of the main wall. Another method was to dig a wide, deep moat around the base of the main wall. A moat kept the enemy from using a battering ram unless they could bridge the moat or fill it up at certain points, under concentrated fire from the defenders.<\/p>\n<p>Casemate fortifications, introduced in the middle Bronze period, were developed from double walls built of dressed stones. The space between the walls was divided into chambers, or casemates, used for storage or dwellings. The Hittite casemate system, introduced into Palestine at least as early as the time of Saul, was widely adopted in Syria and Palestine. A fine example has been discovered at Gibeah, where Saul’s citadel was located, dating to the end of the 11th century <span>BC<\/span>. The overall thickness of the double walls, including the casemates, reaches 15 feet (4.6 meters). The same type of construction has been found in excavations of three Solomonic cities—Hazor, Gezer, and Megiddo (cf. 1 Kgs 9:15)—where the casemate walls have an overall thickness of 18 feet (5.5 meters).<\/p>\n<p>Although the divided kingdoms of Judah and Israel were not noted for technical advancements in offensive warfare, a number of their kings worked at improving fortifications and means of defense. Uzziah was especially remembered for his accomplishments in defensive warfare. Along with other measures, “he produced machines mounted on the walls of Jerusalem, designed by brilliant men to shoot arrows and hurl stones from the towers and the corners of the wall” (2 Chr 26:15, <span>nlt<\/span>). Those “machines” were special protective structures built to facilitate the task of the archers and to permit huge stones to be dropped on the heads of assaulting troops.<\/p>\n<h5>Gate<\/h5>\n<p>It was inevitable that the gate would be the focus of action in any assault on a fortified city. City gates were therefore designed to expose an attacking army to the greatest risk while providing maximum security to the defenders. The road approaching a city on a hill would wind up the slope, climbing obliquely to the left or the right. Such roads were usually laid out to reach the gate from the right, so an attacker would have to expose the right side of his body to the defenders on the wall. Since he carried his shield in his left hand, that made him more vulnerable.<\/p>\n<p>To prevent the heavy wooden doors of the gate from being set on fire, they were usually plated with metal. A gate wide enough for chariots required double doors, making the line at the center where the two doors met the weakest point in the barrier. Double doors were therefore fitted with huge bolts and fortified with a heavy beam running across the back of both door panels and held in place by sockets set in the doorposts.<\/p>\n<p>Another component in the defense complex at a gate consisted of towers erected on either side of the gate and protruding from the outer face of the wall. Enemy soldiers trying to smash the doors with axes or set them on fire with torches were thus exposed to heavy flanking fire from defensive units on the towers. From a roof over the gate having a balcony, concentrated firepower could be poured down on attackers’ heads. The addition of such auxiliary structures transformed a gate into a small fortress.<\/p>\n<h5>Inner Citadel<\/h5>\n<p>A major weakness of a city’s walls and gate was the magnitude of the circumference. An average-size city might have a perimeter of half a mile (.8 kilometer); a larger city, a perimeter of over a mile (1.6 kilometers). Yet the entire wall had to be defended against breaching, scaling, or tunneling. An attacking army would use diversionary tactics to keep defenders dispersed along the entire perimeter but concentrate their primary assault at one point in the wall. Once the wall was breached, perimeter fortifications served no further defensive purpose. Therefore, internal walls were often added to subdivide a city into several sections, each capable of independent defense. Also, on the highest point of land within the city a citadel would be constructed as a self-contained defensive unit.<\/p>\n<p>The earliest examples of such fortifications, called migdols, are found in the late Bronze Age. They were originally small citadels built to guard important military targets such as sources of water, strategic routes, cultivated farmlands, or frontiers. A migdol of that type was discovered in Israel, not far from Ashdod, in 1960. It was square in plan, with rectangular bastions, and was two stories high, just like structures depicted in Egyptian reliefs from the same period. The same design was used to fortify temples inside of cities. Such fortified temples served as places of refuge and as a city’s final defense once its walls had been breached (cf. Jgs 9:45-51).<\/p>\n<p>In a later period an inner citadel could embrace a complex consisting of the fortified palace of the governor, dwellings of his chief ministers, and sometimes the temple. Such citadels resembled fortified cities, possessing a main wall, a gateway, an outer wall, and occasionally a moat. Being small in area and heavily fortified, citadels could be defended in a final effort by the governor and remaining inhabitants. Presumably Zimri could have held out against Omri’s army for an extended period in the citadel of Tirzah, had he not committed suicide by setting it on fire (1 Kgs 16:17-18).<\/p>\n<h5>Water Supply under Siege<\/h5>\n<p>Unless provision was made to keep a city’s inhabitants supplied with food and water during a protracted siege, no defense system could be effective. Several Judean kings made efforts to solve the food-storage problem. Rehoboam, for example, fortified a number of cities located on the western, eastern, and southern borders of his kingdom and made them centers for the storage of food, oil, and wine (2 Chr 11:5-11).<\/p>\n<p>Storage of food was easier than storage of water. Cisterns built to collect rainwater were a partial answer, but cisterns often ran dry, particularly in times of drought. Cities were sometimes built on the banks of a stream or river, using the stream as part of the city’s defense system. But for a city built on a hill, the source of water might be a spring located at the foot of the slope and outside the city walls. Sometimes the mouth of the spring could be blocked and its location concealed from the enemy while still allowing access by the inhabitants. At Megiddo a vertical shaft 100 feet (274.3 meters) deep was connected by a horizontal tunnel about 200 feet (548.6 meters) long to the water supply at the western end of the city, beyond the fortifications. The work was undertaken in the time of either Solomon or Ahab.<\/p>\n<p>The most celebrated measures to guarantee a supply of fresh water in a time of siege were those taken by Hezekiah at Jerusalem. That engineering achievement is recalled in all the summaries of his reign, both in the Bible and in the “Praise of Famous Men” in the apocryphal book of Ecclesiasticus (2 Kgs 20:20; 2 Chr 32:30; Ecclus 48:17). The prodigious feat commemorated in those references was the sealing of the spring of Gihon and the cutting of an 1,800-foot (548.6-meter) channel through solid rock in order to bring water into a reservoir in the city. How it was accomplished was reported by Hezekiah himself in the famous Siloam inscription. Two crews, working with hammers, wedges, and pickaxes, began at opposite ends. The crew that began at the spring was able to take advantage of the older tunnel (cf. Is 22:11). They turned due south, in the direction of the city. The other crew, starting from the reservoir, began in a northeasterly direction. They then turned southeast until they reached the north-south line followed by the crew tunneling from the spring, when they turned due north to meet them. The two crews almost passed each other, being about five feet (1.5 meters) apart, but a shout from one was heard through a crevice in the rock by the other. Both parties turned sharply right, and the tunnel was completed. Hezekiah’s precautionary step, taken before Sennacherib’s invasion of Judah, helps to explain why the Assyrians were unable to subdue Jerusalem by the siege tactics that had earlier subdued Samaria in the time of Sargon.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"HebrewMilitaryOrganization\">Hebrew Military Organization<\/p>\n<h5>Tribal Army<\/h5>\n<p>In their exodus from Egypt the Israelites were organized by tribes and divisions. That systematic arrangement for their trek through the wilderness provided a precedent for military organization. After the sojourn at Mt Sinai, the 12 tribes were divided into divisions or army corps, and certain grades in military rank began to appear. The “officers of the army” (Nm 31:14) had command over units of 1,000 or 100 men, which suggests that the tribal army was divided into decimal units. At a later period there is reference to units of 1,000 (the division), 100 (the company), 50 (the platoon), and 10 (the section). Except for the Levites, who were assigned as a tribe to the care of the tabernacle (Nm 2:33), men from 20 years of age who were physically able to fight were assigned to a unit in the tribal army. Certain individuals, however, were exempted from military service (cf. Dt 20:5-9; 24:5; Jgs 7:3).<\/p>\n<p>Until after the conquest of Canaan, the tribal army was essentially a militia recruited in an emergency. Internal organization of the militia was the responsibility of the tribe; each clan and family sent their quota of warriors when summoned to battle by tribal leaders. Because the clan formed the basic unit, recruits were under the command of their own leaders. David’s brothers, for example, served in a division composed of the fighting men from their clan under the command of a captain (1 Sm 17:18; 18:13). When the emergency passed, the militia was disbanded and the soldiers returned to their home districts.<\/p>\n<p>Because the land was divided among the tribes, no tribal or clan leader before Saul commanded the entire tribal confederation (cf. 1 Sm 11:1-11). In fact, tribal jealousies and rivalries threatened national solidarity and jeopardized united action even in a critical period. On some occasions, however, the severity of a crisis caused the armies of the various tribes to unite in common action. The multitribal armies were divided into companies of 1,000, 100, and 50, and still further into families under appointed officers. There is evidence of organization into units according to weaponry (1 Chr 12:24-38). Benjamin’s tribe specialized in the bow and sling. The tribes of Gad, Judah, and Naphtali were expert with the spear and shield.<\/p>\n<p>Provisioning the tribal army was the responsibility of each tribe (Jgs 20:9-10). One out of every ten soldiers was appointed to secure food for the others, either from wealthy landowners (cf. 1 Sm 25) or from the natural resources of the land. In that early stage of military organization, a soldier’s pay generally consisted only of supplies and a portion of the spoils of battle (cf. 30:21-25).<\/p>\n<h5>Professional Army<\/h5>\n<p>Not until the time of the united monarchy did Israel have a regular army. Transition from a people’s militia to a professional army took place under Saul, whose reign changed the tribal confederacy into a monarchy (1 Sm 13:2). Philistine harassment of Israel encouraged establishment of a strong standing army. The army, however, was not large; it consisted of 3,000 men organized in three formations of 1,000 each (1 Sm 13:2; 24:2). Pay for those career soldiers was sometimes in the form of a land grant (8:14) as well as a share of booty. In the organization of Saul’s army, Abner, Jonathan, and David were given particular responsibilities. Abner was named commander of the army (17:55) and was probably also given direct command of one of the divisions. David’s band of valorous men, “the thirty,” provided the leadership core for his own military organization when he became king.<\/p>\n<p>David continued the practice of maintaining a professional army. But he also developed a national militia of 12 regiments, each being called up for duty for one month of the year under professional officers (1 Chr 27:1-15). Each regiment, recruited across tribal lines, consisted of 24,000 soldiers. David’s innovation provided him with a large reserve force that could be mustered for war in times of emergency. The reserves, and presumably the professional army as well, were organized into units of 1,000, 100, 50, and 10. Joab, a specialist in siege warfare (2 Sm 20:15), commanded the professional army, and Amasa was over the citizens’ militia. David, however, remained commander-in-chief of the military organization.<\/p>\n<p>The Israelite group in King David’s professional army was an outgrowth of the small band of fighting men who had served with him during the period of conflict with Saul. That veteran group consisted of David’s family and clansmen, and others who felt themselves oppressed by the central authority under Saul (1 Sm 22:1-2). It ranged in size between 400 and 600 men (1 Sm 22:2; 23:13; 27:2). The presence of mercenaries in David’s army is clearly recorded. Uriah the Hittite and Ittai of Gath are conspicuous examples, along with many career soldiers of Philistine origin, such as the Cherethites and the Pelethites under Benaiah (2 Sm 8:18; 15:19-22; 23:22-23).<\/p>\n<p>The Davidic dynasty maintained a permanent mercenary army until 701 <span>BC<\/span>, after which it was considered too costly. The oppressive cost of maintaining a professional army, financed by burdensome taxes and forced labor, was in fact a major factor contributing to the disruption of the monarchy after Solomon’s death (cf. 1 Kgs 10:26-29; 12:4-19). After Sennacherib’s invasion in 701 <span>BC<\/span>, the southern kingdom of Judah depended entirely on a citizens’ militia for its defense. It is commonly held that the northern kingdom of Israel did not employ a professional army, but it is evident that King Ahab used at least some mercenary soldiers in his defense against Ben-hadad of Syria (1 Kgs 20:15-20).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Armor and Weapons.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>WARFARE<\/h3>\n<p>The means by which one nation seeks to impose its will upon another by force. An index to the importance of warfare in antiquity is provided by the amount of technical skill directed to perfecting devices for destruction and defense.<\/p>\n\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"MethodsofWarfare\">Methods of Warfare<\/p>\n<h5>Standard Combat<\/h5>\n<p>Cavalry units were introduced at the close of the second millennium <span>BC<\/span> and the beginning of the first. The cavalry charge provided a shock force to the great armies, and the cavalry’s mobility permitted concentration of firepower at decisive points. When the Assyrians coordinated their infantry, cavalry, and chariot corps into a powerful battle machine, smaller neighboring nations were more and more compelled to retreat behind their fortifications. They could not hope to engage the massive Assyrian army in standard combat in open terrain. No period is richer in illustrated monuments than Iron Age II; the Assyrian war reliefs present detailed illustrations of their conquests and the size of fortified cities. The few scenes depicting standard combat in open terrain show chariots charging from all directions and engaging the enemy at all stages of a battle. Other formations carry out mopping-up operations, finishing off pockets of enemy resistance remaining after the chariot charge.<\/p>\n<p>The factor of terrain was always very important. In standard combat on open terrain it became conventional to place the best troops on the right side of the line. A Greek commander, Epaminodas (d. 362 <span>BC<\/span>), introduced the variant of a slanting attack by a strengthened left wing, taking the Spartan army completely by surprise. Philip of Macedon and his son Alexander continued to surprise their enemies with variations on a plan of attack based on the phalanx.<\/p>\n\n<h5>Battle in Open Terrain: The Duel<\/h5>\n<p>During certain periods in the ancient Near East, the duel presented an alternative to standard combat. The duel was a contest between two champions who represented the contending forces. The two armies would agree in advance to abide by the outcome of the fight. The duel was meant to avoid the heavy casualties of full-scale warfare. The earliest detailed written account of this unique form of warfare occurs in the Tale of Sinuhe. A chamberlain in the royal court of the 12th dynasty, Sinuhe voluntarily went into exile and traveled to northern Palestine and Syria, where he lived among Semitic tribes. There he was challenged to a duel by a local champion, whom he defeated and whose goods he then plundered.<\/p>\n<p>Although the duel was common among other armies in subsequent periods, it was evidently unknown to Israel before the encounter between David and Goliath (1 Sm 17). The Philistine army had penetrated Judah as far as Socoh and were arrayed on one hill. Drawn up against them on an opposite hill was the army of Saul. The valley of Elah separated the two camps. The Israelites were challenged daily by the Philistine champion, Goliath, who proposed that the battle be decided through combat between two warriors. David accepted his proposal, but when he killed Goliath, the Philistines fled, unwilling to honor the terms of the prior agreement. The Israelite army then entered the contest, pursuing the Philistines and inflicting heavy casualties.<\/p>\n<h5>Assaults on Fortified Cities<\/h5>\n<p>Most cities in the ancient Near East were located at sites that could be defended against attack and that possessed economic advantages. An assault on a fortified city presented opposite problems for attacker and defender. The actions of one were a direct response to the actions of the other. Systems of defense were intended to thwart methods of attack, which in turn were designed to penetrate systems of defense.<\/p>\n<p>There were five possible ways of conquering a fortified city: penetration from above the fortifications; direct penetration through the fortifications; penetration from below the fortifications; siege; and penetration by ruse. On many occasions, a combination of two or more methods was necessary to breach the defensive network.<\/p>\n<p>The biblical narrative of the conquest of Shechem by Abimelech (Jgs 9) gives an account of an assault on a fortified city in the period of the judges (Iron Age I). When the people of Shechem and their allies rebelled against Abimelech, he retaliated by attacking the city, advancing his army of mercenaries by night and launching an assault from ambush positions at dawn (9:32-35). The men of Shechem engaged in open battle outside the city gates but were forced to retreat behind the security of the city walls. The next day Abimelech directed his assault against the city itself. Dividing his forces into three groups, he assumed direct command of one, which he committed to an attack on the city gates at the decisive moment of battle (vv 43-44). The gate was breached and the main walls seized, but the city’s surviving defenders fled to an inner citadel, the temple of Baal-berith.<\/p>\n<p>Many reliefs depict groups of soldiers defending an inner citadel after a city’s wall was breached. Archaeological excavations at Shechem confirm that its temple, like those in other Canaanite cities, was built in the form of a fortified tower, supported by stout bastions near the entrance. The tower of Shechem was thus strongly fortified and occupied only a small area, enabling its defenders to concentrate their firepower on Abimelech’s troops. Since it could not be taken by storm, Abimelech ordered his soldiers to use their battle-axes to cut brushwood, which was piled against the stronghold and set on fire (Jgs 9:48-49). All of the defenders within the tower died.<\/p>\n<p>An assault on an inner citadel was always a hazardous undertaking for an attacking army, as shown in the sequel to the capture of Shechem’s tower. Abimelech turned his attention next to the city of Thebez and followed the same plan of assault that had proved successful at Shechem. But as he was preparing to burn the door of the tower to which the defenders had fled, his skull was crushed by a piece of millstone dropped on him by a woman (Jgs 9:50-53). The incident was remembered and became proverbial for the danger of approaching too closely the walls of a fortified tower (2 Sm 11:19-21).<\/p>\n<h5>Communications and Intelligence<\/h5>\n<p>From the patriarchal period (middle Bronze period), we have detailed written information on the use of communications systems in wartime. The documents from Mari on the Euphrates provide evidence for a well-developed communications system based on signaling. Signals were flashed by torches or firebrands at night in accordance with a prearranged code. The system was widely used in Mesopotamia and elsewhere to call for immediate help when a city was under attack.<\/p>\n<p>In the late Bronze period horsemen were sometimes employed for isolated communication functions. Intelligence services played a role in planning and executing military operations. The importance of intelligence and the use of spies or scouts is stressed in the biblical accounts of the conquest of the land of Canaan. Before entering the land, Moses sent men on an espionage mission. He instructed them to gather information on the topography of the land, to observe the relative strength of its inhabitants, to determine whether the land was fertile, to survey the cities and see if they were fortified, and to report on the character of the land—whether it was capable of sustaining a large population (Nm 13:17-20).<\/p>\n<p>Tactical intelligence was very important. Joshua dispatched spies to Jericho and to Ai before beginning military operations against them (Jos 2:1; 7:2). The reports he received about the offensive spirit and strength of the Canaanites enabled him to formulate an attack plan. In the period of the judges the conquest of Bethel (Jgs 1:22-26) was due directly to intelligence gathered by a reconnaissance patrol. The tribes of Joseph sent out scouts to keep the city under observation. It was strongly fortified and seemed impregnable. The scouts captured a man who emerged from the city—presumably not through the main gate, which was shut tight, but through a concealed postern or tunnel. In exchange for his own life and the safety of his family, he disclosed the location of the passage leading beneath the walls. The city was penetrated through the tunnel and captured.<\/p>\n<h5>Attack and Penetration: The Breach<\/h5>\n<p>Direct penetration through the fortifications of an ancient city meant breaching the gate or the main walls by using hammers, axes, pikes, spears, swords, or a battering ram. Illustrated monuments and written documents indicate that early in the middle Bronze period fortified cities were being attacked with battering rams. The earliest known illustration of a ram appears in a siege scene in the wall paintings from Beni Hasan (20th century <span>BC<\/span>). The ram pictured is a relatively simple device, consisting of a hutlike structure with a slightly pointed roof, which could be moved near a fortress with the help of two parallel crossbars. The structure provided cover for two or three soldiers who operated by hand a very long pole with a sharp tip, presumably of metal.<\/p>\n<p>The Mari documents provide information for the period 200 years later. They mention the effectiveness of battering rams constructed largely of wood. Although very heavy, the siege weapon could be moved over long distances. One document speaks of the use of a wagon drawn by draft animals and of a boat to transport a battering ram to the site of a besieged city.<\/p>\n<p>Moving a battering ram into position always exposed the demolition unit to heavy fire from defenders on the walls above them. Its heaviness made it cumbersome to move. Moreover, the ground adjacent to the walls was usually rough, rocky, and steep. When the chosen point of penetration was a section of the wall, an assault force had to construct an earthen ramp, occasionally strengthened on the top surface and sides with wooden planks or stones. The ramp provided a track along which the battering ram could be moved from the foot of the slope to the outer wall. Once moved into operational position, the ram had to be braked to prevent it from rolling back. The building of such a ramp was evidently necessary in Joab’s campaign against the fortified city of Abel in Beth-maacah (2 Sm 20:15). The biblical account indicates that some sort of battering ram was in use in Israel under King David during the early monarchy.<\/p>\n<p>The earliest Assyrian reliefs show that protection of the penetration units was a major consideration. High, mobile assault towers constructed of wood operated in tandem with a battering ram. Such towers, moved into position near a breach operation and manned by archers, provided covering fire directed against the defenders on the wall. Siege towers neutralized the defenders’ advantage in firepower and drew fire away from the crew engaged in breaching the walls.<\/p>\n<p>The details of the Assyrian reliefs make it possible to visualize clearly the fate of Jerusalem, as announced to the prophet Ezekiel (Ez 4:1-3; 21:22). The gate was the focal point of attack because it was the weakest point in the wall. Moreover, the path leading up to the gate made construction of a special ramp unnecessary. In the demolition of a gate, swords were sometimes used to pry the doors loose and to tear down hinges. Wooden doors unprotected by metal were often set on fire.<\/p>\n<p>The battering ram continued to be used as an engine for breaching walls in the Hellenistic-Roman period. In 63 <span>BC<\/span> the Roman commander Pompey brought up battering rams from Tyre against the defenders of Jerusalem, and with them penetrated the fortified wall that enclosed the temple. The siege machine shown on Trajan’s column had a beam with an iron head shaped like a ram. It was moved up to a wall in a frame protected by a wooden roof covered with clay or hides. A variation equipped for boring into a wall was used by Titus when besieging Jerusalem in <span>AD<\/span> 70.<\/p>\n<p>The battering ram was not the only device used to effect a breach in a wall. Troops trained as sappers would tear down a section of the wall by using sharp-headed levers (pikes, swords, spears) or even sledgehammers (cf. Ez 26:8-9). In Ashurnasirpal’s army such men were issued full-length coats of mail to cover their whole bodies. Under later Assyrian kings, they were protected by both round and rectangular shields, which they carried on their backs when engaged in demolition. Later, Ashurbanipal relied exclusively on such sappers for direct penetration of a fortified city. He designed for their protection a huge shield, the curved head of which could be propped against the wall, screening the sapper from missiles while he worked beneath it.<\/p>\n<h5>Scaling the Walls<\/h5>\n<p>A battle scene depicted on limestone in the tomb of Anta at Dashashe in Upper Egypt (24th century <span>BC<\/span>) provides the earliest known representation of siege activities. It shows the Egyptians raising a scaling ladder against the walls of a fortified city. By the time of Sargon, the thickness of walls was increased considerably, which permitted construction of much higher walls, more resistant to scaling. Such solid, massive walls also tended to blunt the effectiveness of a battering ram. Sargon, and especially his successor Ashurbanipal, responded by constructing longer scaling ladders, some of which could reach a height of from 25 to 30 feet (7.6 to 9.1 meters), judging from the number of rungs.<\/p>\n<h5>Penetration beneath the Walls<\/h5>\n<p>A tunneling operation could be started beyond the range of any weapons at the disposal of the defenders. Once underground, the penetration unit was shielded from enemy fire. The tunneling could be accomplished under cover of night, so that the element of surprise could be exploited to the maximum. It was, however, a lengthy process requiring considerable technical skill. Moreover, if the operation was detected by the defenders before its completion, they could destroy the penetration unit as it emerged from the tunnel. Attempts to penetrate fortified cities by tunneling beneath the walls was a characteristic feature of warfare in Iron Age II. That is confirmed by reliefs, written documents, and archaeological excavation of sites dating to this period, where the remains of attack tunnels have been discovered.<\/p>\n<h5>Siege<\/h5>\n<p>Particularly when a walled city was situated on a high hill, an extended siege provided an alternate method of conquering it. By encircling the city and preventing aid or supplies from reaching its defenders, the attacking army could starve the inhabitants out. That procedure minimized the element of risk for the attacking army. Its success depended upon their capacity to prevent outside assistance from reaching the city and the defenders from leaving it. An army would generally resort to siege when a city’s fortifications were too powerful for direct penetration. The siege of Samaria by the Assyrians lasted for three years (2 Kgs 18:9-10).<\/p>\n<p>The peculiar conditions of siege produced the catapult, a major innovation of Greek artillery and a logical improvement on the bow and the sling. Designed originally as a strengthened bow mounted on a stand and used to fire arrows only, it was introduced around 400 <span>BC<\/span> by Demetrius I. He may have borrowed the idea from the Phoenicians at Carthage.<\/p>\n<p>In the course of time the instrument was improved. The perfect weapon, called the torsion catapult, derived its power from many tightly twisted strands of elastic material, frequently supplied by women’s hair, which could be tightened with a windlass and then released suddenly. Firing arrows, large stones, or fire-baskets with an effective range of 200 yards (182.9 meters), a catapult could clear a wall of its defenders while a battering ram breached it or a boarding party attacked from a mobile tower.<\/p>\n<p>For those in a besieged city, the critical problems were food and water supplies. The horror of famine is stressed in the biblical account of the siege of Samaria by the Syrian Ben-hadad in the days of the prophet Elisha. On that occasion women were reduced to eating their children (2 Kgs 6:26-29). A besieging army would do everything in its power to aggravate such conditions. In one of the siege reliefs of Ashurnasirpal II, a defender has lowered a bucket from the wall to draw water from a stream below; an Assyrian soldier is shown cutting the rope with his dagger.<\/p>\n<h5>Ruses and Stratagems<\/h5>\n<p>Various ruses and stratagems could draw the defenders out of a city or infiltrate troops into the city. If a small force could enter a city by a cunning stratagem, it could overpower the guards and open the city gates to an attacking army. A city’s fortifications were of little value once an enemy had entered the city. Moreover, penetrating a city’s defenses at any one point frequently caused the entire defense system to collapse. The story of the Trojan horse is probably the most celebrated account of a stratagem circumventing the defense of a strongly fortified ancient city.<\/p>\n<p>In the biblical account of the siege of Samaria by Ben-hadad, a sudden lifting of the Syrian siege led Joram, the king of Israel, to suspect a ruse. He refused to believe the report of four lepers that the Syrians had gone, leaving behind large food supplies (2 Kgs 7:12). That was the same kind of tactic that Joshua had employed at Ai (Jos 8:3-8).<\/p>\n<p>On other occasions, powerful armies sought to break down resistance by psychological warfare, as in the unsuccessful attempt by Sennacherib to capture Jerusalem in the time of Hezekiah (2 Kgs 18–19). The dialogue between the Assyrian general and Hezekiah’s delegates reveals that the Assyrian was trying to shake the confidence of the city’s defenders.<\/p>\n<p>The ambush was a type of ruse used to trap and destroy an enemy at a moment when he was least able to counter a sudden, unexpected blow. Its effectiveness depended almost entirely on the element of surprise. By taking advantage of good intelligence, knowledge of the terrain, and the cover of night, a small force could stage a devastating ambush against vastly superior numbers.<\/p>\n<p>The ambush was a standard method of combat during the period of the conquest of Canaan. The fall of Ai, for example, was due directly to the tactical success of an ambush (Jos 8:1-23). Under cover of night, Joshua was able to move a large force to a concealed position behind the city. He then led the remainder of the Israelite army to the edge of a valley north of the fortified city, giving the appearance of a planned assault on the city. The diversion, as calculated, drew the main force of Ai away from the city to engage Israel on the plain of Arabah. When the Israelites fell back, appearing to be badly beaten, the remaining defenders of the city were summoned to pursue Joshua’s fleeing army. With the city left undefended, the main Israelite strike force rose from its ambush position, poured into the city, and set it on fire. Too late, the men of Ai saw the smoke from their burning city and realized the stratagem. Joshua’s army turned to counterattack their pursuers, who found themselves trapped between two bodies of Israelite forces. Assaulted from both front and rear, the king of Ai’s army was annihilated, victim of an effectively laid ambush.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"FortificationsandDefense\">Fortifications and Defense<\/p>\n<p>The earliest known fortifications in the world, dated by some to about 7000 <span>BC<\/span>, were discovered in 1954 at Jericho. They were impressive in conception and construction. The core of the defense system was a wall, part of which, bordering the western edge of the ancient city, was still standing to a height of 21 feet (6.4 meters). Further excavation uncovered a large moat that had been carved out of solid rock at the base of the wall, 27 feet (8.2 meters) wide and 9 feet (2.7 meters) deep. How that feat was accomplished when the only tools assumed to have been available were made of stone is a complete mystery. A third component of Jericho’s defense system was a huge stone circular tower 30 feet (9.1 meters) high, once evidently attached to the inner side of the western part of the wall. The exact purpose of the tower has not yet been determined, but Neolithic Jericho provides the earliest evidence of a fortified city supported by a wall, tower, and moat.<\/p>\n<p>By the middle Bronze period, there were four components in a standard defense system: a moat, an advance (outer) wall, the main (inner) wall, and a well-fortified gate structure. The moat, advance wall, and subsidiary fortifications protecting the steep slope and lower portion of the main wall were intended to prevent breaching by a battering ram.<\/p>\n<h5>City Walls<\/h5>\n<p>Erection of a simple wall could halt a hostile advance only temporarily, since walls could be scaled or breached. Walls therefore provided a firing platform so defenders could repel attacks. The wall system consisted of three principal components: the wall itself, constituting the barrier; an upper structure, which provided the firing platform and cover for the defenders; and a series of obstacles and traps erected in front of the wall to keep archers at a distance and to prevent operation of a battering ram.<\/p>\n<p>The battlement—a parapet built along the outer top edge of the wall—provided the defenders with a measure of security, freedom for mobility, and openings through which fire could be directed. From a distance the square notches looked like a row of teeth with gaps between them. The teeth, called merlons, provided a protective barrier against hostile missiles. The gaps, called embrasures or crenels, supplied openings through which the defenders could discharge their weapons. Special towers protruded from the outer face of the wall, spaced at a distance no greater than the double range of a bow. Such towers enabled the defenders to fire at troops who managed to reach the walls. One way of protecting the main wall was to construct an outer or advance wall that could be breached or climbed only under heavy fire from defending units on the battlements of the main wall. Another method was to dig a wide, deep moat around the base of the main wall. A moat kept the enemy from using a battering ram unless they could bridge the moat or fill it up at certain points, under concentrated fire from the defenders.<\/p>\n<p>Casemate fortifications, introduced in the middle Bronze period, were developed from double walls built of dressed stones. The space between the walls was divided into chambers, or casemates, used for storage or dwellings. The Hittite casemate system, introduced into Palestine at least as early as the time of Saul, was widely adopted in Syria and Palestine. A fine example has been discovered at Gibeah, where Saul’s citadel was located, dating to the end of the 11th century <span>BC<\/span>. The overall thickness of the double walls, including the casemates, reaches 15 feet (4.6 meters). The same type of construction has been found in excavations of three Solomonic cities—Hazor, Gezer, and Megiddo (cf. 1 Kgs 9:15)—where the casemate walls have an overall thickness of 18 feet (5.5 meters).<\/p>\n<p>Although the divided kingdoms of Judah and Israel were not noted for technical advancements in offensive warfare, a number of their kings worked at improving fortifications and means of defense. Uzziah was especially remembered for his accomplishments in defensive warfare. Along with other measures, “he produced machines mounted on the walls of Jerusalem, designed by brilliant men to shoot arrows and hurl stones from the towers and the corners of the wall” (2 Chr 26:15, <span>nlt<\/span>). Those “machines” were special protective structures built to facilitate the task of the archers and to permit huge stones to be dropped on the heads of assaulting troops.<\/p>\n<h5>Gate<\/h5>\n<p>It was inevitable that the gate would be the focus of action in any assault on a fortified city. City gates were therefore designed to expose an attacking army to the greatest risk while providing maximum security to the defenders. The road approaching a city on a hill would wind up the slope, climbing obliquely to the left or the right. Such roads were usually laid out to reach the gate from the right, so an attacker would have to expose the right side of his body to the defenders on the wall. Since he carried his shield in his left hand, that made him more vulnerable.<\/p>\n<p>To prevent the heavy wooden doors of the gate from being set on fire, they were usually plated with metal. A gate wide enough for chariots required double doors, making the line at the center where the two doors met the weakest point in the barrier. Double doors were therefore fitted with huge bolts and fortified with a heavy beam running across the back of both door panels and held in place by sockets set in the doorposts.<\/p>\n<p>Another component in the defense complex at a gate consisted of towers erected on either side of the gate and protruding from the outer face of the wall. Enemy soldiers trying to smash the doors with axes or set them on fire with torches were thus exposed to heavy flanking fire from defensive units on the towers. From a roof over the gate having a balcony, concentrated firepower could be poured down on attackers’ heads. The addition of such auxiliary structures transformed a gate into a small fortress.<\/p>\n<h5>Inner Citadel<\/h5>\n<p>A major weakness of a city’s walls and gate was the magnitude of the circumference. An average-size city might have a perimeter of half a mile (.8 kilometer); a larger city, a perimeter of over a mile (1.6 kilometers). Yet the entire wall had to be defended against breaching, scaling, or tunneling. An attacking army would use diversionary tactics to keep defenders dispersed along the entire perimeter but concentrate their primary assault at one point in the wall. Once the wall was breached, perimeter fortifications served no further defensive purpose. Therefore, internal walls were often added to subdivide a city into several sections, each capable of independent defense. Also, on the highest point of land within the city a citadel would be constructed as a self-contained defensive unit.<\/p>\n<p>The earliest examples of such fortifications, called migdols, are found in the late Bronze Age. They were originally small citadels built to guard important military targets such as sources of water, strategic routes, cultivated farmlands, or frontiers. A migdol of that type was discovered in Israel, not far from Ashdod, in 1960. It was square in plan, with rectangular bastions, and was two stories high, just like structures depicted in Egyptian reliefs from the same period. The same design was used to fortify temples inside of cities. Such fortified temples served as places of refuge and as a city’s final defense once its walls had been breached (cf. Jgs 9:45-51).<\/p>\n<p>In a later period an inner citadel could embrace a complex consisting of the fortified palace of the governor, dwellings of his chief ministers, and sometimes the temple. Such citadels resembled fortified cities, possessing a main wall, a gateway, an outer wall, and occasionally a moat. Being small in area and heavily fortified, citadels could be defended in a final effort by the governor and remaining inhabitants. Presumably Zimri could have held out against Omri’s army for an extended period in the citadel of Tirzah, had he not committed suicide by setting it on fire (1 Kgs 16:17-18).<\/p>\n<h5>Water Supply under Siege<\/h5>\n<p>Unless provision was made to keep a city’s inhabitants supplied with food and water during a protracted siege, no defense system could be effective. Several Judean kings made efforts to solve the food-storage problem. Rehoboam, for example, fortified a number of cities located on the western, eastern, and southern borders of his kingdom and made them centers for the storage of food, oil, and wine (2 Chr 11:5-11).<\/p>\n<p>Storage of food was easier than storage of water. Cisterns built to collect rainwater were a partial answer, but cisterns often ran dry, particularly in times of drought. Cities were sometimes built on the banks of a stream or river, using the stream as part of the city’s defense system. But for a city built on a hill, the source of water might be a spring located at the foot of the slope and outside the city walls. Sometimes the mouth of the spring could be blocked and its location concealed from the enemy while still allowing access by the inhabitants. At Megiddo a vertical shaft 100 feet (274.3 meters) deep was connected by a horizontal tunnel about 200 feet (548.6 meters) long to the water supply at the western end of the city, beyond the fortifications. The work was undertaken in the time of either Solomon or Ahab.<\/p>\n<p>The most celebrated measures to guarantee a supply of fresh water in a time of siege were those taken by Hezekiah at Jerusalem. That engineering achievement is recalled in all the summaries of his reign, both in the Bible and in the “Praise of Famous Men” in the apocryphal book of Ecclesiasticus (2 Kgs 20:20; 2 Chr 32:30; Ecclus 48:17). The prodigious feat commemorated in those references was the sealing of the spring of Gihon and the cutting of an 1,800-foot (548.6-meter) channel through solid rock in order to bring water into a reservoir in the city. How it was accomplished was reported by Hezekiah himself in the famous Siloam inscription. Two crews, working with hammers, wedges, and pickaxes, began at opposite ends. The crew that began at the spring was able to take advantage of the older tunnel (cf. Is 22:11). They turned due south, in the direction of the city. The other crew, starting from the reservoir, began in a northeasterly direction. They then turned southeast until they reached the north-south line followed by the crew tunneling from the spring, when they turned due north to meet them. The two crews almost passed each other, being about five feet (1.5 meters) apart, but a shout from one was heard through a crevice in the rock by the other. Both parties turned sharply right, and the tunnel was completed. Hezekiah’s precautionary step, taken before Sennacherib’s invasion of Judah, helps to explain why the Assyrians were unable to subdue Jerusalem by the siege tactics that had earlier subdued Samaria in the time of Sargon.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"HebrewMilitaryOrganization\">Hebrew Military Organization<\/p>\n<h5>Tribal Army<\/h5>\n<p>In their exodus from Egypt the Israelites were organized by tribes and divisions. That systematic arrangement for their trek through the wilderness provided a precedent for military organization. After the sojourn at Mt Sinai, the 12 tribes were divided into divisions or army corps, and certain grades in military rank began to appear. The “officers of the army” (Nm 31:14) had command over units of 1,000 or 100 men, which suggests that the tribal army was divided into decimal units. At a later period there is reference to units of 1,000 (the division), 100 (the company), 50 (the platoon), and 10 (the section). Except for the Levites, who were assigned as a tribe to the care of the tabernacle (Nm 2:33), men from 20 years of age who were physically able to fight were assigned to a unit in the tribal army. Certain individuals, however, were exempted from military service (cf. Dt 20:5-9; 24:5; Jgs 7:3).<\/p>\n<p>Until after the conquest of Canaan, the tribal army was essentially a militia recruited in an emergency. Internal organization of the militia was the responsibility of the tribe; each clan and family sent their quota of warriors when summoned to battle by tribal leaders. Because the clan formed the basic unit, recruits were under the command of their own leaders. David’s brothers, for example, served in a division composed of the fighting men from their clan under the command of a captain (1 Sm 17:18; 18:13). When the emergency passed, the militia was disbanded and the soldiers returned to their home districts.<\/p>\n<p>Because the land was divided among the tribes, no tribal or clan leader before Saul commanded the entire tribal confederation (cf. 1 Sm 11:1-11). In fact, tribal jealousies and rivalries threatened national solidarity and jeopardized united action even in a critical period. On some occasions, however, the severity of a crisis caused the armies of the various tribes to unite in common action. The multitribal armies were divided into companies of 1,000, 100, and 50, and still further into families under appointed officers. There is evidence of organization into units according to weaponry (1 Chr 12:24-38). Benjamin’s tribe specialized in the bow and sling. The tribes of Gad, Judah, and Naphtali were expert with the spear and shield.<\/p>\n<p>Provisioning the tribal army was the responsibility of each tribe (Jgs 20:9-10). One out of every ten soldiers was appointed to secure food for the others, either from wealthy landowners (cf. 1 Sm 25) or from the natural resources of the land. In that early stage of military organization, a soldier’s pay generally consisted only of supplies and a portion of the spoils of battle (cf. 30:21-25).<\/p>\n<h5>Professional Army<\/h5>\n<p>Not until the time of the united monarchy did Israel have a regular army. Transition from a people’s militia to a professional army took place under Saul, whose reign changed the tribal confederacy into a monarchy (1 Sm 13:2). Philistine harassment of Israel encouraged establishment of a strong standing army. The army, however, was not large; it consisted of 3,000 men organized in three formations of 1,000 each (1 Sm 13:2; 24:2). Pay for those career soldiers was sometimes in the form of a land grant (8:14) as well as a share of booty. In the organization of Saul’s army, Abner, Jonathan, and David were given particular responsibilities. Abner was named commander of the army (17:55) and was probably also given direct command of one of the divisions. David’s band of valorous men, “the thirty,” provided the leadership core for his own military organization when he became king.<\/p>\n<p>David continued the practice of maintaining a professional army. But he also developed a national militia of 12 regiments, each being called up for duty for one month of the year under professional officers (1 Chr 27:1-15). Each regiment, recruited across tribal lines, consisted of 24,000 soldiers. David’s innovation provided him with a large reserve force that could be mustered for war in times of emergency. The reserves, and presumably the professional army as well, were organized into units of 1,000, 100, 50, and 10. Joab, a specialist in siege warfare (2 Sm 20:15), commanded the professional army, and Amasa was over the citizens’ militia. David, however, remained commander-in-chief of the military organization.<\/p>\n<p>The Israelite group in King David’s professional army was an outgrowth of the small band of fighting men who had served with him during the period of conflict with Saul. That veteran group consisted of David’s family and clansmen, and others who felt themselves oppressed by the central authority under Saul (1 Sm 22:1-2). It ranged in size between 400 and 600 men (1 Sm 22:2; 23:13; 27:2). The presence of mercenaries in David’s army is clearly recorded. Uriah the Hittite and Ittai of Gath are conspicuous examples, along with many career soldiers of Philistine origin, such as the Cherethites and the Pelethites under Benaiah (2 Sm 8:18; 15:19-22; 23:22-23).<\/p>\n<p>The Davidic dynasty maintained a permanent mercenary army until 701 <span>BC<\/span>, after which it was considered too costly. The oppressive cost of maintaining a professional army, financed by burdensome taxes and forced labor, was in fact a major factor contributing to the disruption of the monarchy after Solomon’s death (cf. 1 Kgs 10:26-29; 12:4-19). After Sennacherib’s invasion in 701 <span>BC<\/span>, the southern kingdom of Judah depended entirely on a citizens’ militia for its defense. It is commonly held that the northern kingdom of Israel did not employ a professional army, but it is evident that King Ahab used at least some mercenary soldiers in his defense against Ben-hadad of Syria (1 Kgs 20:15-20).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Armor and Weapons.<\/p>","summary_ro":"WARFARE The means by which one nation seeks to impose its will upon another by force. An index to the importance of warfare in antiquity is provided by the amount of technical skill directed to perfecting devices for destruction and defense. Methods of Warfare Standard Combat Cavalry units were introduced at the close of the second millennium BC and the beginning of the first. The cavalry charge provided a shock force to the great armies, and the cavalry’s mobility permitted concentration of ...","summary_en":"WARFARE The means by which one nation seeks to impose its will upon another by force. An index to the importance of warfare in antiquity is provided by the amount of technical skill directed to perfecting devices for destruction and defense. Methods of Warfare Standard Combat Cavalry units were introduced at the close of the second millennium BC and the beginning of the first. The cavalry charge provided a shock force to the great armies, and the cavalry’s mobility permitted concentration of ...","source":"Articles\/W.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"6":[{"id":9163,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Debt","title_en":"Debt","content_ro":"<h3>DEBT<\/h3>\n<p>Something owed to another person, such as goods, property, or money. In the Bible, righteous conduct is something one “owes” to God; hence, in theology, sin is described figuratively as being “in debt.”<\/p>\n<p>In Hebrew culture, debt was usually connected with usury (the business of lending money on interest). The Hebrew verbs describing usury picture a painful situation. One word for usury means “to bite,” a vivid image for the way high interest “ate up” any kind of business transaction so that borrowers never received the full value of the money. People could be ruined financially by heartless exaction of interest (2 Kgs 4:1-7). Another verb is usually translated as “increase” or “profit” (Lv 25:37), since lenders profited from others’ labor. Ancient Near Eastern interest rates on produce and goods might be as much as 30 percent of the loan per year; on money, as much as 20 percent. Clay tablets from Nuzi, an ancient town in northeastern Mesopotamia, indicate interest rates of even 50 percent.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheLawofMoses\">The Law of Moses<\/p>\n<p>The Mosaic covenant given to Israel immediately after the exodus sought to eliminate extortionist practices from Hebrew life. Thus God’s revelation had many rules and restrictions relating to debt and credit in Israel.<\/p>\n<h5>Protection for the Poor<\/h5>\n<p>Portions of the legislative sections of the Pentateuch (the first five books of the Bible) regulated the practice of lending in a way that protected the poor and secured each person’s right to earn a living and support a family. Many popular Hebrew proverbs dealt with that theme. The positive thrust of the biblical laws was to ensure help for the financially needy, without interest. No personal profit was to be made at the expense of the poor (Ex 22:25; Dt 23:19-20); God was their special advocate. Thus, by lending without interest, the Israelites could demonstrate their reverence for God (Lv 25:35-37).<\/p>\n<p>That point was reemphasized 40 years later when Moses renewed the covenant with Israel just before their entrance into the Promised Land. God was the landlord, and his tenants were to respect his word. God promised the Israelites that if they would lend so as to alleviate human misery, they would be unusually blessed by the Lord (Dt 15:6; 23:19-20; 28:12). Interest could be charged to a foreigner not living under the Mosaic law, which was a condition parallel to commercial treaties prevalent in the ancient Near East.<\/p>\n<p>In ancient Israel, financial ruin was frequently brought about by poor harvests. Often they were taken as an indication that the relationship between God and his people was not right (Lv 26:14, 20). The wealthy were expected to help, not to add more burdens to those who suffered from poor harvests.<\/p>\n<h5>Violation of the Law<\/h5>\n<p>The law was so often violated that eventually exorbitant interest became a social plague, making the situation of debtors hopeless. Many of the fighting men who rallied around David early in his military career were “outlaws” unable to repay their loans and interest (1 Sm 22:2). The prophet Ezekiel called people to task for their failure to observe God’s commands about usury (Ez 18:5-18; 22:12). When Nehemiah returned from the exile to rebuild the walls of Jerusalem, he brought charges against the government officials whose interest rates had enslaved the people (Neh 5:6-13).<\/p>\n<p>The Wisdom Literature, which included Job, Proverbs, and Ecclesiastes, added that those who acquired riches by usury would not profit in the long run, because God would give their profits to others who looked after the welfare of the poor (e.g., Prv 28:8). The prophet Amos gave a similar warning to corrupt merchants in Israel: “Because you trample upon the poor and take from him exactions of wheat, . . . you have planted pleasant vineyards, but you shall not drink their wine” (Am 5:11, <span>rsv<\/span>). In spite of such warnings, the law was often ignored, and burdensome interest charges were laid on borrowers who were already poor.<\/p>\n<h5>Pledges and Surety<\/h5>\n<p>When it was necessary to borrow, the law provided alternatives to the unfair practice of usury. When taking out a loan, a borrower would surrender some movable property as collateral to ensure repayment. That “pledge” represented a tangible sign of the debtor’s intention to repay the loan. Certain restrictions applied to such pledges. For example, a creditor could not take a widow’s clothes (Dt 24:17). Tools (such as millstones) or animals (such as oxen) necessary for daily life were forbidden as pledges (v 6). Clothing absolutely essential to the borrower (e.g., to keep warm) could be temporarily offered as a pledge, but the temporary token had to be returned before nightfall (Ex 22:26-27; Dt 24:10-13).<\/p>\n<p>In drastic circumstances, where there was no collateral, a debtor could pledge a son, daughter, or slave. The value of the child’s or slave’s labor could then be credited against both interest and principal. An account in the Bible of a widow’s two sons about to go into slavery shows how cruel the custom could be (2 Kgs 4:1-7). Pledging labor or their children’s labor was the only way slaves could pay off a debt when they had to borrow.<\/p>\n<p>A borrower could also have a wealthy friend assume responsibility as a cosigner on a loan and thus become the pledge, or surety. The book of Proverbs cautioned against standing surety for others, however, especially for strangers (Prv 6:1-3; 11:15; 17:18; 22:26; 27:13).<\/p>\n<h5>Sabbatical and Jubilee Years<\/h5>\n<p>Two legal provisions to curb the enslavement of people by long-standing debts were the sabbatical year and the jubilee year. The sabbatical year, or “year of release,” took place every seventh year. At that time debts were canceled and slates wiped clean (Dt 15:1-12; cf. Ex 21:2; 23:10-11; Lv 25:2-7). The law clearly forbade lenders to withhold loans to those in desperate need during a sixth year. Jewish tradition held strict injunctions against a lender trying to collect on a loan that should have been forgiven in the sabbatical year.<\/p>\n<p>Every 50 years Israel had its Year of Jubilee. In that year land reverted to its original owner if it had not already been redeemed by some relative. That provision prevented the buildup of landed estates by the wealthy few while the many poor suffered in slavery (Lv 25:13-17). Although the Mosaic law could not guarantee economic utopia, it sought to curb the greediness in human nature. It also aimed at providing everyone with an equal opportunity and a fresh start every 50 years.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"DebtintheNewTestament\">Debt in the New Testament<\/p>\n<p>The NT shows how various cultures handled the matter of loans and debts. There were Jewish people who adhered strictly to the Mosaic law and refused to charge their fellow Jews high interest. Hellenistic and Roman legal practices, however, penetrated parts of Jewish society.<\/p>\n<h5>Jesus’ Parables<\/h5>\n<p>Jesus alluded to non-Jewish economic practices in his parable of a servant who jailed a fellow slave for not repaying a loan (Mt 18:23-35). The parable illustrates the ordinary Hellenistic and Roman custom of jailing or restraining such a person as surety. That practice forced a debtor to sell his property, to ask family and friends to cover the loss, or to sell himself into slavery. The parable of the talents (25:14-28) and the parable of the pounds (Lk 19:12-24), speaking allegorically about the kingdom of God, mention earning interest on money invested with bankers.<\/p>\n<h5>Economic and Theological Instruction<\/h5>\n<p>The apostle Paul instructed Christians to “owe nothing to anyone” (Rom 13:8), which means at the very least that Christians should make good on loans promptly. On the other hand, a Christian’s economic activity should be characterized by kindness toward those in need, generosity, and willingness to help (Mt 5:42; Lk 6:35).<\/p>\n<p>The NT also presents a number of lessons in doctrine based on a figurative use of “debts” and “debtors.” Jesus once referred to sinners (Lk 13:2) with a word literally meaning “debtors” (v 4). In the Lord’s Prayer “debts” is paralleled with “sins” (Mt 6:12; Lk 11:4).<\/p>\n<p>Sin is seen as an enslavement (Jn 8:34), and all men and women as debtors to God. Redemption can be made only by God, who “gave his only Son” to set people free (3:16-18). The writer to the Hebrews showed that Jesus was made the surety of the new covenant (Heb 7:22).<\/p>\n<p>The apostle Paul felt indebted to all people because of his own salvation, a debt he could pay by preaching the gospel (Rom 1:14-15). The NT teaches that all who receive the gospel are likewise in debt and therefore should devote themselves to serving others as a way of serving God (cf. 15:26-27).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Banker, Banking; Money.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>DEBT<\/h3>\n<p>Something owed to another person, such as goods, property, or money. In the Bible, righteous conduct is something one “owes” to God; hence, in theology, sin is described figuratively as being “in debt.”<\/p>\n<p>In Hebrew culture, debt was usually connected with usury (the business of lending money on interest). The Hebrew verbs describing usury picture a painful situation. One word for usury means “to bite,” a vivid image for the way high interest “ate up” any kind of business transaction so that borrowers never received the full value of the money. People could be ruined financially by heartless exaction of interest (2 Kgs 4:1-7). Another verb is usually translated as “increase” or “profit” (Lv 25:37), since lenders profited from others’ labor. Ancient Near Eastern interest rates on produce and goods might be as much as 30 percent of the loan per year; on money, as much as 20 percent. Clay tablets from Nuzi, an ancient town in northeastern Mesopotamia, indicate interest rates of even 50 percent.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheLawofMoses\">The Law of Moses<\/p>\n<p>The Mosaic covenant given to Israel immediately after the exodus sought to eliminate extortionist practices from Hebrew life. Thus God’s revelation had many rules and restrictions relating to debt and credit in Israel.<\/p>\n<h5>Protection for the Poor<\/h5>\n<p>Portions of the legislative sections of the Pentateuch (the first five books of the Bible) regulated the practice of lending in a way that protected the poor and secured each person’s right to earn a living and support a family. Many popular Hebrew proverbs dealt with that theme. The positive thrust of the biblical laws was to ensure help for the financially needy, without interest. No personal profit was to be made at the expense of the poor (Ex 22:25; Dt 23:19-20); God was their special advocate. Thus, by lending without interest, the Israelites could demonstrate their reverence for God (Lv 25:35-37).<\/p>\n<p>That point was reemphasized 40 years later when Moses renewed the covenant with Israel just before their entrance into the Promised Land. God was the landlord, and his tenants were to respect his word. God promised the Israelites that if they would lend so as to alleviate human misery, they would be unusually blessed by the Lord (Dt 15:6; 23:19-20; 28:12). Interest could be charged to a foreigner not living under the Mosaic law, which was a condition parallel to commercial treaties prevalent in the ancient Near East.<\/p>\n<p>In ancient Israel, financial ruin was frequently brought about by poor harvests. Often they were taken as an indication that the relationship between God and his people was not right (Lv 26:14, 20). The wealthy were expected to help, not to add more burdens to those who suffered from poor harvests.<\/p>\n<h5>Violation of the Law<\/h5>\n<p>The law was so often violated that eventually exorbitant interest became a social plague, making the situation of debtors hopeless. Many of the fighting men who rallied around David early in his military career were “outlaws” unable to repay their loans and interest (1 Sm 22:2). The prophet Ezekiel called people to task for their failure to observe God’s commands about usury (Ez 18:5-18; 22:12). When Nehemiah returned from the exile to rebuild the walls of Jerusalem, he brought charges against the government officials whose interest rates had enslaved the people (Neh 5:6-13).<\/p>\n<p>The Wisdom Literature, which included Job, Proverbs, and Ecclesiastes, added that those who acquired riches by usury would not profit in the long run, because God would give their profits to others who looked after the welfare of the poor (e.g., Prv 28:8). The prophet Amos gave a similar warning to corrupt merchants in Israel: “Because you trample upon the poor and take from him exactions of wheat, . . . you have planted pleasant vineyards, but you shall not drink their wine” (Am 5:11, <span>rsv<\/span>). In spite of such warnings, the law was often ignored, and burdensome interest charges were laid on borrowers who were already poor.<\/p>\n<h5>Pledges and Surety<\/h5>\n<p>When it was necessary to borrow, the law provided alternatives to the unfair practice of usury. When taking out a loan, a borrower would surrender some movable property as collateral to ensure repayment. That “pledge” represented a tangible sign of the debtor’s intention to repay the loan. Certain restrictions applied to such pledges. For example, a creditor could not take a widow’s clothes (Dt 24:17). Tools (such as millstones) or animals (such as oxen) necessary for daily life were forbidden as pledges (v 6). Clothing absolutely essential to the borrower (e.g., to keep warm) could be temporarily offered as a pledge, but the temporary token had to be returned before nightfall (Ex 22:26-27; Dt 24:10-13).<\/p>\n<p>In drastic circumstances, where there was no collateral, a debtor could pledge a son, daughter, or slave. The value of the child’s or slave’s labor could then be credited against both interest and principal. An account in the Bible of a widow’s two sons about to go into slavery shows how cruel the custom could be (2 Kgs 4:1-7). Pledging labor or their children’s labor was the only way slaves could pay off a debt when they had to borrow.<\/p>\n<p>A borrower could also have a wealthy friend assume responsibility as a cosigner on a loan and thus become the pledge, or surety. The book of Proverbs cautioned against standing surety for others, however, especially for strangers (Prv 6:1-3; 11:15; 17:18; 22:26; 27:13).<\/p>\n<h5>Sabbatical and Jubilee Years<\/h5>\n<p>Two legal provisions to curb the enslavement of people by long-standing debts were the sabbatical year and the jubilee year. The sabbatical year, or “year of release,” took place every seventh year. At that time debts were canceled and slates wiped clean (Dt 15:1-12; cf. Ex 21:2; 23:10-11; Lv 25:2-7). The law clearly forbade lenders to withhold loans to those in desperate need during a sixth year. Jewish tradition held strict injunctions against a lender trying to collect on a loan that should have been forgiven in the sabbatical year.<\/p>\n<p>Every 50 years Israel had its Year of Jubilee. In that year land reverted to its original owner if it had not already been redeemed by some relative. That provision prevented the buildup of landed estates by the wealthy few while the many poor suffered in slavery (Lv 25:13-17). Although the Mosaic law could not guarantee economic utopia, it sought to curb the greediness in human nature. It also aimed at providing everyone with an equal opportunity and a fresh start every 50 years.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"DebtintheNewTestament\">Debt in the New Testament<\/p>\n<p>The NT shows how various cultures handled the matter of loans and debts. There were Jewish people who adhered strictly to the Mosaic law and refused to charge their fellow Jews high interest. Hellenistic and Roman legal practices, however, penetrated parts of Jewish society.<\/p>\n<h5>Jesus’ Parables<\/h5>\n<p>Jesus alluded to non-Jewish economic practices in his parable of a servant who jailed a fellow slave for not repaying a loan (Mt 18:23-35). The parable illustrates the ordinary Hellenistic and Roman custom of jailing or restraining such a person as surety. That practice forced a debtor to sell his property, to ask family and friends to cover the loss, or to sell himself into slavery. The parable of the talents (25:14-28) and the parable of the pounds (Lk 19:12-24), speaking allegorically about the kingdom of God, mention earning interest on money invested with bankers.<\/p>\n<h5>Economic and Theological Instruction<\/h5>\n<p>The apostle Paul instructed Christians to “owe nothing to anyone” (Rom 13:8), which means at the very least that Christians should make good on loans promptly. On the other hand, a Christian’s economic activity should be characterized by kindness toward those in need, generosity, and willingness to help (Mt 5:42; Lk 6:35).<\/p>\n<p>The NT also presents a number of lessons in doctrine based on a figurative use of “debts” and “debtors.” Jesus once referred to sinners (Lk 13:2) with a word literally meaning “debtors” (v 4). In the Lord’s Prayer “debts” is paralleled with “sins” (Mt 6:12; Lk 11:4).<\/p>\n<p>Sin is seen as an enslavement (Jn 8:34), and all men and women as debtors to God. Redemption can be made only by God, who “gave his only Son” to set people free (3:16-18). The writer to the Hebrews showed that Jesus was made the surety of the new covenant (Heb 7:22).<\/p>\n<p>The apostle Paul felt indebted to all people because of his own salvation, a debt he could pay by preaching the gospel (Rom 1:14-15). The NT teaches that all who receive the gospel are likewise in debt and therefore should devote themselves to serving others as a way of serving God (cf. 15:26-27).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Banker, Banking; Money.<\/p>","summary_ro":"DEBT Something owed to another person, such as goods, property, or money. In the Bible, righteous conduct is something one “owes” to God; hence, in theology, sin is described figuratively as being “in debt.” In Hebrew culture, debt was usually connected with usury (the business of lending money on interest). The Hebrew verbs describing usury picture a painful situation. One word for usury means “to bite,” a vivid image for the way high interest “ate up” any kind of business transaction so tha...","summary_en":"DEBT Something owed to another person, such as goods, property, or money. In the Bible, righteous conduct is something one “owes” to God; hence, in theology, sin is described figuratively as being “in debt.” In Hebrew culture, debt was usually connected with usury (the business of lending money on interest). The Hebrew verbs describing usury picture a painful situation. One word for usury means “to bite,” a vivid image for the way high interest “ate up” any kind of business transaction so tha...","source":"Articles\/D.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":25746,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Mill","title_en":"Mill","content_ro":"<h3>MILL<\/h3>\n<p>Two circular stones (millstones) used in the grinding of grain. The grinding of grain as depicted in ancient art is attested in archaeological excavations in the Middle East from at least the Neolithic period (c. 8300–4500 <span>BC<\/span>) in the shape of various concave stones with flat grinding pieces accompanying them. These were essentially handmills. Over the centuries improvements in technique took place. But two elements were always necessary, the lower one on which the grain was spread and the upper one, which was moved over the surface of the lower one under pressure, to grind the grain into flour. The Hebrew term for “mill” is grammatically a dual—that is, it refers to two elements.<\/p>\n\n<p>The earliest mill, the saddle quern, consisted of a rough base stone, slightly concave, and a convex rubbing stone. The base stone varied from 18 to 30 inches (45.7 to 76.2 centimeters) across with one end a little thicker than the other. It was known in Hebrew as “the underneath portion” (Jb 41:24). The upper stone, called the “rider portion” (Jgs 9:53; 2 Sm 11:21), varied from 6 to 15 inches (15.2 to 38.1 centimeters) in length and was flat on one side and convex on the other. It could be held easily in the hand. Grinding was done by pushing the upper stone backward and forward over the grain, which lay on the lower stone. Only a small quantity of grain could be ground at one time using this method (Gn 18:6).<\/p>\n<p>A second type of handmill consisted of two round stones. The lower one could be either convex or concave on top and the upper one was either concave or convex so as to fit nearly over the lower stone. Some examples of this type of mill have a funnel-shaped hole in the center of the top stone through which grain was poured. The upper mill was turned on the lower one by means of a wooden peg inserted on its outside edge. As the grain was crushed, it escaped along the edges of the upper stone. Commonly the stone used was black basalt because its rough and porous surface provided good cutting edges. The normal type of handmill could be operated by one person, but sometimes two persons were required (Mt 24:41).<\/p>\n<p>So important was the handmill in the life of the people that it was prohibited by law to take a man’s millstone as a pledge against the payment of a debt, for this would deprive his family of the means of making flour for bread (Dt 24:6). These stones were heavy enough to kill a man when thrown on his head, as in the case of Abimelech (Jgs 9:53; cf. 2 Sm 11:21).<\/p>\n<p>Normally, the grinding of grain was the task of servants (Ex 11:5) or of women (Is 47:2). The noise of grinding could be heard each day in every village in Palestine. When that sound ceased, the village had come to an end (Jer 25:10).<\/p>\n<p>There seems to have been larger community mills that required animal power. A heavy round stone, perhaps four to five feet (1.2 to 1.5 meters) in diameter, was rolled on its edge by means of a pole through its center. This pole rotated around a vertical post in much the same way as one finds in some Eastern lands even today. It may have been a large mill of this type that Samson was forced to use to grind grain for the Philistines (Jgs 16:21).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Food and Food Preparation; Bread; Agriculture.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>MILL<\/h3>\n<p>Two circular stones (millstones) used in the grinding of grain. The grinding of grain as depicted in ancient art is attested in archaeological excavations in the Middle East from at least the Neolithic period (c. 8300–4500 <span>BC<\/span>) in the shape of various concave stones with flat grinding pieces accompanying them. These were essentially handmills. Over the centuries improvements in technique took place. But two elements were always necessary, the lower one on which the grain was spread and the upper one, which was moved over the surface of the lower one under pressure, to grind the grain into flour. The Hebrew term for “mill” is grammatically a dual—that is, it refers to two elements.<\/p>\n\n<p>The earliest mill, the saddle quern, consisted of a rough base stone, slightly concave, and a convex rubbing stone. The base stone varied from 18 to 30 inches (45.7 to 76.2 centimeters) across with one end a little thicker than the other. It was known in Hebrew as “the underneath portion” (Jb 41:24). The upper stone, called the “rider portion” (Jgs 9:53; 2 Sm 11:21), varied from 6 to 15 inches (15.2 to 38.1 centimeters) in length and was flat on one side and convex on the other. It could be held easily in the hand. Grinding was done by pushing the upper stone backward and forward over the grain, which lay on the lower stone. Only a small quantity of grain could be ground at one time using this method (Gn 18:6).<\/p>\n<p>A second type of handmill consisted of two round stones. The lower one could be either convex or concave on top and the upper one was either concave or convex so as to fit nearly over the lower stone. Some examples of this type of mill have a funnel-shaped hole in the center of the top stone through which grain was poured. The upper mill was turned on the lower one by means of a wooden peg inserted on its outside edge. As the grain was crushed, it escaped along the edges of the upper stone. Commonly the stone used was black basalt because its rough and porous surface provided good cutting edges. The normal type of handmill could be operated by one person, but sometimes two persons were required (Mt 24:41).<\/p>\n<p>So important was the handmill in the life of the people that it was prohibited by law to take a man’s millstone as a pledge against the payment of a debt, for this would deprive his family of the means of making flour for bread (Dt 24:6). These stones were heavy enough to kill a man when thrown on his head, as in the case of Abimelech (Jgs 9:53; cf. 2 Sm 11:21).<\/p>\n<p>Normally, the grinding of grain was the task of servants (Ex 11:5) or of women (Is 47:2). The noise of grinding could be heard each day in every village in Palestine. When that sound ceased, the village had come to an end (Jer 25:10).<\/p>\n<p>There seems to have been larger community mills that required animal power. A heavy round stone, perhaps four to five feet (1.2 to 1.5 meters) in diameter, was rolled on its edge by means of a pole through its center. This pole rotated around a vertical post in much the same way as one finds in some Eastern lands even today. It may have been a large mill of this type that Samson was forced to use to grind grain for the Philistines (Jgs 16:21).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Food and Food Preparation; Bread; Agriculture.<\/p>","summary_ro":"MILL Two circular stones (millstones) used in the grinding of grain. The grinding of grain as depicted in ancient art is attested in archaeological excavations in the Middle East from at least the Neolithic period (c. 8300–4500 BC) in the shape of various concave stones with flat grinding pieces accompanying them. These were essentially handmills. Over the centuries improvements in technique took place. But two elements were always necessary, the lower one on which the grain was spread and th...","summary_en":"MILL Two circular stones (millstones) used in the grinding of grain. The grinding of grain as depicted in ancient art is attested in archaeological excavations in the Middle East from at least the Neolithic period (c. 8300–4500 BC) in the shape of various concave stones with flat grinding pieces accompanying them. These were essentially handmills. Over the centuries improvements in technique took place. But two elements were always necessary, the lower one on which the grain was spread and th...","source":"Articles\/M.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":45141,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Deuteronomul 24:6","title_en":"Study Note: Deuteronomul 24:6","content_ro":"<p><strong>24:6<\/strong> <em>the owner uses it to make a living<\/em> (literally <em>it is his life<\/em>): Without his tool, the owner of the millstone might perish. The law imposed a limit on what could secure a loan. The millstone probably represents any means by which an individual made his living.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>24:6<\/strong> <em>the owner uses it to make a living<\/em> (literally <em>it is his life<\/em>): Without his tool, the owner of the millstone might perish. The law imposed a limit on what could secure a loan. The millstone probably represents any means by which an individual made his living.<\/p>","summary_ro":"24:6 the owner uses it to make a living (literally it is his life): Without his tool, the owner of the millstone might perish. The law imposed a limit on what could secure a loan. The millstone probably represents any means by which an individual made his living.","summary_en":"24:6 the owner uses it to make a living (literally it is his life): Without his tool, the owner of the millstone might perish. The law imposed a limit on what could secure a loan. The millstone probably represents any means by which an individual made his living.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":72767,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Deuteronomul 24:6","title_en":"Study Note: Deuteronomul 24:6","content_ro":"<p><strong>24:6<\/strong> <em>the owner uses it to make a living<\/em> (literally <em>it is his life<\/em>): Without his tool, the owner of the millstone might perish. The law imposed a limit on what could secure a loan. The millstone probably represents any means by which an individual made his living.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>24:6<\/strong> <em>the owner uses it to make a living<\/em> (literally <em>it is his life<\/em>): Without his tool, the owner of the millstone might perish. The law imposed a limit on what could secure a loan. The millstone probably represents any means by which an individual made his living.<\/p>","summary_ro":"24:6 the owner uses it to make a living (literally it is his life): Without his tool, the owner of the millstone might perish. The law imposed a limit on what could secure a loan. The millstone probably represents any means by which an individual made his living.","summary_en":"24:6 the owner uses it to make a living (literally it is his life): Without his tool, the owner of the millstone might perish. The law imposed a limit on what could secure a loan. The millstone probably represents any means by which an individual made his living.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":100393,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Deuteronomul 24:6","title_en":"Study Note: Deuteronomul 24:6","content_ro":"<p><strong>24:6<\/strong> <em>the owner uses it to make a living<\/em> (literally <em>it is his life<\/em>): Without his tool, the owner of the millstone might perish. The law imposed a limit on what could secure a loan. The millstone probably represents any means by which an individual made his living.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>24:6<\/strong> <em>the owner uses it to make a living<\/em> (literally <em>it is his life<\/em>): Without his tool, the owner of the millstone might perish. The law imposed a limit on what could secure a loan. The millstone probably represents any means by which an individual made his living.<\/p>","summary_ro":"24:6 the owner uses it to make a living (literally it is his life): Without his tool, the owner of the millstone might perish. The law imposed a limit on what could secure a loan. The millstone probably represents any means by which an individual made his living.","summary_en":"24:6 the owner uses it to make a living (literally it is his life): Without his tool, the owner of the millstone might perish. The law imposed a limit on what could secure a loan. The millstone probably represents any means by which an individual made his living.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":128019,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Deuteronomul 24:6","title_en":"Study Note: Deuteronomul 24:6","content_ro":"<p><strong>24:6<\/strong> <em>the owner uses it to make a living<\/em> (literally <em>it is his life<\/em>): Without his tool, the owner of the millstone might perish. The law imposed a limit on what could secure a loan. The millstone probably represents any means by which an individual made his living.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>24:6<\/strong> <em>the owner uses it to make a living<\/em> (literally <em>it is his life<\/em>): Without his tool, the owner of the millstone might perish. The law imposed a limit on what could secure a loan. The millstone probably represents any means by which an individual made his living.<\/p>","summary_ro":"24:6 the owner uses it to make a living (literally it is his life): Without his tool, the owner of the millstone might perish. The law imposed a limit on what could secure a loan. The millstone probably represents any means by which an individual made his living.","summary_en":"24:6 the owner uses it to make a living (literally it is his life): Without his tool, the owner of the millstone might perish. The law imposed a limit on what could secure a loan. The millstone probably represents any means by which an individual made his living.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":60522,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Concern for the Poor","title_en":"Concern for the Poor","content_ro":"<h3>Concern for the Poor<\/h3>\n<p>God commanded Israel to show concern for its people’s well-being. Israel’s covenant with God, together with its self-concept as an extended family, exerted a leveling effect that resisted pretensions to privilege. A family should provide for members who are facing difficulty. These members of the Israelite people included widows and orphans (Exod 22:22), the poor, and foreigners (Lev 19:10). The edges of the fields and the gleanings of field and vineyard were to be left for the needy (see Lev 23:22). Those who were destitute were not to be victimized. Instead, loans were to be made without interest, or the debtor was to be allowed to work off his debt with dignity as a bondservant (25:35-42). These positive steps ensured that the poor had food to eat.<\/p>\n<p>The Bible first mentions concern for the poor in the radical accommodations of the offering system to those unable to afford more costly offerings. Birds could be substituted for lambs in the whole burnt offering (1:14-17) and the sin offering (5:7-10), and there were other such concessions in the cleansing rituals (14:21-22). Perhaps the most striking is in the substitution of flour for the sin offering (5:11-13). The life-for-a-life symbolism is forfeited for economic reasons, showing clearly God’s desire that the poor who cannot afford a lamb should nonetheless be able to experience forgiveness of sins.<\/p>\n<p>This theme is continued in the prophets’ concern for the poor and helpless and their pleas for social justice and compassion (e.g., Isa 1:17; Amos 2:6). The prophets had some strong words for those responsible for oppressing the needy (see e.g., 4:1-3; 8:4-8). The worship practices of the people—no matter how lavish—were not accepted by God if, at the same time, those worshiping were guilty of injustice and oppression (see Isa 1:15-20; Mic 6:6-8). This notion that proper attitudes and actions toward God and others are more important than the practice of worship rituals is reflected in the story in the Gospels of the poor widow’s offering. Her offering receives praise from Jesus, not because of its monetary value, but because of the devotion it represented (Mark 12:41-44). Religious practices could even inhibit helping those in need (see Mark 7:9-13).<\/p>\n<p>Both Jesus and the early church exhibited concern for the poor. Jesus indicated that a major component of his mission was to bring hope to the poor and release for the oppressed (Luke 4:16-21). He warned strongly against neglecting the poor (Luke 16:19-31) and indicated that a willingness to provide for the poor was necessary for those desiring to be his followers (see Luke 18:18-23). Reflecting the teaching of Christ, the early church sought to ensure that the needy among them were well cared for (Acts 2:44-45; Acts 4:32-37; 1 Tim 5:3-16). As in the prophets, the mistreatment of the marginalized made a farce of religious practice (1 Cor 11:17-29; Jas 1:27–2:17).<\/p>\n<p>God’s concern for the poor is thus a theme that runs throughout Scripture, and believers must take up a similar perspective toward those in need.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Exod 22:22-27; 23:6-11; Lev 5:7, 11; 14:21-22; 19:9-10; 23:22; Deut 10:17-19; 15:4-11; 16:9-12; 24:6-22; 26:12-13; 27:17-19; 1 Sam 2:8; Ps 10:13-18; 35:10; 68:5; Prov 14:31; Isa 1:15-17; Amos 2:6; 4:1; 8:4-7; Mic 6:6-8, 12; Mark 12:41-44; Luke 6:20; 14:12-14; Jas 2:1-17<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Concern for the Poor<\/h3>\n<p>God commanded Israel to show concern for its people’s well-being. Israel’s covenant with God, together with its self-concept as an extended family, exerted a leveling effect that resisted pretensions to privilege. A family should provide for members who are facing difficulty. These members of the Israelite people included widows and orphans (Exod 22:22), the poor, and foreigners (Lev 19:10). The edges of the fields and the gleanings of field and vineyard were to be left for the needy (see Lev 23:22). Those who were destitute were not to be victimized. Instead, loans were to be made without interest, or the debtor was to be allowed to work off his debt with dignity as a bondservant (25:35-42). These positive steps ensured that the poor had food to eat.<\/p>\n<p>The Bible first mentions concern for the poor in the radical accommodations of the offering system to those unable to afford more costly offerings. Birds could be substituted for lambs in the whole burnt offering (1:14-17) and the sin offering (5:7-10), and there were other such concessions in the cleansing rituals (14:21-22). Perhaps the most striking is in the substitution of flour for the sin offering (5:11-13). The life-for-a-life symbolism is forfeited for economic reasons, showing clearly God’s desire that the poor who cannot afford a lamb should nonetheless be able to experience forgiveness of sins.<\/p>\n<p>This theme is continued in the prophets’ concern for the poor and helpless and their pleas for social justice and compassion (e.g., Isa 1:17; Amos 2:6). The prophets had some strong words for those responsible for oppressing the needy (see e.g., 4:1-3; 8:4-8). The worship practices of the people—no matter how lavish—were not accepted by God if, at the same time, those worshiping were guilty of injustice and oppression (see Isa 1:15-20; Mic 6:6-8). This notion that proper attitudes and actions toward God and others are more important than the practice of worship rituals is reflected in the story in the Gospels of the poor widow’s offering. Her offering receives praise from Jesus, not because of its monetary value, but because of the devotion it represented (Mark 12:41-44). Religious practices could even inhibit helping those in need (see Mark 7:9-13).<\/p>\n<p>Both Jesus and the early church exhibited concern for the poor. Jesus indicated that a major component of his mission was to bring hope to the poor and release for the oppressed (Luke 4:16-21). He warned strongly against neglecting the poor (Luke 16:19-31) and indicated that a willingness to provide for the poor was necessary for those desiring to be his followers (see Luke 18:18-23). Reflecting the teaching of Christ, the early church sought to ensure that the needy among them were well cared for (Acts 2:44-45; Acts 4:32-37; 1 Tim 5:3-16). As in the prophets, the mistreatment of the marginalized made a farce of religious practice (1 Cor 11:17-29; Jas 1:27–2:17).<\/p>\n<p>God’s concern for the poor is thus a theme that runs throughout Scripture, and believers must take up a similar perspective toward those in need.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Exod 22:22-27; 23:6-11; Lev 5:7, 11; 14:21-22; 19:9-10; 23:22; Deut 10:17-19; 15:4-11; 16:9-12; 24:6-22; 26:12-13; 27:17-19; 1 Sam 2:8; Ps 10:13-18; 35:10; 68:5; Prov 14:31; Isa 1:15-17; Amos 2:6; 4:1; 8:4-7; Mic 6:6-8, 12; Mark 12:41-44; Luke 6:20; 14:12-14; Jas 2:1-17<\/p>","summary_ro":"Concern for the Poor God commanded Israel to show concern for its people’s well-being. Israel’s covenant with God, together with its self-concept as an extended family, exerted a leveling effect that resisted pretensions to privilege. A family should provide for members who are facing difficulty. These members of the Israelite people included widows and orphans (Exod 22:22), the poor, and foreigners (Lev 19:10). The edges of the fields and the gleanings of field and vineyard were to be left f...","summary_en":"Concern for the Poor God commanded Israel to show concern for its people’s well-being. Israel’s covenant with God, together with its self-concept as an extended family, exerted a leveling effect that resisted pretensions to privilege. A family should provide for members who are facing difficulty. These members of the Israelite people included widows and orphans (Exod 22:22), the poor, and foreigners (Lev 19:10). The edges of the fields and the gleanings of field and vineyard were to be left f...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":88148,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Concern for the Poor","title_en":"Concern for the Poor","content_ro":"<h3>Concern for the Poor<\/h3>\n<p>God commanded Israel to show concern for its people’s well-being. Israel’s covenant with God, together with its self-concept as an extended family, exerted a leveling effect that resisted pretensions to privilege. A family should provide for members who are facing difficulty. These members of the Israelite people included widows and orphans (Exod 22:22), the poor, and foreigners (Lev 19:10). The edges of the fields and the gleanings of field and vineyard were to be left for the needy (see Lev 23:22). Those who were destitute were not to be victimized. Instead, loans were to be made without interest, or the debtor was to be allowed to work off his debt with dignity as a bondservant (25:35-42). These positive steps ensured that the poor had food to eat.<\/p>\n<p>The Bible first mentions concern for the poor in the radical accommodations of the offering system to those unable to afford more costly offerings. Birds could be substituted for lambs in the whole burnt offering (1:14-17) and the sin offering (5:7-10), and there were other such concessions in the cleansing rituals (14:21-22). Perhaps the most striking is in the substitution of flour for the sin offering (5:11-13). The life-for-a-life symbolism is forfeited for economic reasons, showing clearly God’s desire that the poor who cannot afford a lamb should nonetheless be able to experience forgiveness of sins.<\/p>\n<p>This theme is continued in the prophets’ concern for the poor and helpless and their pleas for social justice and compassion (e.g., Isa 1:17; Amos 2:6). The prophets had some strong words for those responsible for oppressing the needy (see e.g., 4:1-3; 8:4-8). The worship practices of the people—no matter how lavish—were not accepted by God if, at the same time, those worshiping were guilty of injustice and oppression (see Isa 1:15-20; Mic 6:6-8). This notion that proper attitudes and actions toward God and others are more important than the practice of worship rituals is reflected in the story in the Gospels of the poor widow’s offering. Her offering receives praise from Jesus, not because of its monetary value, but because of the devotion it represented (Mark 12:41-44). Religious practices could even inhibit helping those in need (see Mark 7:9-13).<\/p>\n<p>Both Jesus and the early church exhibited concern for the poor. Jesus indicated that a major component of his mission was to bring hope to the poor and release for the oppressed (Luke 4:16-21). He warned strongly against neglecting the poor (Luke 16:19-31) and indicated that a willingness to provide for the poor was necessary for those desiring to be his followers (see Luke 18:18-23). Reflecting the teaching of Christ, the early church sought to ensure that the needy among them were well cared for (Acts 2:44-45; Acts 4:32-37; 1 Tim 5:3-16). As in the prophets, the mistreatment of the marginalized made a farce of religious practice (1 Cor 11:17-29; Jas 1:27–2:17).<\/p>\n<p>God’s concern for the poor is thus a theme that runs throughout Scripture, and believers must take up a similar perspective toward those in need.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Exod 22:22-27; 23:6-11; Lev 5:7, 11; 14:21-22; 19:9-10; 23:22; Deut 10:17-19; 15:4-11; 16:9-12; 24:6-22; 26:12-13; 27:17-19; 1 Sam 2:8; Ps 10:13-18; 35:10; 68:5; Prov 14:31; Isa 1:15-17; Amos 2:6; 4:1; 8:4-7; Mic 6:6-8, 12; Mark 12:41-44; Luke 6:20; 14:12-14; Jas 2:1-17<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Concern for the Poor<\/h3>\n<p>God commanded Israel to show concern for its people’s well-being. Israel’s covenant with God, together with its self-concept as an extended family, exerted a leveling effect that resisted pretensions to privilege. A family should provide for members who are facing difficulty. These members of the Israelite people included widows and orphans (Exod 22:22), the poor, and foreigners (Lev 19:10). The edges of the fields and the gleanings of field and vineyard were to be left for the needy (see Lev 23:22). Those who were destitute were not to be victimized. Instead, loans were to be made without interest, or the debtor was to be allowed to work off his debt with dignity as a bondservant (25:35-42). These positive steps ensured that the poor had food to eat.<\/p>\n<p>The Bible first mentions concern for the poor in the radical accommodations of the offering system to those unable to afford more costly offerings. Birds could be substituted for lambs in the whole burnt offering (1:14-17) and the sin offering (5:7-10), and there were other such concessions in the cleansing rituals (14:21-22). Perhaps the most striking is in the substitution of flour for the sin offering (5:11-13). The life-for-a-life symbolism is forfeited for economic reasons, showing clearly God’s desire that the poor who cannot afford a lamb should nonetheless be able to experience forgiveness of sins.<\/p>\n<p>This theme is continued in the prophets’ concern for the poor and helpless and their pleas for social justice and compassion (e.g., Isa 1:17; Amos 2:6). The prophets had some strong words for those responsible for oppressing the needy (see e.g., 4:1-3; 8:4-8). The worship practices of the people—no matter how lavish—were not accepted by God if, at the same time, those worshiping were guilty of injustice and oppression (see Isa 1:15-20; Mic 6:6-8). This notion that proper attitudes and actions toward God and others are more important than the practice of worship rituals is reflected in the story in the Gospels of the poor widow’s offering. Her offering receives praise from Jesus, not because of its monetary value, but because of the devotion it represented (Mark 12:41-44). Religious practices could even inhibit helping those in need (see Mark 7:9-13).<\/p>\n<p>Both Jesus and the early church exhibited concern for the poor. Jesus indicated that a major component of his mission was to bring hope to the poor and release for the oppressed (Luke 4:16-21). He warned strongly against neglecting the poor (Luke 16:19-31) and indicated that a willingness to provide for the poor was necessary for those desiring to be his followers (see Luke 18:18-23). Reflecting the teaching of Christ, the early church sought to ensure that the needy among them were well cared for (Acts 2:44-45; Acts 4:32-37; 1 Tim 5:3-16). As in the prophets, the mistreatment of the marginalized made a farce of religious practice (1 Cor 11:17-29; Jas 1:27–2:17).<\/p>\n<p>God’s concern for the poor is thus a theme that runs throughout Scripture, and believers must take up a similar perspective toward those in need.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Exod 22:22-27; 23:6-11; Lev 5:7, 11; 14:21-22; 19:9-10; 23:22; Deut 10:17-19; 15:4-11; 16:9-12; 24:6-22; 26:12-13; 27:17-19; 1 Sam 2:8; Ps 10:13-18; 35:10; 68:5; Prov 14:31; Isa 1:15-17; Amos 2:6; 4:1; 8:4-7; Mic 6:6-8, 12; Mark 12:41-44; Luke 6:20; 14:12-14; Jas 2:1-17<\/p>","summary_ro":"Concern for the Poor God commanded Israel to show concern for its people’s well-being. Israel’s covenant with God, together with its self-concept as an extended family, exerted a leveling effect that resisted pretensions to privilege. A family should provide for members who are facing difficulty. These members of the Israelite people included widows and orphans (Exod 22:22), the poor, and foreigners (Lev 19:10). The edges of the fields and the gleanings of field and vineyard were to be left f...","summary_en":"Concern for the Poor God commanded Israel to show concern for its people’s well-being. Israel’s covenant with God, together with its self-concept as an extended family, exerted a leveling effect that resisted pretensions to privilege. A family should provide for members who are facing difficulty. These members of the Israelite people included widows and orphans (Exod 22:22), the poor, and foreigners (Lev 19:10). The edges of the fields and the gleanings of field and vineyard were to be left f...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":115774,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Concern for the Poor","title_en":"Concern for the Poor","content_ro":"<h3>Concern for the Poor<\/h3>\n<p>God commanded Israel to show concern for its people’s well-being. Israel’s covenant with God, together with its self-concept as an extended family, exerted a leveling effect that resisted pretensions to privilege. A family should provide for members who are facing difficulty. These members of the Israelite people included widows and orphans (Exod 22:22), the poor, and foreigners (Lev 19:10). The edges of the fields and the gleanings of field and vineyard were to be left for the needy (see Lev 23:22). Those who were destitute were not to be victimized. Instead, loans were to be made without interest, or the debtor was to be allowed to work off his debt with dignity as a bondservant (25:35-42). These positive steps ensured that the poor had food to eat.<\/p>\n<p>The Bible first mentions concern for the poor in the radical accommodations of the offering system to those unable to afford more costly offerings. Birds could be substituted for lambs in the whole burnt offering (1:14-17) and the sin offering (5:7-10), and there were other such concessions in the cleansing rituals (14:21-22). Perhaps the most striking is in the substitution of flour for the sin offering (5:11-13). The life-for-a-life symbolism is forfeited for economic reasons, showing clearly God’s desire that the poor who cannot afford a lamb should nonetheless be able to experience forgiveness of sins.<\/p>\n<p>This theme is continued in the prophets’ concern for the poor and helpless and their pleas for social justice and compassion (e.g., Isa 1:17; Amos 2:6). The prophets had some strong words for those responsible for oppressing the needy (see e.g., 4:1-3; 8:4-8). The worship practices of the people—no matter how lavish—were not accepted by God if, at the same time, those worshiping were guilty of injustice and oppression (see Isa 1:15-20; Mic 6:6-8). This notion that proper attitudes and actions toward God and others are more important than the practice of worship rituals is reflected in the story in the Gospels of the poor widow’s offering. Her offering receives praise from Jesus, not because of its monetary value, but because of the devotion it represented (Mark 12:41-44). Religious practices could even inhibit helping those in need (see Mark 7:9-13).<\/p>\n<p>Both Jesus and the early church exhibited concern for the poor. Jesus indicated that a major component of his mission was to bring hope to the poor and release for the oppressed (Luke 4:16-21). He warned strongly against neglecting the poor (Luke 16:19-31) and indicated that a willingness to provide for the poor was necessary for those desiring to be his followers (see Luke 18:18-23). Reflecting the teaching of Christ, the early church sought to ensure that the needy among them were well cared for (Acts 2:44-45; Acts 4:32-37; 1 Tim 5:3-16). As in the prophets, the mistreatment of the marginalized made a farce of religious practice (1 Cor 11:17-29; Jas 1:27–2:17).<\/p>\n<p>God’s concern for the poor is thus a theme that runs throughout Scripture, and believers must take up a similar perspective toward those in need.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Exod 22:22-27; 23:6-11; Lev 5:7, 11; 14:21-22; 19:9-10; 23:22; Deut 10:17-19; 15:4-11; 16:9-12; 24:6-22; 26:12-13; 27:17-19; 1 Sam 2:8; Ps 10:13-18; 35:10; 68:5; Prov 14:31; Isa 1:15-17; Amos 2:6; 4:1; 8:4-7; Mic 6:6-8, 12; Mark 12:41-44; Luke 6:20; 14:12-14; Jas 2:1-17<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Concern for the Poor<\/h3>\n<p>God commanded Israel to show concern for its people’s well-being. Israel’s covenant with God, together with its self-concept as an extended family, exerted a leveling effect that resisted pretensions to privilege. A family should provide for members who are facing difficulty. These members of the Israelite people included widows and orphans (Exod 22:22), the poor, and foreigners (Lev 19:10). The edges of the fields and the gleanings of field and vineyard were to be left for the needy (see Lev 23:22). Those who were destitute were not to be victimized. Instead, loans were to be made without interest, or the debtor was to be allowed to work off his debt with dignity as a bondservant (25:35-42). These positive steps ensured that the poor had food to eat.<\/p>\n<p>The Bible first mentions concern for the poor in the radical accommodations of the offering system to those unable to afford more costly offerings. Birds could be substituted for lambs in the whole burnt offering (1:14-17) and the sin offering (5:7-10), and there were other such concessions in the cleansing rituals (14:21-22). Perhaps the most striking is in the substitution of flour for the sin offering (5:11-13). The life-for-a-life symbolism is forfeited for economic reasons, showing clearly God’s desire that the poor who cannot afford a lamb should nonetheless be able to experience forgiveness of sins.<\/p>\n<p>This theme is continued in the prophets’ concern for the poor and helpless and their pleas for social justice and compassion (e.g., Isa 1:17; Amos 2:6). The prophets had some strong words for those responsible for oppressing the needy (see e.g., 4:1-3; 8:4-8). The worship practices of the people—no matter how lavish—were not accepted by God if, at the same time, those worshiping were guilty of injustice and oppression (see Isa 1:15-20; Mic 6:6-8). This notion that proper attitudes and actions toward God and others are more important than the practice of worship rituals is reflected in the story in the Gospels of the poor widow’s offering. Her offering receives praise from Jesus, not because of its monetary value, but because of the devotion it represented (Mark 12:41-44). Religious practices could even inhibit helping those in need (see Mark 7:9-13).<\/p>\n<p>Both Jesus and the early church exhibited concern for the poor. Jesus indicated that a major component of his mission was to bring hope to the poor and release for the oppressed (Luke 4:16-21). He warned strongly against neglecting the poor (Luke 16:19-31) and indicated that a willingness to provide for the poor was necessary for those desiring to be his followers (see Luke 18:18-23). Reflecting the teaching of Christ, the early church sought to ensure that the needy among them were well cared for (Acts 2:44-45; Acts 4:32-37; 1 Tim 5:3-16). As in the prophets, the mistreatment of the marginalized made a farce of religious practice (1 Cor 11:17-29; Jas 1:27–2:17).<\/p>\n<p>God’s concern for the poor is thus a theme that runs throughout Scripture, and believers must take up a similar perspective toward those in need.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Exod 22:22-27; 23:6-11; Lev 5:7, 11; 14:21-22; 19:9-10; 23:22; Deut 10:17-19; 15:4-11; 16:9-12; 24:6-22; 26:12-13; 27:17-19; 1 Sam 2:8; Ps 10:13-18; 35:10; 68:5; Prov 14:31; Isa 1:15-17; Amos 2:6; 4:1; 8:4-7; Mic 6:6-8, 12; Mark 12:41-44; Luke 6:20; 14:12-14; Jas 2:1-17<\/p>","summary_ro":"Concern for the Poor God commanded Israel to show concern for its people’s well-being. Israel’s covenant with God, together with its self-concept as an extended family, exerted a leveling effect that resisted pretensions to privilege. A family should provide for members who are facing difficulty. These members of the Israelite people included widows and orphans (Exod 22:22), the poor, and foreigners (Lev 19:10). The edges of the fields and the gleanings of field and vineyard were to be left f...","summary_en":"Concern for the Poor God commanded Israel to show concern for its people’s well-being. Israel’s covenant with God, together with its self-concept as an extended family, exerted a leveling effect that resisted pretensions to privilege. A family should provide for members who are facing difficulty. These members of the Israelite people included widows and orphans (Exod 22:22), the poor, and foreigners (Lev 19:10). The edges of the fields and the gleanings of field and vineyard were to be left f...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":143400,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Concern for the Poor","title_en":"Concern for the Poor","content_ro":"<h3>Concern for the Poor<\/h3>\n<p>God commanded Israel to show concern for its people’s well-being. Israel’s covenant with God, together with its self-concept as an extended family, exerted a leveling effect that resisted pretensions to privilege. A family should provide for members who are facing difficulty. These members of the Israelite people included widows and orphans (Exod 22:22), the poor, and foreigners (Lev 19:10). The edges of the fields and the gleanings of field and vineyard were to be left for the needy (see Lev 23:22). Those who were destitute were not to be victimized. Instead, loans were to be made without interest, or the debtor was to be allowed to work off his debt with dignity as a bondservant (25:35-42). These positive steps ensured that the poor had food to eat.<\/p>\n<p>The Bible first mentions concern for the poor in the radical accommodations of the offering system to those unable to afford more costly offerings. Birds could be substituted for lambs in the whole burnt offering (1:14-17) and the sin offering (5:7-10), and there were other such concessions in the cleansing rituals (14:21-22). Perhaps the most striking is in the substitution of flour for the sin offering (5:11-13). The life-for-a-life symbolism is forfeited for economic reasons, showing clearly God’s desire that the poor who cannot afford a lamb should nonetheless be able to experience forgiveness of sins.<\/p>\n<p>This theme is continued in the prophets’ concern for the poor and helpless and their pleas for social justice and compassion (e.g., Isa 1:17; Amos 2:6). The prophets had some strong words for those responsible for oppressing the needy (see e.g., 4:1-3; 8:4-8). The worship practices of the people—no matter how lavish—were not accepted by God if, at the same time, those worshiping were guilty of injustice and oppression (see Isa 1:15-20; Mic 6:6-8). This notion that proper attitudes and actions toward God and others are more important than the practice of worship rituals is reflected in the story in the Gospels of the poor widow’s offering. Her offering receives praise from Jesus, not because of its monetary value, but because of the devotion it represented (Mark 12:41-44). Religious practices could even inhibit helping those in need (see Mark 7:9-13).<\/p>\n<p>Both Jesus and the early church exhibited concern for the poor. Jesus indicated that a major component of his mission was to bring hope to the poor and release for the oppressed (Luke 4:16-21). He warned strongly against neglecting the poor (Luke 16:19-31) and indicated that a willingness to provide for the poor was necessary for those desiring to be his followers (see Luke 18:18-23). Reflecting the teaching of Christ, the early church sought to ensure that the needy among them were well cared for (Acts 2:44-45; Acts 4:32-37; 1 Tim 5:3-16). As in the prophets, the mistreatment of the marginalized made a farce of religious practice (1 Cor 11:17-29; Jas 1:27–2:17).<\/p>\n<p>God’s concern for the poor is thus a theme that runs throughout Scripture, and believers must take up a similar perspective toward those in need.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Exod 22:22-27; 23:6-11; Lev 5:7, 11; 14:21-22; 19:9-10; 23:22; Deut 10:17-19; 15:4-11; 16:9-12; 24:6-22; 26:12-13; 27:17-19; 1 Sam 2:8; Ps 10:13-18; 35:10; 68:5; Prov 14:31; Isa 1:15-17; Amos 2:6; 4:1; 8:4-7; Mic 6:6-8, 12; Mark 12:41-44; Luke 6:20; 14:12-14; Jas 2:1-17<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Concern for the Poor<\/h3>\n<p>God commanded Israel to show concern for its people’s well-being. Israel’s covenant with God, together with its self-concept as an extended family, exerted a leveling effect that resisted pretensions to privilege. A family should provide for members who are facing difficulty. These members of the Israelite people included widows and orphans (Exod 22:22), the poor, and foreigners (Lev 19:10). The edges of the fields and the gleanings of field and vineyard were to be left for the needy (see Lev 23:22). Those who were destitute were not to be victimized. Instead, loans were to be made without interest, or the debtor was to be allowed to work off his debt with dignity as a bondservant (25:35-42). These positive steps ensured that the poor had food to eat.<\/p>\n<p>The Bible first mentions concern for the poor in the radical accommodations of the offering system to those unable to afford more costly offerings. Birds could be substituted for lambs in the whole burnt offering (1:14-17) and the sin offering (5:7-10), and there were other such concessions in the cleansing rituals (14:21-22). Perhaps the most striking is in the substitution of flour for the sin offering (5:11-13). The life-for-a-life symbolism is forfeited for economic reasons, showing clearly God’s desire that the poor who cannot afford a lamb should nonetheless be able to experience forgiveness of sins.<\/p>\n<p>This theme is continued in the prophets’ concern for the poor and helpless and their pleas for social justice and compassion (e.g., Isa 1:17; Amos 2:6). The prophets had some strong words for those responsible for oppressing the needy (see e.g., 4:1-3; 8:4-8). The worship practices of the people—no matter how lavish—were not accepted by God if, at the same time, those worshiping were guilty of injustice and oppression (see Isa 1:15-20; Mic 6:6-8). This notion that proper attitudes and actions toward God and others are more important than the practice of worship rituals is reflected in the story in the Gospels of the poor widow’s offering. Her offering receives praise from Jesus, not because of its monetary value, but because of the devotion it represented (Mark 12:41-44). Religious practices could even inhibit helping those in need (see Mark 7:9-13).<\/p>\n<p>Both Jesus and the early church exhibited concern for the poor. Jesus indicated that a major component of his mission was to bring hope to the poor and release for the oppressed (Luke 4:16-21). He warned strongly against neglecting the poor (Luke 16:19-31) and indicated that a willingness to provide for the poor was necessary for those desiring to be his followers (see Luke 18:18-23). Reflecting the teaching of Christ, the early church sought to ensure that the needy among them were well cared for (Acts 2:44-45; Acts 4:32-37; 1 Tim 5:3-16). As in the prophets, the mistreatment of the marginalized made a farce of religious practice (1 Cor 11:17-29; Jas 1:27–2:17).<\/p>\n<p>God’s concern for the poor is thus a theme that runs throughout Scripture, and believers must take up a similar perspective toward those in need.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Exod 22:22-27; 23:6-11; Lev 5:7, 11; 14:21-22; 19:9-10; 23:22; Deut 10:17-19; 15:4-11; 16:9-12; 24:6-22; 26:12-13; 27:17-19; 1 Sam 2:8; Ps 10:13-18; 35:10; 68:5; Prov 14:31; Isa 1:15-17; Amos 2:6; 4:1; 8:4-7; Mic 6:6-8, 12; Mark 12:41-44; Luke 6:20; 14:12-14; Jas 2:1-17<\/p>","summary_ro":"Concern for the Poor God commanded Israel to show concern for its people’s well-being. Israel’s covenant with God, together with its self-concept as an extended family, exerted a leveling effect that resisted pretensions to privilege. A family should provide for members who are facing difficulty. These members of the Israelite people included widows and orphans (Exod 22:22), the poor, and foreigners (Lev 19:10). The edges of the fields and the gleanings of field and vineyard were to be left f...","summary_en":"Concern for the Poor God commanded Israel to show concern for its people’s well-being. Israel’s covenant with God, together with its self-concept as an extended family, exerted a leveling effect that resisted pretensions to privilege. A family should provide for members who are facing difficulty. These members of the Israelite people included widows and orphans (Exod 22:22), the poor, and foreigners (Lev 19:10). The edges of the fields and the gleanings of field and vineyard were to be left f...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"7":[{"id":7299,"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":35616,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Slavery Slave","title_en":"Slavery Slave","content_ro":"<h3>SLAVE, SLAVERY<\/h3>\n<p>Person owned as property by another, and the relationship that bound the owner and the slave. Slavery was widespread in the ancient Near East, although the economy was not dependent upon it. By Roman times, slavery was so extensive that in the early Christian period one out of every two people was a slave. From at least 3000 <span>BC<\/span>, captives in war were the primary source of slaves (Gn 14:21; Nm 31:9; Dt 20:14; Jgs 5:30; 1 Sm 4:9; 2 Kgs 5:2; 2 Chr 28:8).<\/p>\n<p>Slaves could be purchased locally from other owners or from foreign traveling merchants who sold slaves along with cloth, bronzeware, and other goods (Jl 3:4-8). Joseph was sold by Midianites and Ishmaelites to an Egyptian (Gn 37:36; 39:1) in this manner. Debt was the basic cause for many families being reduced to slavery; an entire family could be subject to slavery (2 Kgs 4:1; Neh 5:5-8). The law code of Hammurabi stipulated a maximum of three years of slavery for the family (Section 117), as opposed to a maximum of six years under Hebrew law (Dt 15:18). Voluntary slavery was widespread as a means of escape from abject poverty and starvation (Lv 25:47-48). Selling a kidnapped person into slavery, the crime of Joseph’s brothers (Gn 37:27-28), was a capital offense under the law code of Hammurabi (Section 14) and the Mosaic law (Ex 21:11; Dt 24:7).<\/p>\n<p>In Sumerian society, slaves had legal rights, could borrow money, and could engage in business. As the normal price for a slave was probably less than that for a strong donkey, the slave always had the hope that he could save sufficient money to purchase his freedom. Slaves performed tedious labor on farms and in households, though some gifted individuals occupied executive positions in households. Despite provisions in ancient law, the release of slaves was not always honored on schedule. A Hebrew who voluntarily entered slavery was normally released the next jubilee year, and theoretically no Hebrew could be enslaved for life (Ex 21:2; Lv 25:10-13; Dt 15:12-14).<\/p>\n<p>The Israelites made a deliberate attempt to safeguard the slave from brutality by a master or overseer. By law, a maimed slave had to be released (Ex 21:26-27). The few Hebrew slaves in a household frequently toiled alongside their masters in the fields, and they and household slaves often had a reasonable and secure existence, compared with the threat of starvation and destitution of the poorest free men.<\/p>\n<p>In Greek and especially in Roman times, when the number of slaves increased dramatically, household slaves remained the best treated. Many became servants and confidants; some even established good businesses to their own and their masters’ benefit.<\/p>\n<p>Information from Ur, Nuzi, and the book of Genesis shows that where a wife was childless, the female slave could bear the master’s child (Gn 16:2-4). Legally a Hebrew master could agree to marry a young female slave, have his own son marry her, or establish her as a concubine. If subsequently she was discarded, or if the agreement was not fulfilled, she would be released from her slavery (Ex 21:7-11). Conquered people were required to perform forced labor for the state (2 Sm 12:31; 1 Kgs 9:15, 21-23), including the Israelites themselves in Lebanon (1 Kgs 5:13-18). Captured in war, the Midianites (Nm 31:28-30, 47) and Gibeonites (Jos 9:23-25) were made slaves to serve the temple. The practice continued through the reigns of David and Solomon (Ezr 2:58; 8:20). Nehemiah records that foreign slaves helped make repairs on the walls of Jerusalem (Neh 3:26, 31).<\/p>\n<p>The NT attitude toward slavery indicates that the status of a slave was more like that of a servant and that the institution of slavery generally was declining. There was no strong opposition to slavery from Jesus or the apostles, but an admonition that slaves and servants should serve their masters faithfully and that masters should treat their slaves humanely and fairly (Eph 6:9; Col 4:1; 1 Tm 6:2; Phlm 1:16). Paul never preached against slavery, but he personally tried to attain freedom for the slave Onesimus from his Christian master, Philemon (see the discussion on this in Philemon, Letter to).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Bond, Bondage; Liberty.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>SLAVE, SLAVERY<\/h3>\n<p>Person owned as property by another, and the relationship that bound the owner and the slave. Slavery was widespread in the ancient Near East, although the economy was not dependent upon it. By Roman times, slavery was so extensive that in the early Christian period one out of every two people was a slave. From at least 3000 <span>BC<\/span>, captives in war were the primary source of slaves (Gn 14:21; Nm 31:9; Dt 20:14; Jgs 5:30; 1 Sm 4:9; 2 Kgs 5:2; 2 Chr 28:8).<\/p>\n<p>Slaves could be purchased locally from other owners or from foreign traveling merchants who sold slaves along with cloth, bronzeware, and other goods (Jl 3:4-8). Joseph was sold by Midianites and Ishmaelites to an Egyptian (Gn 37:36; 39:1) in this manner. Debt was the basic cause for many families being reduced to slavery; an entire family could be subject to slavery (2 Kgs 4:1; Neh 5:5-8). The law code of Hammurabi stipulated a maximum of three years of slavery for the family (Section 117), as opposed to a maximum of six years under Hebrew law (Dt 15:18). Voluntary slavery was widespread as a means of escape from abject poverty and starvation (Lv 25:47-48). Selling a kidnapped person into slavery, the crime of Joseph’s brothers (Gn 37:27-28), was a capital offense under the law code of Hammurabi (Section 14) and the Mosaic law (Ex 21:11; Dt 24:7).<\/p>\n<p>In Sumerian society, slaves had legal rights, could borrow money, and could engage in business. As the normal price for a slave was probably less than that for a strong donkey, the slave always had the hope that he could save sufficient money to purchase his freedom. Slaves performed tedious labor on farms and in households, though some gifted individuals occupied executive positions in households. Despite provisions in ancient law, the release of slaves was not always honored on schedule. A Hebrew who voluntarily entered slavery was normally released the next jubilee year, and theoretically no Hebrew could be enslaved for life (Ex 21:2; Lv 25:10-13; Dt 15:12-14).<\/p>\n<p>The Israelites made a deliberate attempt to safeguard the slave from brutality by a master or overseer. By law, a maimed slave had to be released (Ex 21:26-27). The few Hebrew slaves in a household frequently toiled alongside their masters in the fields, and they and household slaves often had a reasonable and secure existence, compared with the threat of starvation and destitution of the poorest free men.<\/p>\n<p>In Greek and especially in Roman times, when the number of slaves increased dramatically, household slaves remained the best treated. Many became servants and confidants; some even established good businesses to their own and their masters’ benefit.<\/p>\n<p>Information from Ur, Nuzi, and the book of Genesis shows that where a wife was childless, the female slave could bear the master’s child (Gn 16:2-4). Legally a Hebrew master could agree to marry a young female slave, have his own son marry her, or establish her as a concubine. If subsequently she was discarded, or if the agreement was not fulfilled, she would be released from her slavery (Ex 21:7-11). Conquered people were required to perform forced labor for the state (2 Sm 12:31; 1 Kgs 9:15, 21-23), including the Israelites themselves in Lebanon (1 Kgs 5:13-18). Captured in war, the Midianites (Nm 31:28-30, 47) and Gibeonites (Jos 9:23-25) were made slaves to serve the temple. The practice continued through the reigns of David and Solomon (Ezr 2:58; 8:20). Nehemiah records that foreign slaves helped make repairs on the walls of Jerusalem (Neh 3:26, 31).<\/p>\n<p>The NT attitude toward slavery indicates that the status of a slave was more like that of a servant and that the institution of slavery generally was declining. There was no strong opposition to slavery from Jesus or the apostles, but an admonition that slaves and servants should serve their masters faithfully and that masters should treat their slaves humanely and fairly (Eph 6:9; Col 4:1; 1 Tm 6:2; Phlm 1:16). Paul never preached against slavery, but he personally tried to attain freedom for the slave Onesimus from his Christian master, Philemon (see the discussion on this in Philemon, Letter to).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Bond, Bondage; Liberty.<\/p>","summary_ro":"SLAVE, SLAVERY Person owned as property by another, and the relationship that bound the owner and the slave. Slavery was widespread in the ancient Near East, although the economy was not dependent upon it. By Roman times, slavery was so extensive that in the early Christian period one out of every two people was a slave. From at least 3000 BC, captives in war were the primary source of slaves (Gn 14:21; Nm 31:9; Dt 20:14; Jgs 5:30; 1 Sm 4:9; 2 Kgs 5:2; 2 Chr 28:8). Slaves could be purchased l...","summary_en":"SLAVE, SLAVERY Person owned as property by another, and the relationship that bound the owner and the slave. Slavery was widespread in the ancient Near East, although the economy was not dependent upon it. By Roman times, slavery was so extensive that in the early Christian period one out of every two people was a slave. From at least 3000 BC, captives in war were the primary source of slaves (Gn 14:21; Nm 31:9; Dt 20:14; Jgs 5:30; 1 Sm 4:9; 2 Kgs 5:2; 2 Chr 28:8). Slaves could be purchased l...","source":"Articles\/S.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"8":[{"id":31332,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Priests and Levites","title_en":"Priests and Levites","content_ro":"<h3>PRIESTS AND LEVITES<\/h3>\n<p>Servants of God in the OT. There were three basic classes of religious personnel in ancient Israel: prophets, wise men, and priests and Levites. The classical prophets fulfilled a vocation but were not professionals; they were not paid for their task and functioned only in response to the particular call of God. The wise men were involved in government and education; some of their duties were secular, though they were also involved in moral education. The priests and Levites fulfilled a variety of essentially religious duties and were equivalent approximately to the clergy in modern times. They were professional men and were supported for their full-time religious work.<\/p>\n<p>The role of the priesthood may be seen most clearly in the context of Israelite religion as a whole. At the heart of religion was a relationship with God; to be an Israelite or a Jew was to know and maintain a continuous relationship with the living God. This relationship found its outward expression in a variety of contexts: the covenant, the temple, worship, and every facet of daily life. Thus religion, understood as a relationship, had two perspectives: the relationship with God and that with fellow human beings. It had both a personal and a communal dimension to it. The priests were the guardians and servants of this life of relationship, which was at the heart of OT religion; all their functions can best be understood within the context of a relationship between God and Israel. The prophets, too, were servants of the covenant relationship. While the priests functioned as the normal servants of religion, the prophets’ role was more that of calling a delinquent people back to the relationship with God in times of crisis.<\/p>\n<p>In the OT, there are frequent references to both priests and Levites; in a number of biblical texts, however, the distinction is not clear (see, e.g., Dt 18:1-8). From the scholarly point of view, the precise relationship between priests and Levites is a continuing problem that has not yet been fully resolved. In general terms, only the sons of Aaron were to assume the role of priests; all other Levites would have religious functions, though technically they would not be priests. While this distinction is clear in most biblical texts, in others there is lack of certainty and clarity. It is clear, however, that <em>priests<\/em> (Levites descended from Aaron) and <em>Levites<\/em> (other than the descendants of Aaron) all had professional religious duties to perform. The precise nature of those duties varied from time to time in the course of Israel’s history.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• The Origins of the Priesthood<\/p>\n<p>• The High Priest<\/p>\n<p>• The Priests<\/p>\n<p>• The Levites<\/p>\n<p>• The History of the Institution<\/p>\n<p>• The Priesthood in New Testament Times<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheOriginsofthePriesthood\">The Origins of the Priesthood<\/p>\n<p>The priesthood in Israel began during the time of Moses and Aaron. The exodus from Egypt was not only the liberation of a group of Hebrew slaves but also the birth of the nation of Israel. The nation that was born in the exodus was given its constitution in the covenant of Sinai. The law of this covenant established the foundations and origins of Israelite priesthood. It provides insight into the three basic categories to be considered: the high priest, the priests, and the Levites.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheHighPriest\">The High Priest<\/p>\n<p>Any large and complex organization requires a head or leader, and this was true also of the Hebrew priesthood (though in its early days it was a small organization). The covenant was established through Moses, the prophet, through whom God gave the offer and substance of the covenant relationship; religious life within the covenant was to be the primary responsibility of Aaron, who was the first and chief priest.<\/p>\n<p>In the earliest days of Israel’s priesthood, it is probable that the high priest’s office was relatively informal; he was chief or leader among his fellow priests. The office was significant, nevertheless, and involved a special ritual of investiture, special clothing, and certain special responsibilities. While the high priest’s duties were similar in principle to those of other priests, he had certain exclusive responsibilities. To some extent, his duties were administrative, pertaining to all the priests of whom he had charge. But his position was more weighty than that of an administrator; just as all priests were the servants and guardians of the covenant relationship, so the high priest was chief servant and chief guardian. In his hands rested spiritual responsibility for the entire people of God, and therein lay the true honor and gravity of his position.<\/p>\n\n<p>This spiritual seniority of the high priest is seen most clearly in certain tasks he undertook within Israel’s life of worship. The clearest example may be seen in the annual observation of the Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur). On that day alone, the high priest entered the Holy of Holies and, standing before the “mercy seat,” he sought God’s forgiveness and mercy for the whole nation of Israel (Lv 16:1-19). It is in that ceremony that Israel’s covenant faith is seen most clearly. Israel’s religion was one of relationship with a holy God, and human evil disrupted that relationship. While all worship and sacrifices throughout the year were concerned with the continuation of the relationship, the Day of Atonement was the most solemn day of the year, in which the attention of all the people focused upon the meaning of their existence. Life held meaning only if the relationship with God could be maintained; the high priest had the great honor and heavy burden of seeking God’s mercy for all Israel.<\/p>\n<p>The special clothing worn by the high priest was symbolic of the nature and importance of his office; although all the symbolism cannot be determined, some of it is made clear in the biblical text. There are three particular themes in the symbolism. The first is beauty. The sense of beauty emerges from the quality and design of all the items of clothing, together with the use of color and precious stones. But beauty is dominant in the breastplate; the Hebrew word translated approximately as “breastplate” has as its basic sense “beauty” or “excellence.” The clothing symbolizes beauty, while beauty describes the office; the two other themes associated with the symbolism bring out the excellence of the office.<\/p>\n<p>The second theme is the role of the priest as representative of Israel before God. This essential dimension of the office of the high priest is explicitly identified in the names of the tribes of Israel in the two onyx stones in the ephod, and in the 12 precious stones attached to the breastplate. The high priest entered God’s presence to seek deliverance from God’s judgment (the breastplate is identified with judgment; Ex 28:15) for his people and in order to keep the people constantly in God’s remembrance (v 12), as symbolized by the two onyx stones. The third theme is the role of high priest as the representative of God to Israel. This dimension of the office is seen in the Urim and Thummim, kept in the breastpiece, by means of which God made known his will to Israel. The high priest, Aaron, fully robed, was a splendid figure, and the splendor of his garments indicated the magnificence of the office with which he had been entrusted.<\/p>\n<p>The high priesthood was to be passed on within the family (for the high priest was expected to be a married man), although in later history the practice was not always adhered to. On Aaron’s death, the office passed to Eleazar, one of his four sons.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"ThePriests\">The Priests<\/p>\n<p>Priests took office not as the result of a particular vocation but by virtue of priestly descent. Thus the first priests were the four sons of Aaron: Nadab, Abihu, Eleazar, and Ithamar. These four were ordained at the same time that Aaron was ordained high priest (Ex 28:1). Like him, they had special clothing, which was basically similar, though it lacked the distinctive garments of the high priest (the special ephod, the breastpiece, and the crown). The priesthood would be passed down through their sons.<\/p>\n<p>The sanctity of the priestly office was such that it was preserved from degeneration through specific laws. A man must be a descendant of Aaron to be a priest, but he was also required to meet a variety of other qualifications. He would not marry a divorcée or a former prostitute (Lv 21:7). If he was afflicted by certain kinds of disease or congenital defects, he was barred from priestly office (e.g., blindness, lameness, mutilation, being a hunchback or dwarf; vv 16-23). The principle involved was similar to that applying to animals used in sacrifice—only those free from defect or blemish were suitable for divine service.<\/p>\n<p>In the earliest days of the priesthood there is some information provided in the biblical text concerning the specific duties of the priests. Eleazar had overall responsibility for the tabernacle and its offerings (Nm 4:16); assisted Moses in a number of duties, such as numbering the people and dividing the land (26:1-2; 32:2); and later served as an adviser to Joshua. Ithamar was responsible for the construction of the tabernacle (Ex 38:21) and supervised the families of the Gershonites and Merarites (Nm 4:28-33). Nadab and Abihu, however, died soon after their ordination as a result of a sinful act in their priestly duties (Lv 10:1-7), which may have been related in part to drunkenness (vv 8-9).<\/p>\n<p>Priestly duties, in general, fell into three areas (Dt 33:8-10). First, priests were responsible, in conjunction with the high priest, for declaring God’s will to the people. Second, they had responsibilities in religious education; they were to teach to Israel God’s ordinances and law (v 10). Third, they were to be the servants of the tabernacle, participating in Israel’s sacrifices and worship. There were a number of other duties that may have fallen to them, which they would have shared with the Levites in general.<\/p>\n<p>The priests, along with all other Levites, did not own any land, as did the other Israelite tribes. Their task was to be entirely in the direct service to God. The absence of land, however, meant that they could not support and feed themselves as could other men and women. Consequently, the law specified that they could be supported for their services by the people as a whole. They were to receive, from worshipers, portions of animals that were brought to the tabernacle, as well as corn, wine, oil, and wool.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheLevites\">The Levites<\/p>\n<p>This term includes the priests, in a broad sense, for the sons of Aaron belonged to the tribe of Levi. For practical purposes, however, the Levites were those of the tribe other than the priests. The Levites also functioned in the service of the tabernacle, though they had a subordinate position. They, too, were professional men and were paid in money and in kind for their services. Though they did not inherit tribal territory of their own, there were a number of cities set aside for their use (Nm 35:1-8), and pasturelands were designated outside those cities for their livestock.<\/p>\n<p>The Levites were divided into three principal families, the descendants of Kohath, Gershon, and Merari (Nm 4). Each of these families had particular responsibilities with respect to the care and transport of the tabernacle. The sons of Kohath carried the tabernacle furniture (after it had been covered by the priests), the sons of Gershon cared for the coverings and screens, and the sons of Merari carried and erected the tabernacle’s frame. The priests, by contrast, were responsible for the transportation of the ark of the covenant. The role of each Levite, as servant of the tabernacle, was restricted; he undertook his professional duties between the ages of 25 and 50 (8:24-26).<\/p>\n<p>Although many of the duties of the Levites were of a mundane nature, they also had a very significant religious role. The law required that all the firstborn, including firstborn sons, be given to God, recalling the slaying of the firstborn at the exodus from Egypt. The Levites’ role in religion was that of being accepted by God in the place of the firstborn sons of Israel (Nm 3:11-13); their cattle, too, were accepted in place of the Israelites’ firstborn cattle. In the census taken in the time of Moses, the firstborn Israelites exceeded the number of the Levites, and a five-shekel redemption fee had to be paid into the priestly coffers for each person in excess (vv 40-51). The representative and substitutionary nature of the Levites can be seen in Israelite religion. Like the priests, they played a part in the larger activity of mediation between God and Israel.<\/p>\n<p>The law of Deuteronomy specifies a number of duties that may have fallen upon both priests and Levites (though the texts are ambiguous). These duties included participation in the activity of the law courts as judges, perhaps with special reference to religious crimes (Dt 17:8-9), taking care of the Book of the Law (v 18), controlling the lives and health of lepers (24:8), and participating directly in the conduct of covenant renewal ceremonies (27:9).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheHistoryoftheInstitution\">The History of the Institution<\/p>\n<p>In theory, the covenant law of Moses determined the nature and course of the offices of priests and Levites for the future history of Israel. In practice, however, changing historical circumstances and changes in the shape of Israel’s religion and culture altered the shape of the priesthood and the role of the Levites from time to time. And even more significantly, the persons who held the offices shaped them and their effectiveness through their faithfulness or unfaithfulness.<\/p>\n<h5>The Priesthood before the Monarchy<\/h5>\n<p>In the time of Joshua, the priests continued to undertake their important task of carrying the ark of the covenant. The Levites assisted in the division and allocation of the newly acquired land among the Israelite tribes. In Joshua 21, there is a detailed list of the allocation of cities to both priests and Levites, in fulfillment of the earlier legislation. In the days of the settlement, beyond the Conquest, there is some evidence that the Levites took over the priestly duty of transporting the ark (1 Sm 6:15; 2 Sm 15:24).<\/p>\n<p>The writer of the book of Judges has recorded two stories that illuminate the lives of particular Levites. The first, the story of Micah (Jgs 17–18), describes the establishment of a local shrine in which Micah’s son was appointed as a priest (though he was not of Levite or Aaronic descent). Later, Micah hired an itinerant Levite to function as a priest in his shrine, though subsequently that Levite was persuaded to serve the tribe of Dan as a priest. It is difficult to fit the details of this story into the theoretical model of priests and Levites, though the story may illustrate the confused state of Israel’s religion at the time. What is particularly significant is that the role of the Levite-priest was primarily oracular (18:5-6). The second story in Judges is the rather horrifying account of a Levite and his concubine (ch 19). The story illustrates the moral decline and lack of law and order in Israel at the time, but it sheds little light on the role of the Levites.<\/p>\n<p>More information is provided about the priesthood during the 11th century <span>BC<\/span>, immediately before the establishment of the monarchy. The tabernacle (by now probably a semipermanent structure) and the ark of the covenant were located in Shiloh. The priest in charge of the sanctuary in Shiloh was Eli, who may have been a descendant of Aaron’s son Ithamar. His two sons, Hophni and Phinehas, also served as priests, indicating that the principle of family descent was still operative with respect to the priesthood. But although Eli was a faithful priest, his two sons abused the office.<\/p>\n<p>The precise role of Samuel in this period is unclear. He was primarily a judge and a prophet, but it is difficult to determine whether he was also a priest. In the historical narrative, he is not called a priest, though Psalm 99:6 might be interpreted to indicate his priestly office. There are a number of passages, however, that indicate he acted like a priest. For example, he offered sacrifices (1 Sm 7:9-10); as a young man he served in the sanctuary of Shiloh and wore an ephod (ch 2). Furthermore, one of the biblical genealogies implies priestly descent (1 Chr 6:23-30). Nevertheless, he is not normally identified as a priest and the introduction to his story refers to him as an Ephraimite, by descent from his father (1 Sm 1:1), not a Levite. If the priest is perceived as a permanent servant of the sanctuary, as was Eli, then it is clear that Samuel was not a priest. But the priestly role of Samuel may perhaps be related to the fact that his mother “lent” him to God (v 28) while he was still a boy.<\/p>\n<h5>The Priesthood during the Time of David and Solomon<\/h5>\n<p>Several radical changes took place during the reign of David and Solomon. These were a result, primarily, of the establishment of a permanent temple in Jerusalem and the installation of the ark of the covenant there. During the time of Saul, the first king of Israel, the social structure was essentially the same as it had been in the time of the judges. Saul, as king, was a military leader, but his relationship to religion and the priesthood was not clearly determined.<\/p>\n<p>David changed the situation in many important respects. After his capture of the city of Jerusalem, he made that place the political and religious capital of his nation. The religious centrality of Jerusalem was assured by moving the ark of the covenant there, together with the tabernacle. Jerusalem now became the permanent location of the ark, and therefore the permanent center of religion; at the same time, the various regional shrines, which had developed in the premonarchical period, were gradually eliminated.<\/p>\n<p>These changes had numerous implications for the priesthood and the Levites. During David’s reign, there were two principal priests, Abiathar and Zadok. Abiathar, a former priest of Nob, had joined David before his rise to power; he appears to have been a descendant of Eli, and through him of Ithamar, one of Aaron’s sons. Zadok’s background is less clear, though his lineage appears to go back to Aaron’s other son, Eleazar. These two priests are always named together in the texts describing David’s reign, and Zadok is always mentioned before Abiathar. Although neither is explicitly identified as high priest in the ancient texts, there is some evidence to suggest that Abiathar functioned as high priest (1 Kgs 2:35); in NT times, he is identified as such (Mk 2:26). Zadok, during David’s reign, may have been particularly responsible for the care of the ark of the covenant (2 Sm 15:24-25). These two priests had a significant position in David’s royal establishment; they may also have shared overall responsibility for the priests, whose lives were now centered on the Jerusalem temple.<\/p>\n<p>Much of David’s time was focused upon the preparations for building a permanent temple for God. In the preparation for the temple, and in its completion during the reign of King Solomon, the new activities of the Levites may be seen. (The construction of a permanent temple automatically removed their former responsibilities related to the care and transportation of the tabernacle.) Large numbers of Levites were employed as laborers in the actual building of the temple. Others found new tasks in the worship of God in the tabernacle during David’s reign and in the temple upon its completion. To the Levites, and especially to Heman, Asaph, and Ethan, was given primary responsibility for the music of worship; this involved not only singing but also the playing of a variety of instruments in the temple’s orchestra or band. The Levites had also a variety of other tasks; they worked as gatekeepers at the sanctuary, assisted the priests in the preparation of sacrifices, kept the sanctuary clean, and functioned as general administrative and legal officers (1 Chr 23:1-32). Other Levites functioned as bankers, with primary responsibility for the temple treasuries (26:20-28).<\/p>\n<p>Following David’s death, there was a dispute over the royal succession, from which Solomon emerged as the new king. During his reign, the temple was brought to its completion and the regular worship of the nation was conducted there. In the matter of succession, however, Abiathar had supported a losing candidate, and when Solomon was made king, he lost his important office in the royal court. During Solomon’s reign, the control of the priesthood passed into the hands of Zadok.<\/p>\n<h5>The Priesthood during the Divided Monarchy<\/h5>\n<p>The great empire, which had been built by David and maintained by Solomon, collapsed after Solomon’s death. From the ruins, two new and relatively insignificant states emerged. The southern kingdom, Judah, retained Jerusalem as its capital and the temple as its center of worship. The northern kingdom, Israel, located its first capital at Shechem, from where it was later moved to Tirzah.<\/p>\n<p>In the southern state of Judah, the priests and Levites continued to function normally within the Jerusalem temple. The office of high priest continued to be passed on by descent within the family of Zadok, who had held office in Solomon’s reign. The continuity of office in this family was to be retained down into the time of the second temple, when the Zadokite succession was interrupted about 171 <span>BC<\/span>. Nevertheless, for all the continuity of religion in Jerusalem, all was not well with religion in Judah, neither during the reign of its first king, Rehoboam, nor during the reigns of his successors. During Rehoboam’s reign, there was a decline in religion and also in the priesthood, when popular forms of religion were introduced as a result of foreign influence (1 Kgs 14:22-24). The history of the southern kingdom was marked by periods of religious decline followed by reform, often as a result of the activities of the prophets. The role of the priesthood was all too rarely one of spiritual leadership, and the priests themselves were often the subject of criticism by the prophets (e.g., Jer 2:8, 26).<\/p>\n<p>The northern kingdom, whose first king was Jeroboam I, inevitably had to introduce some radical changes in religion. Jeroboam could not recognize the temple of Jerusalem, partly because it lay outside his state and partly because it was intimately associated with the royal line of David. Jeroboam established two principal shrines in his kingdom, both of which were to retain importance during the relatively short life of the northern kingdom (200 years). The first was at Bethel, in the southern part of his kingdom near the border of Judah (it was only about 12 miles, or 19.3 kilometers, north of Jerusalem). The second shrine, or sanctuary, was at Dan, in the far northern part of his kingdom.<\/p>\n<p>Both these sanctuaries had ancient associations with the Hebrew traditions. Bethel is referred to as early as the time of Abram (Gn 12:8), and the sanctuary at Dan is known from the history of the judges (Jgs 18). There may indeed have been priests and Levites still residing in these two places, descendants of the former servants of the sanctuaries. But Jeroboam established a non-Levitical priesthood to serve in these sanctuaries and in various smaller shrines or “high places,” thereby cutting off the religious tradition of the northern state even more radically from that of Judah. The royal sanctuary at Bethel, so close to the Jerusalem temple, may have been set up in deliberate competition with the Judean sanctuary.<\/p>\n<p>The history of the priesthood in the northern kingdom is no more impressive than that of Judah. Many of the prophets, including Amos, Hosea, and Jeremiah, condemned the northern sanctuaries and their priests. Hosea was forceful in his condemnation: “As marauders lie in ambush for a man, so do bands of priests; they murder on the road to Shechem, committing shameful crimes” (Hos 6:9, <span>niv<\/span>). Those to whom the spiritual lives of the chosen people had been entrusted only rarely lived up to their responsibilities.<\/p>\n<h5>Priests and Levites during and after the Exile<\/h5>\n<p>The northern kingdom came to its end in 722 <span>BC<\/span>, defeated by the armies of Assyria, but religious life continued in Judah for a while longer. Eventually, the end of the southern state came about 586 <span>BC<\/span>; the defeat of the state by the Babylonians was accompanied by the destruction of Jerusalem and its temple (Lam 2:20). The Babylonian commander took Seraiah, the high priest, and Zephaniah, his assistant, to Riblah, where, along with other officials, they were executed (2 Kgs 25:18-21). Then a policy of exile was established by the Babylonians; the most important and influential people of Judah were deported to Babylon, while the less significant were allowed to remain, for they were unlikely to cause trouble. Of those exiled from Judah, many may have been priests (Jer 29:1), for they were men of influence. By way of contrast, it seems likely that a much smaller number of Levites was exiled, reflecting perhaps their inferior social position.<\/p>\n<p>In the city of Jerusalem there was little normal religious life during the years of the exile; the altar had been destroyed and was not restored until after the exile. No doubt some kind of activity continued, but it was an impoverished form of religion. Most of the priests were in exile in Babylon, but they could not function, for there was no temple or sanctuary. Ezekiel implies that God himself was the only “sanctuary” for the exiles (Ez 11:16). Not until the return from exile and the restoration of Jerusalem and its temple could the normal functions of priests and Levites resume.<\/p>\n<p>When the Babylonian Empire was defeated, the new Persian conquerors instituted a policy whereby the Hebrew exiles could return to their homeland. Of those returning, 4,289 are designated as priests and members of priestly families, while only 341 were Levites (Ezr 2:36-42); the imbalance probably reflects the imbalance in the number of those exiled initially. Under Joshua (Jeshua), the priest, and Zerubbabel, work began on the restoration. The priests played a significant role in the first year of the return, in the restoration of the altar in Jerusalem, so that sacrifice and worship to God could resume. Once the altar had been restored, the work began on the temple itself in the second year of the return. In this work, both the priests and the Levites were involved, and the laying of new foundations for the temple began. When the foundation had been laid, both priests, in their vestments, and Levites, in their role as singers and musicians, participated in the ceremony of dedication (3:8-13). Again, when the temple had been rebuilt, both priests and Levites participated in the ceremony of dedication (6:16-18). The restoration, however, was concerned with more than buildings; it also involved a moral and religious component. Though priests and Levites helped in this task, they were also affected by it. Many, for example, had married foreign wives (9:1), and thus had to conform to Ezra’s reform laws.<\/p>\n<p>To some extent, the priests and Levites resumed their normal duties in the worship of the postexilic period. The priests were engaged in the conduct of the temple worship. The Levites assisted, as temple servants (Neh 11:3), as treasurers and collectors of tithes (10:37-39), and as instructors or teachers of the law of God (8:7-9). Nevertheless, the history of the priesthood after the exile is not free of blemish. Condemnation of the abuses of the priestly office was delivered by the prophet Malachi (Mal 1:6–2:9). Malachi catalogues a list of priestly evils reminiscent of the evil priests who lived during the time of the monarchy.<\/p>\n<p>The office of high priest continued after the exile among the descendants of Zadok, being held first by Joshua (Hg 1:1). The different political circumstances, however, changed the nature of the high priestly office. Whereas in the days of the monarchy the high priest was subservient to the king, there was no king, in the proper sense, after the exile. From a political perspective, the Jews were members of a province or colony; for practical purposes, they were a community based upon a common religion. The high priest was no longer subject to the secular authority of a Jewish king, but his religious authority was considerable, and in some ways his functions were similar to those of a king in preexilic times.<\/p>\n<h5>The Priesthood in the Maccabean Period<\/h5>\n<p>During the second century <span>BC<\/span>, some changes took place in the priesthood, particularly with respect to the office of high priest, which marked the end of the OT era and set the background for the NT period. Judea, in the second century, was ruled by the Seleucid kings, who had inherited a portion of the massive Greek Empire established by Alexander the Great. The Judean province was controlled internally under the high priesthood, whose authority was received from the Seleucid kings.<\/p>\n<p>For the first three decades of the second century <span>BC<\/span>, the high priesthood remained with the Zadokite line of descent. The high priests were members of the (Zadokite) Oniad family: first, Onias III (198–174 <span>BC<\/span>); then Jason, brother of Onias III (174–171 <span>BC<\/span>). It was in the period of Jason that there began a series of events that would terminate the Zadokite tradition.<\/p>\n<p>Onias III had opposed the Hellenization policy of Antiochus IV (Epiphanes), which threatened to undermine the Jewish faith. Antiochus replaced Onias by Jason, who in effect purchased the high priesthood from the Seleucid king. In purchasing the priestly office, Jason had set a dangerous precedent; although he was of Zadokite descent, his act implied that the office could be bought and that descent was not vital. The opponents of Jason, the Tobiads, were able to remove him from office and have their own candidate, Menelaus (who was not a Zadokite), appointed in his place. This act resulted in a civil war between those supporting Jason and those supporting Menelaus, and the war in turn culminated in ruthless repressive measures by Antiochus Epiphanes; there were massacres in Jerusalem, and the temple was desecrated (167 <span>BC<\/span>). The desecration of the temple led to the Maccabean revolt, as a result of which the Jews regained their independence for a short time. Menelaus retained the office of high priest until 161 <span>BC<\/span> and was succeeded by Alcimus (161–159 <span>BC<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>There then followed a period during which there was no high priest for seven years. The political climate, however, was such that it became unlikely that the Zadokite line would ever regain the high priesthood, which had been established in the time of King Solomon. The Maccabean Jonathan gained control of Jerusalem, and in 152 <span>BC<\/span>, with the approval of the Seleucid king, he was formally invested with the high priest’s robes of office. He was succeeded as high priest and ruler by his brother Simon in 143 <span>BC<\/span>, who also held the office with the approval of the Seleucids (Demetrius II). But in the third year of his reign (140 <span>BC<\/span>), the high priesthood of Simon received public approval in a great religious assembly, and the family of Simon became “high priest forever” (1 Macc 14:41-47). That event marked the real termination of the Zadokite tradition and the foundation of the Hasmonean line.<\/p>\n<p>The establishment of the high priestly office outside the Zadokite line did not go without challenge. It is probable that a sect within Judaism, now known as the Essenes, was born in reaction to the high priesthood of Simon. The Essenes (better known for the Dead Sea Scrolls) appear to have been founded by a Zadokite priest who rejected the authenticity and authority of Simon. Thus, in a limited sense, the Zadokite priests continued to survive.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"ThePriesthoodinNewTestamentTimes\">The Priesthood in New Testament Times<\/p>\n<p>In the early NT period, both priests and Levites continued to function within the Jewish religion. Zechariah, father of John the Baptist, was a priest belonging to the division of Abijah (Lk 1:5), and his wife was also of priestly descent. When Zechariah was visited by an angel, he was engaged at the time in priestly duties in the Jerusalem temple—various divisions of priests took responsibility for the temple services for a period of time and then returned to their homes (v 23), as another division took over. The distinction between priests and Levites is also maintained in the NT (Jn 1:19) and appears in Jesus’ parable concerning the Good Samaritan (Lk 10:31-32). Both priests and Levites were among the earliest converts to Christianity; Barnabas was a Levite from Cyprus (Acts 4:36), and several priests responded to the proclamation of the gospel (6:7).<\/p>\n<p>The office of high priest is frequently referred to in the NT. Several high priests are named, the plurality of current and former holders of the office reflecting the nature of the position as an essentially political appointment (as distinct from its oldest definition, that of an office passing from father to son on the death of the father). The two most significant high priests in the NT are those who held office during the lifetime of Jesus. Annas was high priest about <span>AD<\/span> 6 to 15, but even after he ceased to hold the office formally, he continued to exert considerable influence through his son-in-law, the high priest Caiaphas (c. <span>AD<\/span> 18–36). Both were significant figures in the trial of Jesus. At a later date, Ananias, son of Nedebaeus, was high priest (c. <span>AD<\/span> 47–58) and president of the Sanhedrin during the time in which Paul was brought to trial.<\/p>\n<p>The priesthood held considerable authority in NT times. Most internal and religious matters in the Roman province of Judea were within the authority of the Sanhedrin, which functioned as a kind of provincial government, though its powers were limited in certain matters by Rome. Its membership included the ruling and former high priests and a large number of Sadducees, many of whom belonged to influential priestly families. This priestly influence in the Sanhedrin was indicative of the important role of the temple in Jewish life during the first century <span>AD<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p>In <span>AD<\/span> 70, following the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem, a radical change came about in the significance of the priesthood in Judaism. The end of the temple removed in effect the purpose for the existence of the priesthood. Although the priesthood continued after a fashion until the Bar-Kochba rebellion in <span>AD<\/span> 135, its days were numbered after <span>AD<\/span> 70. Since the end of the first century <span>AD<\/span>, Judaism has developed without priests, and its course down to the present century has been charted by the rabbis, the spiritual descendants of the Pharisees.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Priesthood.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>PRIESTS AND LEVITES<\/h3>\n<p>Servants of God in the OT. There were three basic classes of religious personnel in ancient Israel: prophets, wise men, and priests and Levites. The classical prophets fulfilled a vocation but were not professionals; they were not paid for their task and functioned only in response to the particular call of God. The wise men were involved in government and education; some of their duties were secular, though they were also involved in moral education. The priests and Levites fulfilled a variety of essentially religious duties and were equivalent approximately to the clergy in modern times. They were professional men and were supported for their full-time religious work.<\/p>\n<p>The role of the priesthood may be seen most clearly in the context of Israelite religion as a whole. At the heart of religion was a relationship with God; to be an Israelite or a Jew was to know and maintain a continuous relationship with the living God. This relationship found its outward expression in a variety of contexts: the covenant, the temple, worship, and every facet of daily life. Thus religion, understood as a relationship, had two perspectives: the relationship with God and that with fellow human beings. It had both a personal and a communal dimension to it. The priests were the guardians and servants of this life of relationship, which was at the heart of OT religion; all their functions can best be understood within the context of a relationship between God and Israel. The prophets, too, were servants of the covenant relationship. While the priests functioned as the normal servants of religion, the prophets’ role was more that of calling a delinquent people back to the relationship with God in times of crisis.<\/p>\n<p>In the OT, there are frequent references to both priests and Levites; in a number of biblical texts, however, the distinction is not clear (see, e.g., Dt 18:1-8). From the scholarly point of view, the precise relationship between priests and Levites is a continuing problem that has not yet been fully resolved. In general terms, only the sons of Aaron were to assume the role of priests; all other Levites would have religious functions, though technically they would not be priests. While this distinction is clear in most biblical texts, in others there is lack of certainty and clarity. It is clear, however, that <em>priests<\/em> (Levites descended from Aaron) and <em>Levites<\/em> (other than the descendants of Aaron) all had professional religious duties to perform. The precise nature of those duties varied from time to time in the course of Israel’s history.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• The Origins of the Priesthood<\/p>\n<p>• The High Priest<\/p>\n<p>• The Priests<\/p>\n<p>• The Levites<\/p>\n<p>• The History of the Institution<\/p>\n<p>• The Priesthood in New Testament Times<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheOriginsofthePriesthood\">The Origins of the Priesthood<\/p>\n<p>The priesthood in Israel began during the time of Moses and Aaron. The exodus from Egypt was not only the liberation of a group of Hebrew slaves but also the birth of the nation of Israel. The nation that was born in the exodus was given its constitution in the covenant of Sinai. The law of this covenant established the foundations and origins of Israelite priesthood. It provides insight into the three basic categories to be considered: the high priest, the priests, and the Levites.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheHighPriest\">The High Priest<\/p>\n<p>Any large and complex organization requires a head or leader, and this was true also of the Hebrew priesthood (though in its early days it was a small organization). The covenant was established through Moses, the prophet, through whom God gave the offer and substance of the covenant relationship; religious life within the covenant was to be the primary responsibility of Aaron, who was the first and chief priest.<\/p>\n<p>In the earliest days of Israel’s priesthood, it is probable that the high priest’s office was relatively informal; he was chief or leader among his fellow priests. The office was significant, nevertheless, and involved a special ritual of investiture, special clothing, and certain special responsibilities. While the high priest’s duties were similar in principle to those of other priests, he had certain exclusive responsibilities. To some extent, his duties were administrative, pertaining to all the priests of whom he had charge. But his position was more weighty than that of an administrator; just as all priests were the servants and guardians of the covenant relationship, so the high priest was chief servant and chief guardian. In his hands rested spiritual responsibility for the entire people of God, and therein lay the true honor and gravity of his position.<\/p>\n\n<p>This spiritual seniority of the high priest is seen most clearly in certain tasks he undertook within Israel’s life of worship. The clearest example may be seen in the annual observation of the Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur). On that day alone, the high priest entered the Holy of Holies and, standing before the “mercy seat,” he sought God’s forgiveness and mercy for the whole nation of Israel (Lv 16:1-19). It is in that ceremony that Israel’s covenant faith is seen most clearly. Israel’s religion was one of relationship with a holy God, and human evil disrupted that relationship. While all worship and sacrifices throughout the year were concerned with the continuation of the relationship, the Day of Atonement was the most solemn day of the year, in which the attention of all the people focused upon the meaning of their existence. Life held meaning only if the relationship with God could be maintained; the high priest had the great honor and heavy burden of seeking God’s mercy for all Israel.<\/p>\n<p>The special clothing worn by the high priest was symbolic of the nature and importance of his office; although all the symbolism cannot be determined, some of it is made clear in the biblical text. There are three particular themes in the symbolism. The first is beauty. The sense of beauty emerges from the quality and design of all the items of clothing, together with the use of color and precious stones. But beauty is dominant in the breastplate; the Hebrew word translated approximately as “breastplate” has as its basic sense “beauty” or “excellence.” The clothing symbolizes beauty, while beauty describes the office; the two other themes associated with the symbolism bring out the excellence of the office.<\/p>\n<p>The second theme is the role of the priest as representative of Israel before God. This essential dimension of the office of the high priest is explicitly identified in the names of the tribes of Israel in the two onyx stones in the ephod, and in the 12 precious stones attached to the breastplate. The high priest entered God’s presence to seek deliverance from God’s judgment (the breastplate is identified with judgment; Ex 28:15) for his people and in order to keep the people constantly in God’s remembrance (v 12), as symbolized by the two onyx stones. The third theme is the role of high priest as the representative of God to Israel. This dimension of the office is seen in the Urim and Thummim, kept in the breastpiece, by means of which God made known his will to Israel. The high priest, Aaron, fully robed, was a splendid figure, and the splendor of his garments indicated the magnificence of the office with which he had been entrusted.<\/p>\n<p>The high priesthood was to be passed on within the family (for the high priest was expected to be a married man), although in later history the practice was not always adhered to. On Aaron’s death, the office passed to Eleazar, one of his four sons.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"ThePriests\">The Priests<\/p>\n<p>Priests took office not as the result of a particular vocation but by virtue of priestly descent. Thus the first priests were the four sons of Aaron: Nadab, Abihu, Eleazar, and Ithamar. These four were ordained at the same time that Aaron was ordained high priest (Ex 28:1). Like him, they had special clothing, which was basically similar, though it lacked the distinctive garments of the high priest (the special ephod, the breastpiece, and the crown). The priesthood would be passed down through their sons.<\/p>\n<p>The sanctity of the priestly office was such that it was preserved from degeneration through specific laws. A man must be a descendant of Aaron to be a priest, but he was also required to meet a variety of other qualifications. He would not marry a divorcée or a former prostitute (Lv 21:7). If he was afflicted by certain kinds of disease or congenital defects, he was barred from priestly office (e.g., blindness, lameness, mutilation, being a hunchback or dwarf; vv 16-23). The principle involved was similar to that applying to animals used in sacrifice—only those free from defect or blemish were suitable for divine service.<\/p>\n<p>In the earliest days of the priesthood there is some information provided in the biblical text concerning the specific duties of the priests. Eleazar had overall responsibility for the tabernacle and its offerings (Nm 4:16); assisted Moses in a number of duties, such as numbering the people and dividing the land (26:1-2; 32:2); and later served as an adviser to Joshua. Ithamar was responsible for the construction of the tabernacle (Ex 38:21) and supervised the families of the Gershonites and Merarites (Nm 4:28-33). Nadab and Abihu, however, died soon after their ordination as a result of a sinful act in their priestly duties (Lv 10:1-7), which may have been related in part to drunkenness (vv 8-9).<\/p>\n<p>Priestly duties, in general, fell into three areas (Dt 33:8-10). First, priests were responsible, in conjunction with the high priest, for declaring God’s will to the people. Second, they had responsibilities in religious education; they were to teach to Israel God’s ordinances and law (v 10). Third, they were to be the servants of the tabernacle, participating in Israel’s sacrifices and worship. There were a number of other duties that may have fallen to them, which they would have shared with the Levites in general.<\/p>\n<p>The priests, along with all other Levites, did not own any land, as did the other Israelite tribes. Their task was to be entirely in the direct service to God. The absence of land, however, meant that they could not support and feed themselves as could other men and women. Consequently, the law specified that they could be supported for their services by the people as a whole. They were to receive, from worshipers, portions of animals that were brought to the tabernacle, as well as corn, wine, oil, and wool.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheLevites\">The Levites<\/p>\n<p>This term includes the priests, in a broad sense, for the sons of Aaron belonged to the tribe of Levi. For practical purposes, however, the Levites were those of the tribe other than the priests. The Levites also functioned in the service of the tabernacle, though they had a subordinate position. They, too, were professional men and were paid in money and in kind for their services. Though they did not inherit tribal territory of their own, there were a number of cities set aside for their use (Nm 35:1-8), and pasturelands were designated outside those cities for their livestock.<\/p>\n<p>The Levites were divided into three principal families, the descendants of Kohath, Gershon, and Merari (Nm 4). Each of these families had particular responsibilities with respect to the care and transport of the tabernacle. The sons of Kohath carried the tabernacle furniture (after it had been covered by the priests), the sons of Gershon cared for the coverings and screens, and the sons of Merari carried and erected the tabernacle’s frame. The priests, by contrast, were responsible for the transportation of the ark of the covenant. The role of each Levite, as servant of the tabernacle, was restricted; he undertook his professional duties between the ages of 25 and 50 (8:24-26).<\/p>\n<p>Although many of the duties of the Levites were of a mundane nature, they also had a very significant religious role. The law required that all the firstborn, including firstborn sons, be given to God, recalling the slaying of the firstborn at the exodus from Egypt. The Levites’ role in religion was that of being accepted by God in the place of the firstborn sons of Israel (Nm 3:11-13); their cattle, too, were accepted in place of the Israelites’ firstborn cattle. In the census taken in the time of Moses, the firstborn Israelites exceeded the number of the Levites, and a five-shekel redemption fee had to be paid into the priestly coffers for each person in excess (vv 40-51). The representative and substitutionary nature of the Levites can be seen in Israelite religion. Like the priests, they played a part in the larger activity of mediation between God and Israel.<\/p>\n<p>The law of Deuteronomy specifies a number of duties that may have fallen upon both priests and Levites (though the texts are ambiguous). These duties included participation in the activity of the law courts as judges, perhaps with special reference to religious crimes (Dt 17:8-9), taking care of the Book of the Law (v 18), controlling the lives and health of lepers (24:8), and participating directly in the conduct of covenant renewal ceremonies (27:9).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheHistoryoftheInstitution\">The History of the Institution<\/p>\n<p>In theory, the covenant law of Moses determined the nature and course of the offices of priests and Levites for the future history of Israel. In practice, however, changing historical circumstances and changes in the shape of Israel’s religion and culture altered the shape of the priesthood and the role of the Levites from time to time. And even more significantly, the persons who held the offices shaped them and their effectiveness through their faithfulness or unfaithfulness.<\/p>\n<h5>The Priesthood before the Monarchy<\/h5>\n<p>In the time of Joshua, the priests continued to undertake their important task of carrying the ark of the covenant. The Levites assisted in the division and allocation of the newly acquired land among the Israelite tribes. In Joshua 21, there is a detailed list of the allocation of cities to both priests and Levites, in fulfillment of the earlier legislation. In the days of the settlement, beyond the Conquest, there is some evidence that the Levites took over the priestly duty of transporting the ark (1 Sm 6:15; 2 Sm 15:24).<\/p>\n<p>The writer of the book of Judges has recorded two stories that illuminate the lives of particular Levites. The first, the story of Micah (Jgs 17–18), describes the establishment of a local shrine in which Micah’s son was appointed as a priest (though he was not of Levite or Aaronic descent). Later, Micah hired an itinerant Levite to function as a priest in his shrine, though subsequently that Levite was persuaded to serve the tribe of Dan as a priest. It is difficult to fit the details of this story into the theoretical model of priests and Levites, though the story may illustrate the confused state of Israel’s religion at the time. What is particularly significant is that the role of the Levite-priest was primarily oracular (18:5-6). The second story in Judges is the rather horrifying account of a Levite and his concubine (ch 19). The story illustrates the moral decline and lack of law and order in Israel at the time, but it sheds little light on the role of the Levites.<\/p>\n<p>More information is provided about the priesthood during the 11th century <span>BC<\/span>, immediately before the establishment of the monarchy. The tabernacle (by now probably a semipermanent structure) and the ark of the covenant were located in Shiloh. The priest in charge of the sanctuary in Shiloh was Eli, who may have been a descendant of Aaron’s son Ithamar. His two sons, Hophni and Phinehas, also served as priests, indicating that the principle of family descent was still operative with respect to the priesthood. But although Eli was a faithful priest, his two sons abused the office.<\/p>\n<p>The precise role of Samuel in this period is unclear. He was primarily a judge and a prophet, but it is difficult to determine whether he was also a priest. In the historical narrative, he is not called a priest, though Psalm 99:6 might be interpreted to indicate his priestly office. There are a number of passages, however, that indicate he acted like a priest. For example, he offered sacrifices (1 Sm 7:9-10); as a young man he served in the sanctuary of Shiloh and wore an ephod (ch 2). Furthermore, one of the biblical genealogies implies priestly descent (1 Chr 6:23-30). Nevertheless, he is not normally identified as a priest and the introduction to his story refers to him as an Ephraimite, by descent from his father (1 Sm 1:1), not a Levite. If the priest is perceived as a permanent servant of the sanctuary, as was Eli, then it is clear that Samuel was not a priest. But the priestly role of Samuel may perhaps be related to the fact that his mother “lent” him to God (v 28) while he was still a boy.<\/p>\n<h5>The Priesthood during the Time of David and Solomon<\/h5>\n<p>Several radical changes took place during the reign of David and Solomon. These were a result, primarily, of the establishment of a permanent temple in Jerusalem and the installation of the ark of the covenant there. During the time of Saul, the first king of Israel, the social structure was essentially the same as it had been in the time of the judges. Saul, as king, was a military leader, but his relationship to religion and the priesthood was not clearly determined.<\/p>\n<p>David changed the situation in many important respects. After his capture of the city of Jerusalem, he made that place the political and religious capital of his nation. The religious centrality of Jerusalem was assured by moving the ark of the covenant there, together with the tabernacle. Jerusalem now became the permanent location of the ark, and therefore the permanent center of religion; at the same time, the various regional shrines, which had developed in the premonarchical period, were gradually eliminated.<\/p>\n<p>These changes had numerous implications for the priesthood and the Levites. During David’s reign, there were two principal priests, Abiathar and Zadok. Abiathar, a former priest of Nob, had joined David before his rise to power; he appears to have been a descendant of Eli, and through him of Ithamar, one of Aaron’s sons. Zadok’s background is less clear, though his lineage appears to go back to Aaron’s other son, Eleazar. These two priests are always named together in the texts describing David’s reign, and Zadok is always mentioned before Abiathar. Although neither is explicitly identified as high priest in the ancient texts, there is some evidence to suggest that Abiathar functioned as high priest (1 Kgs 2:35); in NT times, he is identified as such (Mk 2:26). Zadok, during David’s reign, may have been particularly responsible for the care of the ark of the covenant (2 Sm 15:24-25). These two priests had a significant position in David’s royal establishment; they may also have shared overall responsibility for the priests, whose lives were now centered on the Jerusalem temple.<\/p>\n<p>Much of David’s time was focused upon the preparations for building a permanent temple for God. In the preparation for the temple, and in its completion during the reign of King Solomon, the new activities of the Levites may be seen. (The construction of a permanent temple automatically removed their former responsibilities related to the care and transportation of the tabernacle.) Large numbers of Levites were employed as laborers in the actual building of the temple. Others found new tasks in the worship of God in the tabernacle during David’s reign and in the temple upon its completion. To the Levites, and especially to Heman, Asaph, and Ethan, was given primary responsibility for the music of worship; this involved not only singing but also the playing of a variety of instruments in the temple’s orchestra or band. The Levites had also a variety of other tasks; they worked as gatekeepers at the sanctuary, assisted the priests in the preparation of sacrifices, kept the sanctuary clean, and functioned as general administrative and legal officers (1 Chr 23:1-32). Other Levites functioned as bankers, with primary responsibility for the temple treasuries (26:20-28).<\/p>\n<p>Following David’s death, there was a dispute over the royal succession, from which Solomon emerged as the new king. During his reign, the temple was brought to its completion and the regular worship of the nation was conducted there. In the matter of succession, however, Abiathar had supported a losing candidate, and when Solomon was made king, he lost his important office in the royal court. During Solomon’s reign, the control of the priesthood passed into the hands of Zadok.<\/p>\n<h5>The Priesthood during the Divided Monarchy<\/h5>\n<p>The great empire, which had been built by David and maintained by Solomon, collapsed after Solomon’s death. From the ruins, two new and relatively insignificant states emerged. The southern kingdom, Judah, retained Jerusalem as its capital and the temple as its center of worship. The northern kingdom, Israel, located its first capital at Shechem, from where it was later moved to Tirzah.<\/p>\n<p>In the southern state of Judah, the priests and Levites continued to function normally within the Jerusalem temple. The office of high priest continued to be passed on by descent within the family of Zadok, who had held office in Solomon’s reign. The continuity of office in this family was to be retained down into the time of the second temple, when the Zadokite succession was interrupted about 171 <span>BC<\/span>. Nevertheless, for all the continuity of religion in Jerusalem, all was not well with religion in Judah, neither during the reign of its first king, Rehoboam, nor during the reigns of his successors. During Rehoboam’s reign, there was a decline in religion and also in the priesthood, when popular forms of religion were introduced as a result of foreign influence (1 Kgs 14:22-24). The history of the southern kingdom was marked by periods of religious decline followed by reform, often as a result of the activities of the prophets. The role of the priesthood was all too rarely one of spiritual leadership, and the priests themselves were often the subject of criticism by the prophets (e.g., Jer 2:8, 26).<\/p>\n<p>The northern kingdom, whose first king was Jeroboam I, inevitably had to introduce some radical changes in religion. Jeroboam could not recognize the temple of Jerusalem, partly because it lay outside his state and partly because it was intimately associated with the royal line of David. Jeroboam established two principal shrines in his kingdom, both of which were to retain importance during the relatively short life of the northern kingdom (200 years). The first was at Bethel, in the southern part of his kingdom near the border of Judah (it was only about 12 miles, or 19.3 kilometers, north of Jerusalem). The second shrine, or sanctuary, was at Dan, in the far northern part of his kingdom.<\/p>\n<p>Both these sanctuaries had ancient associations with the Hebrew traditions. Bethel is referred to as early as the time of Abram (Gn 12:8), and the sanctuary at Dan is known from the history of the judges (Jgs 18). There may indeed have been priests and Levites still residing in these two places, descendants of the former servants of the sanctuaries. But Jeroboam established a non-Levitical priesthood to serve in these sanctuaries and in various smaller shrines or “high places,” thereby cutting off the religious tradition of the northern state even more radically from that of Judah. The royal sanctuary at Bethel, so close to the Jerusalem temple, may have been set up in deliberate competition with the Judean sanctuary.<\/p>\n<p>The history of the priesthood in the northern kingdom is no more impressive than that of Judah. Many of the prophets, including Amos, Hosea, and Jeremiah, condemned the northern sanctuaries and their priests. Hosea was forceful in his condemnation: “As marauders lie in ambush for a man, so do bands of priests; they murder on the road to Shechem, committing shameful crimes” (Hos 6:9, <span>niv<\/span>). Those to whom the spiritual lives of the chosen people had been entrusted only rarely lived up to their responsibilities.<\/p>\n<h5>Priests and Levites during and after the Exile<\/h5>\n<p>The northern kingdom came to its end in 722 <span>BC<\/span>, defeated by the armies of Assyria, but religious life continued in Judah for a while longer. Eventually, the end of the southern state came about 586 <span>BC<\/span>; the defeat of the state by the Babylonians was accompanied by the destruction of Jerusalem and its temple (Lam 2:20). The Babylonian commander took Seraiah, the high priest, and Zephaniah, his assistant, to Riblah, where, along with other officials, they were executed (2 Kgs 25:18-21). Then a policy of exile was established by the Babylonians; the most important and influential people of Judah were deported to Babylon, while the less significant were allowed to remain, for they were unlikely to cause trouble. Of those exiled from Judah, many may have been priests (Jer 29:1), for they were men of influence. By way of contrast, it seems likely that a much smaller number of Levites was exiled, reflecting perhaps their inferior social position.<\/p>\n<p>In the city of Jerusalem there was little normal religious life during the years of the exile; the altar had been destroyed and was not restored until after the exile. No doubt some kind of activity continued, but it was an impoverished form of religion. Most of the priests were in exile in Babylon, but they could not function, for there was no temple or sanctuary. Ezekiel implies that God himself was the only “sanctuary” for the exiles (Ez 11:16). Not until the return from exile and the restoration of Jerusalem and its temple could the normal functions of priests and Levites resume.<\/p>\n<p>When the Babylonian Empire was defeated, the new Persian conquerors instituted a policy whereby the Hebrew exiles could return to their homeland. Of those returning, 4,289 are designated as priests and members of priestly families, while only 341 were Levites (Ezr 2:36-42); the imbalance probably reflects the imbalance in the number of those exiled initially. Under Joshua (Jeshua), the priest, and Zerubbabel, work began on the restoration. The priests played a significant role in the first year of the return, in the restoration of the altar in Jerusalem, so that sacrifice and worship to God could resume. Once the altar had been restored, the work began on the temple itself in the second year of the return. In this work, both the priests and the Levites were involved, and the laying of new foundations for the temple began. When the foundation had been laid, both priests, in their vestments, and Levites, in their role as singers and musicians, participated in the ceremony of dedication (3:8-13). Again, when the temple had been rebuilt, both priests and Levites participated in the ceremony of dedication (6:16-18). The restoration, however, was concerned with more than buildings; it also involved a moral and religious component. Though priests and Levites helped in this task, they were also affected by it. Many, for example, had married foreign wives (9:1), and thus had to conform to Ezra’s reform laws.<\/p>\n<p>To some extent, the priests and Levites resumed their normal duties in the worship of the postexilic period. The priests were engaged in the conduct of the temple worship. The Levites assisted, as temple servants (Neh 11:3), as treasurers and collectors of tithes (10:37-39), and as instructors or teachers of the law of God (8:7-9). Nevertheless, the history of the priesthood after the exile is not free of blemish. Condemnation of the abuses of the priestly office was delivered by the prophet Malachi (Mal 1:6–2:9). Malachi catalogues a list of priestly evils reminiscent of the evil priests who lived during the time of the monarchy.<\/p>\n<p>The office of high priest continued after the exile among the descendants of Zadok, being held first by Joshua (Hg 1:1). The different political circumstances, however, changed the nature of the high priestly office. Whereas in the days of the monarchy the high priest was subservient to the king, there was no king, in the proper sense, after the exile. From a political perspective, the Jews were members of a province or colony; for practical purposes, they were a community based upon a common religion. The high priest was no longer subject to the secular authority of a Jewish king, but his religious authority was considerable, and in some ways his functions were similar to those of a king in preexilic times.<\/p>\n<h5>The Priesthood in the Maccabean Period<\/h5>\n<p>During the second century <span>BC<\/span>, some changes took place in the priesthood, particularly with respect to the office of high priest, which marked the end of the OT era and set the background for the NT period. Judea, in the second century, was ruled by the Seleucid kings, who had inherited a portion of the massive Greek Empire established by Alexander the Great. The Judean province was controlled internally under the high priesthood, whose authority was received from the Seleucid kings.<\/p>\n<p>For the first three decades of the second century <span>BC<\/span>, the high priesthood remained with the Zadokite line of descent. The high priests were members of the (Zadokite) Oniad family: first, Onias III (198–174 <span>BC<\/span>); then Jason, brother of Onias III (174–171 <span>BC<\/span>). It was in the period of Jason that there began a series of events that would terminate the Zadokite tradition.<\/p>\n<p>Onias III had opposed the Hellenization policy of Antiochus IV (Epiphanes), which threatened to undermine the Jewish faith. Antiochus replaced Onias by Jason, who in effect purchased the high priesthood from the Seleucid king. In purchasing the priestly office, Jason had set a dangerous precedent; although he was of Zadokite descent, his act implied that the office could be bought and that descent was not vital. The opponents of Jason, the Tobiads, were able to remove him from office and have their own candidate, Menelaus (who was not a Zadokite), appointed in his place. This act resulted in a civil war between those supporting Jason and those supporting Menelaus, and the war in turn culminated in ruthless repressive measures by Antiochus Epiphanes; there were massacres in Jerusalem, and the temple was desecrated (167 <span>BC<\/span>). The desecration of the temple led to the Maccabean revolt, as a result of which the Jews regained their independence for a short time. Menelaus retained the office of high priest until 161 <span>BC<\/span> and was succeeded by Alcimus (161–159 <span>BC<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>There then followed a period during which there was no high priest for seven years. The political climate, however, was such that it became unlikely that the Zadokite line would ever regain the high priesthood, which had been established in the time of King Solomon. The Maccabean Jonathan gained control of Jerusalem, and in 152 <span>BC<\/span>, with the approval of the Seleucid king, he was formally invested with the high priest’s robes of office. He was succeeded as high priest and ruler by his brother Simon in 143 <span>BC<\/span>, who also held the office with the approval of the Seleucids (Demetrius II). But in the third year of his reign (140 <span>BC<\/span>), the high priesthood of Simon received public approval in a great religious assembly, and the family of Simon became “high priest forever” (1 Macc 14:41-47). That event marked the real termination of the Zadokite tradition and the foundation of the Hasmonean line.<\/p>\n<p>The establishment of the high priestly office outside the Zadokite line did not go without challenge. It is probable that a sect within Judaism, now known as the Essenes, was born in reaction to the high priesthood of Simon. The Essenes (better known for the Dead Sea Scrolls) appear to have been founded by a Zadokite priest who rejected the authenticity and authority of Simon. Thus, in a limited sense, the Zadokite priests continued to survive.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"ThePriesthoodinNewTestamentTimes\">The Priesthood in New Testament Times<\/p>\n<p>In the early NT period, both priests and Levites continued to function within the Jewish religion. Zechariah, father of John the Baptist, was a priest belonging to the division of Abijah (Lk 1:5), and his wife was also of priestly descent. When Zechariah was visited by an angel, he was engaged at the time in priestly duties in the Jerusalem temple—various divisions of priests took responsibility for the temple services for a period of time and then returned to their homes (v 23), as another division took over. The distinction between priests and Levites is also maintained in the NT (Jn 1:19) and appears in Jesus’ parable concerning the Good Samaritan (Lk 10:31-32). Both priests and Levites were among the earliest converts to Christianity; Barnabas was a Levite from Cyprus (Acts 4:36), and several priests responded to the proclamation of the gospel (6:7).<\/p>\n<p>The office of high priest is frequently referred to in the NT. Several high priests are named, the plurality of current and former holders of the office reflecting the nature of the position as an essentially political appointment (as distinct from its oldest definition, that of an office passing from father to son on the death of the father). The two most significant high priests in the NT are those who held office during the lifetime of Jesus. Annas was high priest about <span>AD<\/span> 6 to 15, but even after he ceased to hold the office formally, he continued to exert considerable influence through his son-in-law, the high priest Caiaphas (c. <span>AD<\/span> 18–36). Both were significant figures in the trial of Jesus. At a later date, Ananias, son of Nedebaeus, was high priest (c. <span>AD<\/span> 47–58) and president of the Sanhedrin during the time in which Paul was brought to trial.<\/p>\n<p>The priesthood held considerable authority in NT times. Most internal and religious matters in the Roman province of Judea were within the authority of the Sanhedrin, which functioned as a kind of provincial government, though its powers were limited in certain matters by Rome. Its membership included the ruling and former high priests and a large number of Sadducees, many of whom belonged to influential priestly families. This priestly influence in the Sanhedrin was indicative of the important role of the temple in Jewish life during the first century <span>AD<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p>In <span>AD<\/span> 70, following the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem, a radical change came about in the significance of the priesthood in Judaism. The end of the temple removed in effect the purpose for the existence of the priesthood. Although the priesthood continued after a fashion until the Bar-Kochba rebellion in <span>AD<\/span> 135, its days were numbered after <span>AD<\/span> 70. Since the end of the first century <span>AD<\/span>, Judaism has developed without priests, and its course down to the present century has been charted by the rabbis, the spiritual descendants of the Pharisees.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Priesthood.<\/p>","summary_ro":"PRIESTS AND LEVITES Servants of God in the OT. There were three basic classes of religious personnel in ancient Israel: prophets, wise men, and priests and Levites. The classical prophets fulfilled a vocation but were not professionals; they were not paid for their task and functioned only in response to the particular call of God. The wise men were involved in government and education; some of their duties were secular, though they were also involved in moral education. The priests and Levit...","summary_en":"PRIESTS AND LEVITES Servants of God in the OT. There were three basic classes of religious personnel in ancient Israel: prophets, wise men, and priests and Levites. The classical prophets fulfilled a vocation but were not professionals; they were not paid for their task and functioned only in response to the particular call of God. The wise men were involved in government and education; some of their duties were secular, though they were also involved in moral education. The priests and Levit...","source":"Articles\/P.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":36840,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Teacher","title_en":"Teacher","content_ro":"<h3>TEACHER<\/h3>\n<p>Teachers conserved the values and academia of a nation and passed them on to each new generation. In OT times the first teachers were often parents (Dt 6:7, 20-25; 11:19-21). Leaders like Moses and Aaron were charged with teaching the people (Lv 10:11), and later the priests and Levites had a teaching function (Dt 24:8; 33:8-10; 2 Chr 17:7-9; Ez 44:23; Mi 3:11). God himself was thought of as a teacher (Pss 25:8, 12; 27:11; 32:8; 86:11; Is 2:3).<\/p>\n<p>In the NT the Greek noun for “teacher” and the verb “to teach” are widely used. John the Baptist was called a teacher (Lk 3:12). The term is used more than 30 times of Jesus (Mt 4:23; 5:2; 7:29; 9:35; 11:1; Mk 1:21; 2:13; 4:1-2; 6:2, 6, 34; Lk 4:15, 31; 5:3; 6:6; Jn 6:59; 7:14, 28; etc.). People recognized his teaching as authoritative (Mt 7:29; Mk 1:22; Lk 4:32). Even as a boy of 12 he conversed in a profound way with the teachers of the law in the temple (Lk 2:46). These men were often associated with the Pharisees (5:17). Gamaliel was a Pharisee and a teacher of the law (Acts 5:34). The term “rabbi” was often used to denote teacher. The rabbi was held in great honor. In the early church the teacher was widely recognized (Acts 13:1; 1 Cor 12:28-29; Eph 4:11; 2 Tm 1:11; Jas 3:1).<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>TEACHER<\/h3>\n<p>Teachers conserved the values and academia of a nation and passed them on to each new generation. In OT times the first teachers were often parents (Dt 6:7, 20-25; 11:19-21). Leaders like Moses and Aaron were charged with teaching the people (Lv 10:11), and later the priests and Levites had a teaching function (Dt 24:8; 33:8-10; 2 Chr 17:7-9; Ez 44:23; Mi 3:11). God himself was thought of as a teacher (Pss 25:8, 12; 27:11; 32:8; 86:11; Is 2:3).<\/p>\n<p>In the NT the Greek noun for “teacher” and the verb “to teach” are widely used. John the Baptist was called a teacher (Lk 3:12). The term is used more than 30 times of Jesus (Mt 4:23; 5:2; 7:29; 9:35; 11:1; Mk 1:21; 2:13; 4:1-2; 6:2, 6, 34; Lk 4:15, 31; 5:3; 6:6; Jn 6:59; 7:14, 28; etc.). People recognized his teaching as authoritative (Mt 7:29; Mk 1:22; Lk 4:32). Even as a boy of 12 he conversed in a profound way with the teachers of the law in the temple (Lk 2:46). These men were often associated with the Pharisees (5:17). Gamaliel was a Pharisee and a teacher of the law (Acts 5:34). The term “rabbi” was often used to denote teacher. The rabbi was held in great honor. In the early church the teacher was widely recognized (Acts 13:1; 1 Cor 12:28-29; Eph 4:11; 2 Tm 1:11; Jas 3:1).<\/p>","summary_ro":"TEACHER Teachers conserved the values and academia of a nation and passed them on to each new generation. In OT times the first teachers were often parents (Dt 6:7, 20-25; 11:19-21). Leaders like Moses and Aaron were charged with teaching the people (Lv 10:11), and later the priests and Levites had a teaching function (Dt 24:8; 33:8-10; 2 Chr 17:7-9; Ez 44:23; Mi 3:11). God himself was thought of as a teacher (Pss 25:8, 12; 27:11; 32:8; 86:11; Is 2:3). In the NT the Greek noun for “teacher” a...","summary_en":"TEACHER Teachers conserved the values and academia of a nation and passed them on to each new generation. In OT times the first teachers were often parents (Dt 6:7, 20-25; 11:19-21). Leaders like Moses and Aaron were charged with teaching the people (Lv 10:11), and later the priests and Levites had a teaching function (Dt 24:8; 33:8-10; 2 Chr 17:7-9; Ez 44:23; Mi 3:11). God himself was thought of as a teacher (Pss 25:8, 12; 27:11; 32:8; 86:11; Is 2:3). In the NT the Greek noun for “teacher” a...","source":"Articles\/T.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":45142,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Deuteronomul 24:8","title_en":"Study Note: Deuteronomul 24:8","content_ro":"<p><strong>24:8<\/strong> <em>serious skin diseases:<\/em> Medical science has determined that this does not refer to leprosy (i.e., Hansen’s disease) per se.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>24:8<\/strong> <em>serious skin diseases:<\/em> Medical science has determined that this does not refer to leprosy (i.e., Hansen’s disease) per se.<\/p>","summary_ro":"24:8 serious skin diseases: Medical science has determined that this does not refer to leprosy (i.e., Hansen’s disease) per se.","summary_en":"24:8 serious skin diseases: Medical science has determined that this does not refer to leprosy (i.e., Hansen’s disease) per se.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":72768,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Deuteronomul 24:8","title_en":"Study Note: Deuteronomul 24:8","content_ro":"<p><strong>24:8<\/strong> <em>serious skin diseases:<\/em> Medical science has determined that this does not refer to leprosy (i.e., Hansen’s disease) per se.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>24:8<\/strong> <em>serious skin diseases:<\/em> Medical science has determined that this does not refer to leprosy (i.e., Hansen’s disease) per se.<\/p>","summary_ro":"24:8 serious skin diseases: Medical science has determined that this does not refer to leprosy (i.e., Hansen’s disease) per se.","summary_en":"24:8 serious skin diseases: Medical science has determined that this does not refer to leprosy (i.e., Hansen’s disease) per se.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":100394,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Deuteronomul 24:8","title_en":"Study Note: Deuteronomul 24:8","content_ro":"<p><strong>24:8<\/strong> <em>serious skin diseases:<\/em> Medical science has determined that this does not refer to leprosy (i.e., Hansen’s disease) per se.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>24:8<\/strong> <em>serious skin diseases:<\/em> Medical science has determined that this does not refer to leprosy (i.e., Hansen’s disease) per se.<\/p>","summary_ro":"24:8 serious skin diseases: Medical science has determined that this does not refer to leprosy (i.e., Hansen’s disease) per se.","summary_en":"24:8 serious skin diseases: Medical science has determined that this does not refer to leprosy (i.e., Hansen’s disease) per se.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":128020,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Deuteronomul 24:8","title_en":"Study Note: Deuteronomul 24:8","content_ro":"<p><strong>24:8<\/strong> <em>serious skin diseases:<\/em> Medical science has determined that this does not refer to leprosy (i.e., Hansen’s disease) per se.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>24:8<\/strong> <em>serious skin diseases:<\/em> Medical science has determined that this does not refer to leprosy (i.e., Hansen’s disease) per se.<\/p>","summary_ro":"24:8 serious skin diseases: Medical science has determined that this does not refer to leprosy (i.e., Hansen’s disease) per se.","summary_en":"24:8 serious skin diseases: Medical science has determined that this does not refer to leprosy (i.e., Hansen’s disease) per se.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"10":[{"id":9165,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Debt","title_en":"Debt","content_ro":"<h3>DEBT<\/h3>\n<p>Something owed to another person, such as goods, property, or money. In the Bible, righteous conduct is something one “owes” to God; hence, in theology, sin is described figuratively as being “in debt.”<\/p>\n<p>In Hebrew culture, debt was usually connected with usury (the business of lending money on interest). The Hebrew verbs describing usury picture a painful situation. One word for usury means “to bite,” a vivid image for the way high interest “ate up” any kind of business transaction so that borrowers never received the full value of the money. People could be ruined financially by heartless exaction of interest (2 Kgs 4:1-7). Another verb is usually translated as “increase” or “profit” (Lv 25:37), since lenders profited from others’ labor. Ancient Near Eastern interest rates on produce and goods might be as much as 30 percent of the loan per year; on money, as much as 20 percent. Clay tablets from Nuzi, an ancient town in northeastern Mesopotamia, indicate interest rates of even 50 percent.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheLawofMoses\">The Law of Moses<\/p>\n<p>The Mosaic covenant given to Israel immediately after the exodus sought to eliminate extortionist practices from Hebrew life. Thus God’s revelation had many rules and restrictions relating to debt and credit in Israel.<\/p>\n<h5>Protection for the Poor<\/h5>\n<p>Portions of the legislative sections of the Pentateuch (the first five books of the Bible) regulated the practice of lending in a way that protected the poor and secured each person’s right to earn a living and support a family. Many popular Hebrew proverbs dealt with that theme. The positive thrust of the biblical laws was to ensure help for the financially needy, without interest. No personal profit was to be made at the expense of the poor (Ex 22:25; Dt 23:19-20); God was their special advocate. Thus, by lending without interest, the Israelites could demonstrate their reverence for God (Lv 25:35-37).<\/p>\n<p>That point was reemphasized 40 years later when Moses renewed the covenant with Israel just before their entrance into the Promised Land. God was the landlord, and his tenants were to respect his word. God promised the Israelites that if they would lend so as to alleviate human misery, they would be unusually blessed by the Lord (Dt 15:6; 23:19-20; 28:12). Interest could be charged to a foreigner not living under the Mosaic law, which was a condition parallel to commercial treaties prevalent in the ancient Near East.<\/p>\n<p>In ancient Israel, financial ruin was frequently brought about by poor harvests. Often they were taken as an indication that the relationship between God and his people was not right (Lv 26:14, 20). The wealthy were expected to help, not to add more burdens to those who suffered from poor harvests.<\/p>\n<h5>Violation of the Law<\/h5>\n<p>The law was so often violated that eventually exorbitant interest became a social plague, making the situation of debtors hopeless. Many of the fighting men who rallied around David early in his military career were “outlaws” unable to repay their loans and interest (1 Sm 22:2). The prophet Ezekiel called people to task for their failure to observe God’s commands about usury (Ez 18:5-18; 22:12). When Nehemiah returned from the exile to rebuild the walls of Jerusalem, he brought charges against the government officials whose interest rates had enslaved the people (Neh 5:6-13).<\/p>\n<p>The Wisdom Literature, which included Job, Proverbs, and Ecclesiastes, added that those who acquired riches by usury would not profit in the long run, because God would give their profits to others who looked after the welfare of the poor (e.g., Prv 28:8). The prophet Amos gave a similar warning to corrupt merchants in Israel: “Because you trample upon the poor and take from him exactions of wheat, . . . you have planted pleasant vineyards, but you shall not drink their wine” (Am 5:11, <span>rsv<\/span>). In spite of such warnings, the law was often ignored, and burdensome interest charges were laid on borrowers who were already poor.<\/p>\n<h5>Pledges and Surety<\/h5>\n<p>When it was necessary to borrow, the law provided alternatives to the unfair practice of usury. When taking out a loan, a borrower would surrender some movable property as collateral to ensure repayment. That “pledge” represented a tangible sign of the debtor’s intention to repay the loan. Certain restrictions applied to such pledges. For example, a creditor could not take a widow’s clothes (Dt 24:17). Tools (such as millstones) or animals (such as oxen) necessary for daily life were forbidden as pledges (v 6). Clothing absolutely essential to the borrower (e.g., to keep warm) could be temporarily offered as a pledge, but the temporary token had to be returned before nightfall (Ex 22:26-27; Dt 24:10-13).<\/p>\n<p>In drastic circumstances, where there was no collateral, a debtor could pledge a son, daughter, or slave. The value of the child’s or slave’s labor could then be credited against both interest and principal. An account in the Bible of a widow’s two sons about to go into slavery shows how cruel the custom could be (2 Kgs 4:1-7). Pledging labor or their children’s labor was the only way slaves could pay off a debt when they had to borrow.<\/p>\n<p>A borrower could also have a wealthy friend assume responsibility as a cosigner on a loan and thus become the pledge, or surety. The book of Proverbs cautioned against standing surety for others, however, especially for strangers (Prv 6:1-3; 11:15; 17:18; 22:26; 27:13).<\/p>\n<h5>Sabbatical and Jubilee Years<\/h5>\n<p>Two legal provisions to curb the enslavement of people by long-standing debts were the sabbatical year and the jubilee year. The sabbatical year, or “year of release,” took place every seventh year. At that time debts were canceled and slates wiped clean (Dt 15:1-12; cf. Ex 21:2; 23:10-11; Lv 25:2-7). The law clearly forbade lenders to withhold loans to those in desperate need during a sixth year. Jewish tradition held strict injunctions against a lender trying to collect on a loan that should have been forgiven in the sabbatical year.<\/p>\n<p>Every 50 years Israel had its Year of Jubilee. In that year land reverted to its original owner if it had not already been redeemed by some relative. That provision prevented the buildup of landed estates by the wealthy few while the many poor suffered in slavery (Lv 25:13-17). Although the Mosaic law could not guarantee economic utopia, it sought to curb the greediness in human nature. It also aimed at providing everyone with an equal opportunity and a fresh start every 50 years.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"DebtintheNewTestament\">Debt in the New Testament<\/p>\n<p>The NT shows how various cultures handled the matter of loans and debts. There were Jewish people who adhered strictly to the Mosaic law and refused to charge their fellow Jews high interest. Hellenistic and Roman legal practices, however, penetrated parts of Jewish society.<\/p>\n<h5>Jesus’ Parables<\/h5>\n<p>Jesus alluded to non-Jewish economic practices in his parable of a servant who jailed a fellow slave for not repaying a loan (Mt 18:23-35). The parable illustrates the ordinary Hellenistic and Roman custom of jailing or restraining such a person as surety. That practice forced a debtor to sell his property, to ask family and friends to cover the loss, or to sell himself into slavery. The parable of the talents (25:14-28) and the parable of the pounds (Lk 19:12-24), speaking allegorically about the kingdom of God, mention earning interest on money invested with bankers.<\/p>\n<h5>Economic and Theological Instruction<\/h5>\n<p>The apostle Paul instructed Christians to “owe nothing to anyone” (Rom 13:8), which means at the very least that Christians should make good on loans promptly. On the other hand, a Christian’s economic activity should be characterized by kindness toward those in need, generosity, and willingness to help (Mt 5:42; Lk 6:35).<\/p>\n<p>The NT also presents a number of lessons in doctrine based on a figurative use of “debts” and “debtors.” Jesus once referred to sinners (Lk 13:2) with a word literally meaning “debtors” (v 4). In the Lord’s Prayer “debts” is paralleled with “sins” (Mt 6:12; Lk 11:4).<\/p>\n<p>Sin is seen as an enslavement (Jn 8:34), and all men and women as debtors to God. Redemption can be made only by God, who “gave his only Son” to set people free (3:16-18). The writer to the Hebrews showed that Jesus was made the surety of the new covenant (Heb 7:22).<\/p>\n<p>The apostle Paul felt indebted to all people because of his own salvation, a debt he could pay by preaching the gospel (Rom 1:14-15). The NT teaches that all who receive the gospel are likewise in debt and therefore should devote themselves to serving others as a way of serving God (cf. 15:26-27).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Banker, Banking; Money.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>DEBT<\/h3>\n<p>Something owed to another person, such as goods, property, or money. In the Bible, righteous conduct is something one “owes” to God; hence, in theology, sin is described figuratively as being “in debt.”<\/p>\n<p>In Hebrew culture, debt was usually connected with usury (the business of lending money on interest). The Hebrew verbs describing usury picture a painful situation. One word for usury means “to bite,” a vivid image for the way high interest “ate up” any kind of business transaction so that borrowers never received the full value of the money. People could be ruined financially by heartless exaction of interest (2 Kgs 4:1-7). Another verb is usually translated as “increase” or “profit” (Lv 25:37), since lenders profited from others’ labor. Ancient Near Eastern interest rates on produce and goods might be as much as 30 percent of the loan per year; on money, as much as 20 percent. Clay tablets from Nuzi, an ancient town in northeastern Mesopotamia, indicate interest rates of even 50 percent.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheLawofMoses\">The Law of Moses<\/p>\n<p>The Mosaic covenant given to Israel immediately after the exodus sought to eliminate extortionist practices from Hebrew life. Thus God’s revelation had many rules and restrictions relating to debt and credit in Israel.<\/p>\n<h5>Protection for the Poor<\/h5>\n<p>Portions of the legislative sections of the Pentateuch (the first five books of the Bible) regulated the practice of lending in a way that protected the poor and secured each person’s right to earn a living and support a family. Many popular Hebrew proverbs dealt with that theme. The positive thrust of the biblical laws was to ensure help for the financially needy, without interest. No personal profit was to be made at the expense of the poor (Ex 22:25; Dt 23:19-20); God was their special advocate. Thus, by lending without interest, the Israelites could demonstrate their reverence for God (Lv 25:35-37).<\/p>\n<p>That point was reemphasized 40 years later when Moses renewed the covenant with Israel just before their entrance into the Promised Land. God was the landlord, and his tenants were to respect his word. God promised the Israelites that if they would lend so as to alleviate human misery, they would be unusually blessed by the Lord (Dt 15:6; 23:19-20; 28:12). Interest could be charged to a foreigner not living under the Mosaic law, which was a condition parallel to commercial treaties prevalent in the ancient Near East.<\/p>\n<p>In ancient Israel, financial ruin was frequently brought about by poor harvests. Often they were taken as an indication that the relationship between God and his people was not right (Lv 26:14, 20). The wealthy were expected to help, not to add more burdens to those who suffered from poor harvests.<\/p>\n<h5>Violation of the Law<\/h5>\n<p>The law was so often violated that eventually exorbitant interest became a social plague, making the situation of debtors hopeless. Many of the fighting men who rallied around David early in his military career were “outlaws” unable to repay their loans and interest (1 Sm 22:2). The prophet Ezekiel called people to task for their failure to observe God’s commands about usury (Ez 18:5-18; 22:12). When Nehemiah returned from the exile to rebuild the walls of Jerusalem, he brought charges against the government officials whose interest rates had enslaved the people (Neh 5:6-13).<\/p>\n<p>The Wisdom Literature, which included Job, Proverbs, and Ecclesiastes, added that those who acquired riches by usury would not profit in the long run, because God would give their profits to others who looked after the welfare of the poor (e.g., Prv 28:8). The prophet Amos gave a similar warning to corrupt merchants in Israel: “Because you trample upon the poor and take from him exactions of wheat, . . . you have planted pleasant vineyards, but you shall not drink their wine” (Am 5:11, <span>rsv<\/span>). In spite of such warnings, the law was often ignored, and burdensome interest charges were laid on borrowers who were already poor.<\/p>\n<h5>Pledges and Surety<\/h5>\n<p>When it was necessary to borrow, the law provided alternatives to the unfair practice of usury. When taking out a loan, a borrower would surrender some movable property as collateral to ensure repayment. That “pledge” represented a tangible sign of the debtor’s intention to repay the loan. Certain restrictions applied to such pledges. For example, a creditor could not take a widow’s clothes (Dt 24:17). Tools (such as millstones) or animals (such as oxen) necessary for daily life were forbidden as pledges (v 6). Clothing absolutely essential to the borrower (e.g., to keep warm) could be temporarily offered as a pledge, but the temporary token had to be returned before nightfall (Ex 22:26-27; Dt 24:10-13).<\/p>\n<p>In drastic circumstances, where there was no collateral, a debtor could pledge a son, daughter, or slave. The value of the child’s or slave’s labor could then be credited against both interest and principal. An account in the Bible of a widow’s two sons about to go into slavery shows how cruel the custom could be (2 Kgs 4:1-7). Pledging labor or their children’s labor was the only way slaves could pay off a debt when they had to borrow.<\/p>\n<p>A borrower could also have a wealthy friend assume responsibility as a cosigner on a loan and thus become the pledge, or surety. The book of Proverbs cautioned against standing surety for others, however, especially for strangers (Prv 6:1-3; 11:15; 17:18; 22:26; 27:13).<\/p>\n<h5>Sabbatical and Jubilee Years<\/h5>\n<p>Two legal provisions to curb the enslavement of people by long-standing debts were the sabbatical year and the jubilee year. The sabbatical year, or “year of release,” took place every seventh year. At that time debts were canceled and slates wiped clean (Dt 15:1-12; cf. Ex 21:2; 23:10-11; Lv 25:2-7). The law clearly forbade lenders to withhold loans to those in desperate need during a sixth year. Jewish tradition held strict injunctions against a lender trying to collect on a loan that should have been forgiven in the sabbatical year.<\/p>\n<p>Every 50 years Israel had its Year of Jubilee. In that year land reverted to its original owner if it had not already been redeemed by some relative. That provision prevented the buildup of landed estates by the wealthy few while the many poor suffered in slavery (Lv 25:13-17). Although the Mosaic law could not guarantee economic utopia, it sought to curb the greediness in human nature. It also aimed at providing everyone with an equal opportunity and a fresh start every 50 years.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"DebtintheNewTestament\">Debt in the New Testament<\/p>\n<p>The NT shows how various cultures handled the matter of loans and debts. There were Jewish people who adhered strictly to the Mosaic law and refused to charge their fellow Jews high interest. Hellenistic and Roman legal practices, however, penetrated parts of Jewish society.<\/p>\n<h5>Jesus’ Parables<\/h5>\n<p>Jesus alluded to non-Jewish economic practices in his parable of a servant who jailed a fellow slave for not repaying a loan (Mt 18:23-35). The parable illustrates the ordinary Hellenistic and Roman custom of jailing or restraining such a person as surety. That practice forced a debtor to sell his property, to ask family and friends to cover the loss, or to sell himself into slavery. The parable of the talents (25:14-28) and the parable of the pounds (Lk 19:12-24), speaking allegorically about the kingdom of God, mention earning interest on money invested with bankers.<\/p>\n<h5>Economic and Theological Instruction<\/h5>\n<p>The apostle Paul instructed Christians to “owe nothing to anyone” (Rom 13:8), which means at the very least that Christians should make good on loans promptly. On the other hand, a Christian’s economic activity should be characterized by kindness toward those in need, generosity, and willingness to help (Mt 5:42; Lk 6:35).<\/p>\n<p>The NT also presents a number of lessons in doctrine based on a figurative use of “debts” and “debtors.” Jesus once referred to sinners (Lk 13:2) with a word literally meaning “debtors” (v 4). In the Lord’s Prayer “debts” is paralleled with “sins” (Mt 6:12; Lk 11:4).<\/p>\n<p>Sin is seen as an enslavement (Jn 8:34), and all men and women as debtors to God. Redemption can be made only by God, who “gave his only Son” to set people free (3:16-18). The writer to the Hebrews showed that Jesus was made the surety of the new covenant (Heb 7:22).<\/p>\n<p>The apostle Paul felt indebted to all people because of his own salvation, a debt he could pay by preaching the gospel (Rom 1:14-15). The NT teaches that all who receive the gospel are likewise in debt and therefore should devote themselves to serving others as a way of serving God (cf. 15:26-27).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Banker, Banking; Money.<\/p>","summary_ro":"DEBT Something owed to another person, such as goods, property, or money. In the Bible, righteous conduct is something one “owes” to God; hence, in theology, sin is described figuratively as being “in debt.” In Hebrew culture, debt was usually connected with usury (the business of lending money on interest). The Hebrew verbs describing usury picture a painful situation. One word for usury means “to bite,” a vivid image for the way high interest “ate up” any kind of business transaction so tha...","summary_en":"DEBT Something owed to another person, such as goods, property, or money. In the Bible, righteous conduct is something one “owes” to God; hence, in theology, sin is described figuratively as being “in debt.” In Hebrew culture, debt was usually connected with usury (the business of lending money on interest). The Hebrew verbs describing usury picture a painful situation. One word for usury means “to bite,” a vivid image for the way high interest “ate up” any kind of business transaction so tha...","source":"Articles\/D.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":27270,"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":30864,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"the Poor","title_en":"the Poor","content_ro":"<h3>POOR, T<span>he<\/span><\/h3>\n<p>Those lacking material wealth.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"PovertyasaBadThing\">Poverty as a Bad Thing<\/p>\n<p>At times the Bible gives a very simple explanation of why people are rich or poor. If a person delights in the law of the Lord, he or she will get wealth and riches. Such people will prosper in everything they do (Pss 1:3; 112:3). With regard to Israel in OT days, these ideas are not quite so naive as they might seem. There was indeed a connection between sin and poverty. Israelite society was built on rules laid down by God, so if there was poverty, that must mean that somewhere the rules were being broken.<\/p>\n<p>Whether a person’s poverty was due to his or her own sin or to someone else’s, the OT saw it as an evil to be combated, and the law made many provisions for the relief of it (e.g., Ex 22:21-27; Lv 19:9-10; Dt 15:1-15; 24:10-22). God cared for the needy and expected his people to do the same.<\/p>\n<p>During the period between the testaments, that care continued to be exercised within Jewish communities scattered around the Mediterranean, and it was in due course taken up as a practical responsibility by the Christian church (Acts 11:29; 24:17; Rom 15:26; 1 Cor 16:1; Gal 2:10; Jas 2:15-16; 1 Jn 3:17); for Christians also, the giving of alms was a duty plainly expected by their Lord (Mt 6:2-4; Lk 12:33). It was not really a primitive communism that the early church practiced, for had they renounced personal possessions, they could not have done what they in fact did—namely, to <em>give<\/em> in cash or in kind “as any had need” (Acts 2:45; 4:35).<\/p>\n<p>Poverty, then, although it provides the wealthy with a chance to show the virtue of generosity, is in itself (in the NT as in the OT) a bad thing.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"PovertyasaGoodThing\">Poverty as a Good Thing<\/p>\n<p>As we can see, there is a certain sense in which righteousness will make people prosperous and sin will make them poor. But ordinary life is more complicated than that. Psalms 1 and 112, referred to above, show only one side of the matter. What about the prosperity of the wicked (Ps 73:3) and its corollary, the person who is righteous yet poor? The answer of Scripture (e.g., Jb 21; Pss 37, 49, 73) is that the wealth of bad people is a fleeting thing and that the righteous, though poor in worldly goods, have spiritual riches.<\/p>\n<p>This thought—that far from being prosperous, the good person may often be poor—is sometimes curiously inverted. The righteous may be poor, but Scripture sometimes appears to reckon that to be poor is to be righteous. Of course, it is not automatically so (Prv 30:8-9), but such references are frequent enough, especially in the Psalms (e.g., Pss 9:18; 10:14; 12:5; 34:6; 35:10; 74:19), to deserve careful consideration. And on reflection, they are not so strange. As God is specially concerned about the poor, so the poor may be specially concerned about God, for two good reasons. First, if there was poverty in Israel, it was because those with power were misusing it; therefore, the poor would claim God’s help first because it is his rule that was being flouted, and he must vindicate himself. And second, poverty turns people to God because in those circumstances there is no one else to turn to. In this way “poor” becomes almost a technical term. “The poor” are the humble, and the humble are the godly (Pss 10:17; 14:5-6; 37:11; Zep 3:12-13). Just as being rich can foster self-indulgence, self-confidence, pride, and the despising and oppression of one’s fellow human beings, so being poor should encourage the opposite virtues.<\/p>\n<p>Instead of being an evil to be shunned, poverty thus becomes an ideal to be sought. Following the OT use of “the poor” and “the pious” as almost interchangeable terms, personal property was renounced by many Jews during the period between the testaments. Among them were the sect of the Essenes and the related community that was set up at Qumran near the Dead Sea. The latter actually called themselves “The Poor.” This tradition continued into NT times. Possibly “the poor” at Jerusalem means a definite group within the church there (or even the Jerusalem church as a whole; Rom 15:26; Gal 2:10). Certainly there emerged later a Jewish-Christian sect called the “Ebionites” (from a Hebrew word for “poor”).<\/p>\n<p>The NT teaches clearly, of course, that what really matters is the attitude of the heart. It is quite possible to be poor yet grasping, or rich yet generous. Even so, with the OT background outlined above, the general sense of these words in the Gospels is that rich = bad, poor = good. On the one hand, the Sadducees are rich in worldly wealth and the Pharisees in spiritual pride, and men of property are selfish, foolish, and in grave spiritual peril (Mk 10:23; Lk 12:13-21; 16:19-31). On the other hand, it is devout and simple folk, like Jesus’s own family and friends, who generally represent the poor.<\/p>\n<p>In truth, therefore, the two versions of the first beatitude (Matthew’s and Luke’s) amount to the same thing. Matthew’s has the depth: “Blessed are the poor in spirit” (Mt 5:3). But Luke’s has the breadth. When he says simply “Blessed are you poor” (Lk 6:20), he means those who in their need—in <em>any<\/em> kind of need—turn to the Lord. It was to bring the gospel to such people that Christ came into the world (Mt 11:5; Lk 4:18). Jesus Christ himself embodies the same ideal. As Paul put it, “Though he was very rich, yet for your sakes he became poor, so that by his poverty he could make you rich” (2 Cor 8:9, <span>nlt<\/span>). Our helpless poverty is an evil from which he comes to rescue us; his deliberately chosen poverty is the glorious means by which he does so.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Alms; Riches; Righteousness; Wages; Wealth.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>POOR, T<span>he<\/span><\/h3>\n<p>Those lacking material wealth.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"PovertyasaBadThing\">Poverty as a Bad Thing<\/p>\n<p>At times the Bible gives a very simple explanation of why people are rich or poor. If a person delights in the law of the Lord, he or she will get wealth and riches. Such people will prosper in everything they do (Pss 1:3; 112:3). With regard to Israel in OT days, these ideas are not quite so naive as they might seem. There was indeed a connection between sin and poverty. Israelite society was built on rules laid down by God, so if there was poverty, that must mean that somewhere the rules were being broken.<\/p>\n<p>Whether a person’s poverty was due to his or her own sin or to someone else’s, the OT saw it as an evil to be combated, and the law made many provisions for the relief of it (e.g., Ex 22:21-27; Lv 19:9-10; Dt 15:1-15; 24:10-22). God cared for the needy and expected his people to do the same.<\/p>\n<p>During the period between the testaments, that care continued to be exercised within Jewish communities scattered around the Mediterranean, and it was in due course taken up as a practical responsibility by the Christian church (Acts 11:29; 24:17; Rom 15:26; 1 Cor 16:1; Gal 2:10; Jas 2:15-16; 1 Jn 3:17); for Christians also, the giving of alms was a duty plainly expected by their Lord (Mt 6:2-4; Lk 12:33). It was not really a primitive communism that the early church practiced, for had they renounced personal possessions, they could not have done what they in fact did—namely, to <em>give<\/em> in cash or in kind “as any had need” (Acts 2:45; 4:35).<\/p>\n<p>Poverty, then, although it provides the wealthy with a chance to show the virtue of generosity, is in itself (in the NT as in the OT) a bad thing.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"PovertyasaGoodThing\">Poverty as a Good Thing<\/p>\n<p>As we can see, there is a certain sense in which righteousness will make people prosperous and sin will make them poor. But ordinary life is more complicated than that. Psalms 1 and 112, referred to above, show only one side of the matter. What about the prosperity of the wicked (Ps 73:3) and its corollary, the person who is righteous yet poor? The answer of Scripture (e.g., Jb 21; Pss 37, 49, 73) is that the wealth of bad people is a fleeting thing and that the righteous, though poor in worldly goods, have spiritual riches.<\/p>\n<p>This thought—that far from being prosperous, the good person may often be poor—is sometimes curiously inverted. The righteous may be poor, but Scripture sometimes appears to reckon that to be poor is to be righteous. Of course, it is not automatically so (Prv 30:8-9), but such references are frequent enough, especially in the Psalms (e.g., Pss 9:18; 10:14; 12:5; 34:6; 35:10; 74:19), to deserve careful consideration. And on reflection, they are not so strange. As God is specially concerned about the poor, so the poor may be specially concerned about God, for two good reasons. First, if there was poverty in Israel, it was because those with power were misusing it; therefore, the poor would claim God’s help first because it is his rule that was being flouted, and he must vindicate himself. And second, poverty turns people to God because in those circumstances there is no one else to turn to. In this way “poor” becomes almost a technical term. “The poor” are the humble, and the humble are the godly (Pss 10:17; 14:5-6; 37:11; Zep 3:12-13). Just as being rich can foster self-indulgence, self-confidence, pride, and the despising and oppression of one’s fellow human beings, so being poor should encourage the opposite virtues.<\/p>\n<p>Instead of being an evil to be shunned, poverty thus becomes an ideal to be sought. Following the OT use of “the poor” and “the pious” as almost interchangeable terms, personal property was renounced by many Jews during the period between the testaments. Among them were the sect of the Essenes and the related community that was set up at Qumran near the Dead Sea. The latter actually called themselves “The Poor.” This tradition continued into NT times. Possibly “the poor” at Jerusalem means a definite group within the church there (or even the Jerusalem church as a whole; Rom 15:26; Gal 2:10). Certainly there emerged later a Jewish-Christian sect called the “Ebionites” (from a Hebrew word for “poor”).<\/p>\n<p>The NT teaches clearly, of course, that what really matters is the attitude of the heart. It is quite possible to be poor yet grasping, or rich yet generous. Even so, with the OT background outlined above, the general sense of these words in the Gospels is that rich = bad, poor = good. On the one hand, the Sadducees are rich in worldly wealth and the Pharisees in spiritual pride, and men of property are selfish, foolish, and in grave spiritual peril (Mk 10:23; Lk 12:13-21; 16:19-31). On the other hand, it is devout and simple folk, like Jesus’s own family and friends, who generally represent the poor.<\/p>\n<p>In truth, therefore, the two versions of the first beatitude (Matthew’s and Luke’s) amount to the same thing. Matthew’s has the depth: “Blessed are the poor in spirit” (Mt 5:3). But Luke’s has the breadth. When he says simply “Blessed are you poor” (Lk 6:20), he means those who in their need—in <em>any<\/em> kind of need—turn to the Lord. It was to bring the gospel to such people that Christ came into the world (Mt 11:5; Lk 4:18). Jesus Christ himself embodies the same ideal. As Paul put it, “Though he was very rich, yet for your sakes he became poor, so that by his poverty he could make you rich” (2 Cor 8:9, <span>nlt<\/span>). Our helpless poverty is an evil from which he comes to rescue us; his deliberately chosen poverty is the glorious means by which he does so.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Alms; Riches; Righteousness; Wages; Wealth.<\/p>","summary_ro":"POOR, The Those lacking material wealth. Poverty as a Bad Thing At times the Bible gives a very simple explanation of why people are rich or poor. If a person delights in the law of the Lord, he or she will get wealth and riches. Such people will prosper in everything they do (Pss 1:3; 112:3). With regard to Israel in OT days, these ideas are not quite so naive as they might seem. There was indeed a connection between sin and poverty. Israelite society was built on rules laid down by God, so ...","summary_en":"POOR, The Those lacking material wealth. Poverty as a Bad Thing At times the Bible gives a very simple explanation of why people are rich or poor. If a person delights in the law of the Lord, he or she will get wealth and riches. Such people will prosper in everything they do (Pss 1:3; 112:3). With regard to Israel in OT days, these ideas are not quite so naive as they might seem. There was indeed a connection between sin and poverty. Israelite society was built on rules laid down by God, so ...","source":"Articles\/P.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":64644,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Social Justice","title_en":"Social Justice","content_ro":"<h3>Social Justice<\/h3>\n<p>In the Old Testament, prophets often confronted evil in society and articulated a demand for social justice. An early example of this is found in Elijah’s response to the murder of Naboth, followed by his rebuke of Ahab (1 Kgs 21:16-24, 800s <span>BC<\/span>). The social aspect of the prophetic message became even more prominent among the prophets of the 700s <span>BC<\/span> (Hosea and Amos in Israel, Micah and Isaiah in Judah), with Amos as the most articulate spokesman on this issue.<\/p>\n<p>Amos was appalled by Israel’s abuse of the powerless (Amos 2:6-8; 3:10). Unlike the surrounding nations, Israel had known God in a uniquely personal and intimate manner and then turned away from him (2:9-12; 3:1-2). The people of Israel had refused to worship God appropriately and had oppressed the powerless, so God would hold them accountable and meet them in judgment (4:12), not mercy. God wants justice to flow like a mighty river (Amos 5:24). Those who oppose it will be swept away.<\/p>\n<p>The importance of social justice is also made clear in the New Testament. Jesus drew a connection between proper worship and the practice of social justice, warning of the judgment that is coming upon those who do not express their faith in loving action toward others (see Matt 25:31-46). Right understanding must be matched by right practice, which serves as evidence of one’s faith (see Luke 10:25-37; John 13:35). Jesus’ followers recoginzed the significant role social justice needed to play within the early Christian communities (see Acts 2:44-45; Gal 2:9-10; 1 Tim 5:3-16; Jas 1:27–2:26; 1 Jn 3:17-19).<\/p>\n<p>God’s compassion for the oppressed is evidenced throughout Scripture. As followers of Christ, we must not neglect those who are in need, and like the prophets, we must confront injustice wherever it is encountered.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Exod 23:1-12; Lev 19:9-18; Deut 10:17-20; 16:18-20; 24:10-22; 1 Kgs 21:1-24; 2 Chr 19:4-11; Pss 94:20-23; 146:3-9; Prov 22:8-9; 31:8-9; Eccl 5:8-9; Isa 1:17; 5:7; 9:6-7; 10:1-2; 42:1-4; 58:4-12; Amos 2:6-8; 5:7-17, 23-24; Matt 12:15-21; 23:23; Luke 10:25-37; Heb 1:8-9<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Social Justice<\/h3>\n<p>In the Old Testament, prophets often confronted evil in society and articulated a demand for social justice. An early example of this is found in Elijah’s response to the murder of Naboth, followed by his rebuke of Ahab (1 Kgs 21:16-24, 800s <span>BC<\/span>). The social aspect of the prophetic message became even more prominent among the prophets of the 700s <span>BC<\/span> (Hosea and Amos in Israel, Micah and Isaiah in Judah), with Amos as the most articulate spokesman on this issue.<\/p>\n<p>Amos was appalled by Israel’s abuse of the powerless (Amos 2:6-8; 3:10). Unlike the surrounding nations, Israel had known God in a uniquely personal and intimate manner and then turned away from him (2:9-12; 3:1-2). The people of Israel had refused to worship God appropriately and had oppressed the powerless, so God would hold them accountable and meet them in judgment (4:12), not mercy. God wants justice to flow like a mighty river (Amos 5:24). Those who oppose it will be swept away.<\/p>\n<p>The importance of social justice is also made clear in the New Testament. Jesus drew a connection between proper worship and the practice of social justice, warning of the judgment that is coming upon those who do not express their faith in loving action toward others (see Matt 25:31-46). Right understanding must be matched by right practice, which serves as evidence of one’s faith (see Luke 10:25-37; John 13:35). Jesus’ followers recoginzed the significant role social justice needed to play within the early Christian communities (see Acts 2:44-45; Gal 2:9-10; 1 Tim 5:3-16; Jas 1:27–2:26; 1 Jn 3:17-19).<\/p>\n<p>God’s compassion for the oppressed is evidenced throughout Scripture. As followers of Christ, we must not neglect those who are in need, and like the prophets, we must confront injustice wherever it is encountered.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Exod 23:1-12; Lev 19:9-18; Deut 10:17-20; 16:18-20; 24:10-22; 1 Kgs 21:1-24; 2 Chr 19:4-11; Pss 94:20-23; 146:3-9; Prov 22:8-9; 31:8-9; Eccl 5:8-9; Isa 1:17; 5:7; 9:6-7; 10:1-2; 42:1-4; 58:4-12; Amos 2:6-8; 5:7-17, 23-24; Matt 12:15-21; 23:23; Luke 10:25-37; Heb 1:8-9<\/p>","summary_ro":"Social Justice In the Old Testament, prophets often confronted evil in society and articulated a demand for social justice. An early example of this is found in Elijah’s response to the murder of Naboth, followed by his rebuke of Ahab (1 Kgs 21:16-24, 800s BC). The social aspect of the prophetic message became even more prominent among the prophets of the 700s BC (Hosea and Amos in Israel, Micah and Isaiah in Judah), with Amos as the most articulate spokesman on this issue. Amos was appalled ...","summary_en":"Social Justice In the Old Testament, prophets often confronted evil in society and articulated a demand for social justice. An early example of this is found in Elijah’s response to the murder of Naboth, followed by his rebuke of Ahab (1 Kgs 21:16-24, 800s BC). The social aspect of the prophetic message became even more prominent among the prophets of the 700s BC (Hosea and Amos in Israel, Micah and Isaiah in Judah), with Amos as the most articulate spokesman on this issue. Amos was appalled ...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":92270,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Social Justice","title_en":"Social Justice","content_ro":"<h3>Social Justice<\/h3>\n<p>In the Old Testament, prophets often confronted evil in society and articulated a demand for social justice. An early example of this is found in Elijah’s response to the murder of Naboth, followed by his rebuke of Ahab (1 Kgs 21:16-24, 800s <span>BC<\/span>). The social aspect of the prophetic message became even more prominent among the prophets of the 700s <span>BC<\/span> (Hosea and Amos in Israel, Micah and Isaiah in Judah), with Amos as the most articulate spokesman on this issue.<\/p>\n<p>Amos was appalled by Israel’s abuse of the powerless (Amos 2:6-8; 3:10). Unlike the surrounding nations, Israel had known God in a uniquely personal and intimate manner and then turned away from him (2:9-12; 3:1-2). The people of Israel had refused to worship God appropriately and had oppressed the powerless, so God would hold them accountable and meet them in judgment (4:12), not mercy. God wants justice to flow like a mighty river (Amos 5:24). Those who oppose it will be swept away.<\/p>\n<p>The importance of social justice is also made clear in the New Testament. Jesus drew a connection between proper worship and the practice of social justice, warning of the judgment that is coming upon those who do not express their faith in loving action toward others (see Matt 25:31-46). Right understanding must be matched by right practice, which serves as evidence of one’s faith (see Luke 10:25-37; John 13:35). Jesus’ followers recoginzed the significant role social justice needed to play within the early Christian communities (see Acts 2:44-45; Gal 2:9-10; 1 Tim 5:3-16; Jas 1:27–2:26; 1 Jn 3:17-19).<\/p>\n<p>God’s compassion for the oppressed is evidenced throughout Scripture. As followers of Christ, we must not neglect those who are in need, and like the prophets, we must confront injustice wherever it is encountered.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Exod 23:1-12; Lev 19:9-18; Deut 10:17-20; 16:18-20; 24:10-22; 1 Kgs 21:1-24; 2 Chr 19:4-11; Pss 94:20-23; 146:3-9; Prov 22:8-9; 31:8-9; Eccl 5:8-9; Isa 1:17; 5:7; 9:6-7; 10:1-2; 42:1-4; 58:4-12; Amos 2:6-8; 5:7-17, 23-24; Matt 12:15-21; 23:23; Luke 10:25-37; Heb 1:8-9<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Social Justice<\/h3>\n<p>In the Old Testament, prophets often confronted evil in society and articulated a demand for social justice. An early example of this is found in Elijah’s response to the murder of Naboth, followed by his rebuke of Ahab (1 Kgs 21:16-24, 800s <span>BC<\/span>). The social aspect of the prophetic message became even more prominent among the prophets of the 700s <span>BC<\/span> (Hosea and Amos in Israel, Micah and Isaiah in Judah), with Amos as the most articulate spokesman on this issue.<\/p>\n<p>Amos was appalled by Israel’s abuse of the powerless (Amos 2:6-8; 3:10). Unlike the surrounding nations, Israel had known God in a uniquely personal and intimate manner and then turned away from him (2:9-12; 3:1-2). The people of Israel had refused to worship God appropriately and had oppressed the powerless, so God would hold them accountable and meet them in judgment (4:12), not mercy. God wants justice to flow like a mighty river (Amos 5:24). Those who oppose it will be swept away.<\/p>\n<p>The importance of social justice is also made clear in the New Testament. Jesus drew a connection between proper worship and the practice of social justice, warning of the judgment that is coming upon those who do not express their faith in loving action toward others (see Matt 25:31-46). Right understanding must be matched by right practice, which serves as evidence of one’s faith (see Luke 10:25-37; John 13:35). Jesus’ followers recoginzed the significant role social justice needed to play within the early Christian communities (see Acts 2:44-45; Gal 2:9-10; 1 Tim 5:3-16; Jas 1:27–2:26; 1 Jn 3:17-19).<\/p>\n<p>God’s compassion for the oppressed is evidenced throughout Scripture. As followers of Christ, we must not neglect those who are in need, and like the prophets, we must confront injustice wherever it is encountered.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Exod 23:1-12; Lev 19:9-18; Deut 10:17-20; 16:18-20; 24:10-22; 1 Kgs 21:1-24; 2 Chr 19:4-11; Pss 94:20-23; 146:3-9; Prov 22:8-9; 31:8-9; Eccl 5:8-9; Isa 1:17; 5:7; 9:6-7; 10:1-2; 42:1-4; 58:4-12; Amos 2:6-8; 5:7-17, 23-24; Matt 12:15-21; 23:23; Luke 10:25-37; Heb 1:8-9<\/p>","summary_ro":"Social Justice In the Old Testament, prophets often confronted evil in society and articulated a demand for social justice. An early example of this is found in Elijah’s response to the murder of Naboth, followed by his rebuke of Ahab (1 Kgs 21:16-24, 800s BC). The social aspect of the prophetic message became even more prominent among the prophets of the 700s BC (Hosea and Amos in Israel, Micah and Isaiah in Judah), with Amos as the most articulate spokesman on this issue. Amos was appalled ...","summary_en":"Social Justice In the Old Testament, prophets often confronted evil in society and articulated a demand for social justice. An early example of this is found in Elijah’s response to the murder of Naboth, followed by his rebuke of Ahab (1 Kgs 21:16-24, 800s BC). The social aspect of the prophetic message became even more prominent among the prophets of the 700s BC (Hosea and Amos in Israel, Micah and Isaiah in Judah), with Amos as the most articulate spokesman on this issue. Amos was appalled ...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":119896,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Social Justice","title_en":"Social Justice","content_ro":"<h3>Social Justice<\/h3>\n<p>In the Old Testament, prophets often confronted evil in society and articulated a demand for social justice. An early example of this is found in Elijah’s response to the murder of Naboth, followed by his rebuke of Ahab (1 Kgs 21:16-24, 800s <span>BC<\/span>). The social aspect of the prophetic message became even more prominent among the prophets of the 700s <span>BC<\/span> (Hosea and Amos in Israel, Micah and Isaiah in Judah), with Amos as the most articulate spokesman on this issue.<\/p>\n<p>Amos was appalled by Israel’s abuse of the powerless (Amos 2:6-8; 3:10). Unlike the surrounding nations, Israel had known God in a uniquely personal and intimate manner and then turned away from him (2:9-12; 3:1-2). The people of Israel had refused to worship God appropriately and had oppressed the powerless, so God would hold them accountable and meet them in judgment (4:12), not mercy. God wants justice to flow like a mighty river (Amos 5:24). Those who oppose it will be swept away.<\/p>\n<p>The importance of social justice is also made clear in the New Testament. Jesus drew a connection between proper worship and the practice of social justice, warning of the judgment that is coming upon those who do not express their faith in loving action toward others (see Matt 25:31-46). Right understanding must be matched by right practice, which serves as evidence of one’s faith (see Luke 10:25-37; John 13:35). Jesus’ followers recoginzed the significant role social justice needed to play within the early Christian communities (see Acts 2:44-45; Gal 2:9-10; 1 Tim 5:3-16; Jas 1:27–2:26; 1 Jn 3:17-19).<\/p>\n<p>God’s compassion for the oppressed is evidenced throughout Scripture. As followers of Christ, we must not neglect those who are in need, and like the prophets, we must confront injustice wherever it is encountered.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Exod 23:1-12; Lev 19:9-18; Deut 10:17-20; 16:18-20; 24:10-22; 1 Kgs 21:1-24; 2 Chr 19:4-11; Pss 94:20-23; 146:3-9; Prov 22:8-9; 31:8-9; Eccl 5:8-9; Isa 1:17; 5:7; 9:6-7; 10:1-2; 42:1-4; 58:4-12; Amos 2:6-8; 5:7-17, 23-24; Matt 12:15-21; 23:23; Luke 10:25-37; Heb 1:8-9<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Social Justice<\/h3>\n<p>In the Old Testament, prophets often confronted evil in society and articulated a demand for social justice. An early example of this is found in Elijah’s response to the murder of Naboth, followed by his rebuke of Ahab (1 Kgs 21:16-24, 800s <span>BC<\/span>). The social aspect of the prophetic message became even more prominent among the prophets of the 700s <span>BC<\/span> (Hosea and Amos in Israel, Micah and Isaiah in Judah), with Amos as the most articulate spokesman on this issue.<\/p>\n<p>Amos was appalled by Israel’s abuse of the powerless (Amos 2:6-8; 3:10). Unlike the surrounding nations, Israel had known God in a uniquely personal and intimate manner and then turned away from him (2:9-12; 3:1-2). The people of Israel had refused to worship God appropriately and had oppressed the powerless, so God would hold them accountable and meet them in judgment (4:12), not mercy. God wants justice to flow like a mighty river (Amos 5:24). Those who oppose it will be swept away.<\/p>\n<p>The importance of social justice is also made clear in the New Testament. Jesus drew a connection between proper worship and the practice of social justice, warning of the judgment that is coming upon those who do not express their faith in loving action toward others (see Matt 25:31-46). Right understanding must be matched by right practice, which serves as evidence of one’s faith (see Luke 10:25-37; John 13:35). Jesus’ followers recoginzed the significant role social justice needed to play within the early Christian communities (see Acts 2:44-45; Gal 2:9-10; 1 Tim 5:3-16; Jas 1:27–2:26; 1 Jn 3:17-19).<\/p>\n<p>God’s compassion for the oppressed is evidenced throughout Scripture. As followers of Christ, we must not neglect those who are in need, and like the prophets, we must confront injustice wherever it is encountered.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Exod 23:1-12; Lev 19:9-18; Deut 10:17-20; 16:18-20; 24:10-22; 1 Kgs 21:1-24; 2 Chr 19:4-11; Pss 94:20-23; 146:3-9; Prov 22:8-9; 31:8-9; Eccl 5:8-9; Isa 1:17; 5:7; 9:6-7; 10:1-2; 42:1-4; 58:4-12; Amos 2:6-8; 5:7-17, 23-24; Matt 12:15-21; 23:23; Luke 10:25-37; Heb 1:8-9<\/p>","summary_ro":"Social Justice In the Old Testament, prophets often confronted evil in society and articulated a demand for social justice. An early example of this is found in Elijah’s response to the murder of Naboth, followed by his rebuke of Ahab (1 Kgs 21:16-24, 800s BC). The social aspect of the prophetic message became even more prominent among the prophets of the 700s BC (Hosea and Amos in Israel, Micah and Isaiah in Judah), with Amos as the most articulate spokesman on this issue. Amos was appalled ...","summary_en":"Social Justice In the Old Testament, prophets often confronted evil in society and articulated a demand for social justice. An early example of this is found in Elijah’s response to the murder of Naboth, followed by his rebuke of Ahab (1 Kgs 21:16-24, 800s BC). The social aspect of the prophetic message became even more prominent among the prophets of the 700s BC (Hosea and Amos in Israel, Micah and Isaiah in Judah), with Amos as the most articulate spokesman on this issue. Amos was appalled ...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":147522,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Social Justice","title_en":"Social Justice","content_ro":"<h3>Social Justice<\/h3>\n<p>In the Old Testament, prophets often confronted evil in society and articulated a demand for social justice. An early example of this is found in Elijah’s response to the murder of Naboth, followed by his rebuke of Ahab (1 Kgs 21:16-24, 800s <span>BC<\/span>). The social aspect of the prophetic message became even more prominent among the prophets of the 700s <span>BC<\/span> (Hosea and Amos in Israel, Micah and Isaiah in Judah), with Amos as the most articulate spokesman on this issue.<\/p>\n<p>Amos was appalled by Israel’s abuse of the powerless (Amos 2:6-8; 3:10). Unlike the surrounding nations, Israel had known God in a uniquely personal and intimate manner and then turned away from him (2:9-12; 3:1-2). The people of Israel had refused to worship God appropriately and had oppressed the powerless, so God would hold them accountable and meet them in judgment (4:12), not mercy. God wants justice to flow like a mighty river (Amos 5:24). Those who oppose it will be swept away.<\/p>\n<p>The importance of social justice is also made clear in the New Testament. Jesus drew a connection between proper worship and the practice of social justice, warning of the judgment that is coming upon those who do not express their faith in loving action toward others (see Matt 25:31-46). Right understanding must be matched by right practice, which serves as evidence of one’s faith (see Luke 10:25-37; John 13:35). Jesus’ followers recoginzed the significant role social justice needed to play within the early Christian communities (see Acts 2:44-45; Gal 2:9-10; 1 Tim 5:3-16; Jas 1:27–2:26; 1 Jn 3:17-19).<\/p>\n<p>God’s compassion for the oppressed is evidenced throughout Scripture. As followers of Christ, we must not neglect those who are in need, and like the prophets, we must confront injustice wherever it is encountered.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Exod 23:1-12; Lev 19:9-18; Deut 10:17-20; 16:18-20; 24:10-22; 1 Kgs 21:1-24; 2 Chr 19:4-11; Pss 94:20-23; 146:3-9; Prov 22:8-9; 31:8-9; Eccl 5:8-9; Isa 1:17; 5:7; 9:6-7; 10:1-2; 42:1-4; 58:4-12; Amos 2:6-8; 5:7-17, 23-24; Matt 12:15-21; 23:23; Luke 10:25-37; Heb 1:8-9<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Social Justice<\/h3>\n<p>In the Old Testament, prophets often confronted evil in society and articulated a demand for social justice. An early example of this is found in Elijah’s response to the murder of Naboth, followed by his rebuke of Ahab (1 Kgs 21:16-24, 800s <span>BC<\/span>). The social aspect of the prophetic message became even more prominent among the prophets of the 700s <span>BC<\/span> (Hosea and Amos in Israel, Micah and Isaiah in Judah), with Amos as the most articulate spokesman on this issue.<\/p>\n<p>Amos was appalled by Israel’s abuse of the powerless (Amos 2:6-8; 3:10). Unlike the surrounding nations, Israel had known God in a uniquely personal and intimate manner and then turned away from him (2:9-12; 3:1-2). The people of Israel had refused to worship God appropriately and had oppressed the powerless, so God would hold them accountable and meet them in judgment (4:12), not mercy. God wants justice to flow like a mighty river (Amos 5:24). Those who oppose it will be swept away.<\/p>\n<p>The importance of social justice is also made clear in the New Testament. Jesus drew a connection between proper worship and the practice of social justice, warning of the judgment that is coming upon those who do not express their faith in loving action toward others (see Matt 25:31-46). Right understanding must be matched by right practice, which serves as evidence of one’s faith (see Luke 10:25-37; John 13:35). Jesus’ followers recoginzed the significant role social justice needed to play within the early Christian communities (see Acts 2:44-45; Gal 2:9-10; 1 Tim 5:3-16; Jas 1:27–2:26; 1 Jn 3:17-19).<\/p>\n<p>God’s compassion for the oppressed is evidenced throughout Scripture. As followers of Christ, we must not neglect those who are in need, and like the prophets, we must confront injustice wherever it is encountered.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Exod 23:1-12; Lev 19:9-18; Deut 10:17-20; 16:18-20; 24:10-22; 1 Kgs 21:1-24; 2 Chr 19:4-11; Pss 94:20-23; 146:3-9; Prov 22:8-9; 31:8-9; Eccl 5:8-9; Isa 1:17; 5:7; 9:6-7; 10:1-2; 42:1-4; 58:4-12; Amos 2:6-8; 5:7-17, 23-24; Matt 12:15-21; 23:23; Luke 10:25-37; Heb 1:8-9<\/p>","summary_ro":"Social Justice In the Old Testament, prophets often confronted evil in society and articulated a demand for social justice. An early example of this is found in Elijah’s response to the murder of Naboth, followed by his rebuke of Ahab (1 Kgs 21:16-24, 800s BC). The social aspect of the prophetic message became even more prominent among the prophets of the 700s BC (Hosea and Amos in Israel, Micah and Isaiah in Judah), with Amos as the most articulate spokesman on this issue. Amos was appalled ...","summary_en":"Social Justice In the Old Testament, prophets often confronted evil in society and articulated a demand for social justice. An early example of this is found in Elijah’s response to the murder of Naboth, followed by his rebuke of Ahab (1 Kgs 21:16-24, 800s BC). The social aspect of the prophetic message became even more prominent among the prophets of the 700s BC (Hosea and Amos in Israel, Micah and Isaiah in Judah), with Amos as the most articulate spokesman on this issue. Amos was appalled ...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"11":[{"id":45143,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Deuteronomul 24:11","title_en":"Study Note: Deuteronomul 24:11","content_ro":"<p><strong>24:11<\/strong> <em>wait outside:<\/em> Even debtors were to be allowed their dignity and spared unnecessary embarrassment. A creditor was not to invade the debtor’s privacy when collecting from him.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>24:11<\/strong> <em>wait outside:<\/em> Even debtors were to be allowed their dignity and spared unnecessary embarrassment. A creditor was not to invade the debtor’s privacy when collecting from him.<\/p>","summary_ro":"24:11 wait outside: Even debtors were to be allowed their dignity and spared unnecessary embarrassment. A creditor was not to invade the debtor’s privacy when collecting from him.","summary_en":"24:11 wait outside: Even debtors were to be allowed their dignity and spared unnecessary embarrassment. A creditor was not to invade the debtor’s privacy when collecting from him.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":72769,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Deuteronomul 24:11","title_en":"Study Note: Deuteronomul 24:11","content_ro":"<p><strong>24:11<\/strong> <em>wait outside:<\/em> Even debtors were to be allowed their dignity and spared unnecessary embarrassment. A creditor was not to invade the debtor’s privacy when collecting from him.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>24:11<\/strong> <em>wait outside:<\/em> Even debtors were to be allowed their dignity and spared unnecessary embarrassment. A creditor was not to invade the debtor’s privacy when collecting from him.<\/p>","summary_ro":"24:11 wait outside: Even debtors were to be allowed their dignity and spared unnecessary embarrassment. A creditor was not to invade the debtor’s privacy when collecting from him.","summary_en":"24:11 wait outside: Even debtors were to be allowed their dignity and spared unnecessary embarrassment. A creditor was not to invade the debtor’s privacy when collecting from him.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":100395,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Deuteronomul 24:11","title_en":"Study Note: Deuteronomul 24:11","content_ro":"<p><strong>24:11<\/strong> <em>wait outside:<\/em> Even debtors were to be allowed their dignity and spared unnecessary embarrassment. A creditor was not to invade the debtor’s privacy when collecting from him.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>24:11<\/strong> <em>wait outside:<\/em> Even debtors were to be allowed their dignity and spared unnecessary embarrassment. A creditor was not to invade the debtor’s privacy when collecting from him.<\/p>","summary_ro":"24:11 wait outside: Even debtors were to be allowed their dignity and spared unnecessary embarrassment. A creditor was not to invade the debtor’s privacy when collecting from him.","summary_en":"24:11 wait outside: Even debtors were to be allowed their dignity and spared unnecessary embarrassment. A creditor was not to invade the debtor’s privacy when collecting from him.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":128021,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Deuteronomul 24:11","title_en":"Study Note: Deuteronomul 24:11","content_ro":"<p><strong>24:11<\/strong> <em>wait outside:<\/em> Even debtors were to be allowed their dignity and spared unnecessary embarrassment. A creditor was not to invade the debtor’s privacy when collecting from him.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>24:11<\/strong> <em>wait outside:<\/em> Even debtors were to be allowed their dignity and spared unnecessary embarrassment. A creditor was not to invade the debtor’s privacy when collecting from him.<\/p>","summary_ro":"24:11 wait outside: Even debtors were to be allowed their dignity and spared unnecessary embarrassment. A creditor was not to invade the debtor’s privacy when collecting from him.","summary_en":"24:11 wait outside: Even debtors were to be allowed their dignity and spared unnecessary embarrassment. A creditor was not to invade the debtor’s privacy when collecting from him.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"12":[{"id":60846,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"True Justice","title_en":"True Justice","content_ro":"<h3>True Justice<\/h3>\n<p>The community of God’s people in Old Testament Israel was to be responsible for the well-being of widows, orphans, and foreigners (Deut 27:19). The Israelites were to represent the just God whom they served (see 10:17-19) and always remember that they had been an enslaved and defenseless people in Egypt (see 10:19; 24:18-22). How could they, the beneficiaries of God’s unfailing love and faithfulness, ignore the rights and needs of the most vulnerable who lived among them?<\/p>\n<p>Every society has social structures that separate the powerful from the weak and the privileged from the ill-favored. This was true of Old Testament Israel despite its unique constitution and commission as a “holy nation” (Exod 19:6). Judges and other officials charged with upholding the law might tend to favor individuals with financial means, high social standing, or community influence, especially when these individuals offer bribes (Deut 16:19). However, God cannot be bribed, nor does he show partiality (10:17). The rich and the poor, the powerful and the weak, the exalted and the downtrodden are all alike to him.<\/p>\n<p>The prophets of Israel understood the need for equity and justice and often called for the application of these principles to community and national life (Isa 1:17; 10:1-4; 59:14-19; Ezek 22:23-29; Amos 2:6-8; Hab 1:4). The New Testament also appeals for proper treatment of the poor and disadvantaged and speaks of God’s displeasure when they are neglected (Matt 23:23; 2 Cor 9:6-10; Jas 2:1-7).<\/p>\n<p>Justice that falls short of God’s standard is not true justice, and those responsible for corrupting justice can expect full retribution from the Judge of all the earth (see Deut 25:13-16).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Exod 23:3; Lev 19:15; Deut 10:17-19; 16:19; 24:12-22; 25:13-16; 27:19; Ps 82:1-5; Prov 11:1; Isa 1:17; 10:1-4; 11:3-4; 59:14-19; Jer 22:13-17; Ezek 22:23-29; 45:9-10; Amos 2:6-8; 8:5-6; Hab 1:4; Matt 23:23; Luke 18:6-8; Jas 2:1-7<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>True Justice<\/h3>\n<p>The community of God’s people in Old Testament Israel was to be responsible for the well-being of widows, orphans, and foreigners (Deut 27:19). The Israelites were to represent the just God whom they served (see 10:17-19) and always remember that they had been an enslaved and defenseless people in Egypt (see 10:19; 24:18-22). How could they, the beneficiaries of God’s unfailing love and faithfulness, ignore the rights and needs of the most vulnerable who lived among them?<\/p>\n<p>Every society has social structures that separate the powerful from the weak and the privileged from the ill-favored. This was true of Old Testament Israel despite its unique constitution and commission as a “holy nation” (Exod 19:6). Judges and other officials charged with upholding the law might tend to favor individuals with financial means, high social standing, or community influence, especially when these individuals offer bribes (Deut 16:19). However, God cannot be bribed, nor does he show partiality (10:17). The rich and the poor, the powerful and the weak, the exalted and the downtrodden are all alike to him.<\/p>\n<p>The prophets of Israel understood the need for equity and justice and often called for the application of these principles to community and national life (Isa 1:17; 10:1-4; 59:14-19; Ezek 22:23-29; Amos 2:6-8; Hab 1:4). The New Testament also appeals for proper treatment of the poor and disadvantaged and speaks of God’s displeasure when they are neglected (Matt 23:23; 2 Cor 9:6-10; Jas 2:1-7).<\/p>\n<p>Justice that falls short of God’s standard is not true justice, and those responsible for corrupting justice can expect full retribution from the Judge of all the earth (see Deut 25:13-16).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Exod 23:3; Lev 19:15; Deut 10:17-19; 16:19; 24:12-22; 25:13-16; 27:19; Ps 82:1-5; Prov 11:1; Isa 1:17; 10:1-4; 11:3-4; 59:14-19; Jer 22:13-17; Ezek 22:23-29; 45:9-10; Amos 2:6-8; 8:5-6; Hab 1:4; Matt 23:23; Luke 18:6-8; Jas 2:1-7<\/p>","summary_ro":"True Justice The community of God’s people in Old Testament Israel was to be responsible for the well-being of widows, orphans, and foreigners (Deut 27:19). The Israelites were to represent the just God whom they served (see 10:17-19) and always remember that they had been an enslaved and defenseless people in Egypt (see 10:19; 24:18-22). How could they, the beneficiaries of God’s unfailing love and faithfulness, ignore the rights and needs of the most vulnerable who lived among them? Every s...","summary_en":"True Justice The community of God’s people in Old Testament Israel was to be responsible for the well-being of widows, orphans, and foreigners (Deut 27:19). The Israelites were to represent the just God whom they served (see 10:17-19) and always remember that they had been an enslaved and defenseless people in Egypt (see 10:19; 24:18-22). How could they, the beneficiaries of God’s unfailing love and faithfulness, ignore the rights and needs of the most vulnerable who lived among them? Every s...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":64736,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"What Is Good","title_en":"What Is Good","content_ro":"<h3>What Is Good<\/h3>\n<p>Micah 6:8, a well-known and oft-memorized verse, answers a series of questions put forth by a confused people who had lost their moral and spiritual bearings.<\/p>\n<p>The people of Israel wanted to know what they could do to be acceptable to the Lord. In an oppressive and deceitful society, they had lost their sense of what the Lord regards as good. God gave them a concrete answer: He is not seeking mechanical, ritualistic worship (6:6-7), but that his people do what is right in relationship with him and in their relationships with each other. As they are motivated by love, their actions will be marked by justice, mercy, and humility. God’s people are not to oppress others, but to do what is just, righteous, and honest toward one another.<\/p>\n<p>Micah 6:8 summarizes what God had already made known in the past to Israel: Humility, faith, and obedience are pleasing to him. God declared this message to Abraham (Gen 15:6; 17:1, 9), to Moses at Sinai (Exod 20–23), through his prophets (e.g., Deut 6:1-8; Hos 6:6), and through Israel’s wise men (Prov 1:7).<\/p>\n<p>It pleases God when his people walk humbly in faith before him, as exemplified by Moses (Num 12:3), Habakkuk (Hab 3:17-19), Daniel (Dan 9:1-19), and Ezra (Ezra 9:5-15). Real spirituality and devotion result in doing good, seeking justice, relieving oppression, defending orphans, and aiding widows (see Exod 22:21-24; 23:2-12; Deut 15:4-11; 24:12-15; Neh 5:1-13; Jer 22:16; Dan 4:27; Amos 5:7-24; Jas 1:27). These acts are marks of God’s own character (Ps 146:9; Matt 11:5).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Exod 33:19; 34:6-7; Deut 8:3; 16:19-20; 1 Kgs 3:11; Ezra 7:25; Neh 9:31; Isa 2:9; 5:15; 30:18; 38:15; Dan 9:18; Hos 6:6; Amos 5:12, 15; Mic 6:8; Mal 2:17; 3:15<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>What Is Good<\/h3>\n<p>Micah 6:8, a well-known and oft-memorized verse, answers a series of questions put forth by a confused people who had lost their moral and spiritual bearings.<\/p>\n<p>The people of Israel wanted to know what they could do to be acceptable to the Lord. In an oppressive and deceitful society, they had lost their sense of what the Lord regards as good. God gave them a concrete answer: He is not seeking mechanical, ritualistic worship (6:6-7), but that his people do what is right in relationship with him and in their relationships with each other. As they are motivated by love, their actions will be marked by justice, mercy, and humility. God’s people are not to oppress others, but to do what is just, righteous, and honest toward one another.<\/p>\n<p>Micah 6:8 summarizes what God had already made known in the past to Israel: Humility, faith, and obedience are pleasing to him. God declared this message to Abraham (Gen 15:6; 17:1, 9), to Moses at Sinai (Exod 20–23), through his prophets (e.g., Deut 6:1-8; Hos 6:6), and through Israel’s wise men (Prov 1:7).<\/p>\n<p>It pleases God when his people walk humbly in faith before him, as exemplified by Moses (Num 12:3), Habakkuk (Hab 3:17-19), Daniel (Dan 9:1-19), and Ezra (Ezra 9:5-15). Real spirituality and devotion result in doing good, seeking justice, relieving oppression, defending orphans, and aiding widows (see Exod 22:21-24; 23:2-12; Deut 15:4-11; 24:12-15; Neh 5:1-13; Jer 22:16; Dan 4:27; Amos 5:7-24; Jas 1:27). These acts are marks of God’s own character (Ps 146:9; Matt 11:5).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Exod 33:19; 34:6-7; Deut 8:3; 16:19-20; 1 Kgs 3:11; Ezra 7:25; Neh 9:31; Isa 2:9; 5:15; 30:18; 38:15; Dan 9:18; Hos 6:6; Amos 5:12, 15; Mic 6:8; Mal 2:17; 3:15<\/p>","summary_ro":"What Is Good Micah 6:8, a well-known and oft-memorized verse, answers a series of questions put forth by a confused people who had lost their moral and spiritual bearings. The people of Israel wanted to know what they could do to be acceptable to the Lord. In an oppressive and deceitful society, they had lost their sense of what the Lord regards as good. God gave them a concrete answer: He is not seeking mechanical, ritualistic worship (6:6-7), but that his people do what is right in relation...","summary_en":"What Is Good Micah 6:8, a well-known and oft-memorized verse, answers a series of questions put forth by a confused people who had lost their moral and spiritual bearings. The people of Israel wanted to know what they could do to be acceptable to the Lord. In an oppressive and deceitful society, they had lost their sense of what the Lord regards as good. God gave them a concrete answer: He is not seeking mechanical, ritualistic worship (6:6-7), but that his people do what is right in relation...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":88472,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"True Justice","title_en":"True Justice","content_ro":"<h3>True Justice<\/h3>\n<p>The community of God’s people in Old Testament Israel was to be responsible for the well-being of widows, orphans, and foreigners (Deut 27:19). The Israelites were to represent the just God whom they served (see 10:17-19) and always remember that they had been an enslaved and defenseless people in Egypt (see 10:19; 24:18-22). How could they, the beneficiaries of God’s unfailing love and faithfulness, ignore the rights and needs of the most vulnerable who lived among them?<\/p>\n<p>Every society has social structures that separate the powerful from the weak and the privileged from the ill-favored. This was true of Old Testament Israel despite its unique constitution and commission as a “holy nation” (Exod 19:6). Judges and other officials charged with upholding the law might tend to favor individuals with financial means, high social standing, or community influence, especially when these individuals offer bribes (Deut 16:19). However, God cannot be bribed, nor does he show partiality (10:17). The rich and the poor, the powerful and the weak, the exalted and the downtrodden are all alike to him.<\/p>\n<p>The prophets of Israel understood the need for equity and justice and often called for the application of these principles to community and national life (Isa 1:17; 10:1-4; 59:14-19; Ezek 22:23-29; Amos 2:6-8; Hab 1:4). The New Testament also appeals for proper treatment of the poor and disadvantaged and speaks of God’s displeasure when they are neglected (Matt 23:23; 2 Cor 9:6-10; Jas 2:1-7).<\/p>\n<p>Justice that falls short of God’s standard is not true justice, and those responsible for corrupting justice can expect full retribution from the Judge of all the earth (see Deut 25:13-16).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Exod 23:3; Lev 19:15; Deut 10:17-19; 16:19; 24:12-22; 25:13-16; 27:19; Ps 82:1-5; Prov 11:1; Isa 1:17; 10:1-4; 11:3-4; 59:14-19; Jer 22:13-17; Ezek 22:23-29; 45:9-10; Amos 2:6-8; 8:5-6; Hab 1:4; Matt 23:23; Luke 18:6-8; Jas 2:1-7<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>True Justice<\/h3>\n<p>The community of God’s people in Old Testament Israel was to be responsible for the well-being of widows, orphans, and foreigners (Deut 27:19). The Israelites were to represent the just God whom they served (see 10:17-19) and always remember that they had been an enslaved and defenseless people in Egypt (see 10:19; 24:18-22). How could they, the beneficiaries of God’s unfailing love and faithfulness, ignore the rights and needs of the most vulnerable who lived among them?<\/p>\n<p>Every society has social structures that separate the powerful from the weak and the privileged from the ill-favored. This was true of Old Testament Israel despite its unique constitution and commission as a “holy nation” (Exod 19:6). Judges and other officials charged with upholding the law might tend to favor individuals with financial means, high social standing, or community influence, especially when these individuals offer bribes (Deut 16:19). However, God cannot be bribed, nor does he show partiality (10:17). The rich and the poor, the powerful and the weak, the exalted and the downtrodden are all alike to him.<\/p>\n<p>The prophets of Israel understood the need for equity and justice and often called for the application of these principles to community and national life (Isa 1:17; 10:1-4; 59:14-19; Ezek 22:23-29; Amos 2:6-8; Hab 1:4). The New Testament also appeals for proper treatment of the poor and disadvantaged and speaks of God’s displeasure when they are neglected (Matt 23:23; 2 Cor 9:6-10; Jas 2:1-7).<\/p>\n<p>Justice that falls short of God’s standard is not true justice, and those responsible for corrupting justice can expect full retribution from the Judge of all the earth (see Deut 25:13-16).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Exod 23:3; Lev 19:15; Deut 10:17-19; 16:19; 24:12-22; 25:13-16; 27:19; Ps 82:1-5; Prov 11:1; Isa 1:17; 10:1-4; 11:3-4; 59:14-19; Jer 22:13-17; Ezek 22:23-29; 45:9-10; Amos 2:6-8; 8:5-6; Hab 1:4; Matt 23:23; Luke 18:6-8; Jas 2:1-7<\/p>","summary_ro":"True Justice The community of God’s people in Old Testament Israel was to be responsible for the well-being of widows, orphans, and foreigners (Deut 27:19). The Israelites were to represent the just God whom they served (see 10:17-19) and always remember that they had been an enslaved and defenseless people in Egypt (see 10:19; 24:18-22). How could they, the beneficiaries of God’s unfailing love and faithfulness, ignore the rights and needs of the most vulnerable who lived among them? Every s...","summary_en":"True Justice The community of God’s people in Old Testament Israel was to be responsible for the well-being of widows, orphans, and foreigners (Deut 27:19). The Israelites were to represent the just God whom they served (see 10:17-19) and always remember that they had been an enslaved and defenseless people in Egypt (see 10:19; 24:18-22). How could they, the beneficiaries of God’s unfailing love and faithfulness, ignore the rights and needs of the most vulnerable who lived among them? Every s...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":92362,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"What Is Good","title_en":"What Is Good","content_ro":"<h3>What Is Good<\/h3>\n<p>Micah 6:8, a well-known and oft-memorized verse, answers a series of questions put forth by a confused people who had lost their moral and spiritual bearings.<\/p>\n<p>The people of Israel wanted to know what they could do to be acceptable to the Lord. In an oppressive and deceitful society, they had lost their sense of what the Lord regards as good. God gave them a concrete answer: He is not seeking mechanical, ritualistic worship (6:6-7), but that his people do what is right in relationship with him and in their relationships with each other. As they are motivated by love, their actions will be marked by justice, mercy, and humility. God’s people are not to oppress others, but to do what is just, righteous, and honest toward one another.<\/p>\n<p>Micah 6:8 summarizes what God had already made known in the past to Israel: Humility, faith, and obedience are pleasing to him. God declared this message to Abraham (Gen 15:6; 17:1, 9), to Moses at Sinai (Exod 20–23), through his prophets (e.g., Deut 6:1-8; Hos 6:6), and through Israel’s wise men (Prov 1:7).<\/p>\n<p>It pleases God when his people walk humbly in faith before him, as exemplified by Moses (Num 12:3), Habakkuk (Hab 3:17-19), Daniel (Dan 9:1-19), and Ezra (Ezra 9:5-15). Real spirituality and devotion result in doing good, seeking justice, relieving oppression, defending orphans, and aiding widows (see Exod 22:21-24; 23:2-12; Deut 15:4-11; 24:12-15; Neh 5:1-13; Jer 22:16; Dan 4:27; Amos 5:7-24; Jas 1:27). These acts are marks of God’s own character (Ps 146:9; Matt 11:5).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Exod 33:19; 34:6-7; Deut 8:3; 16:19-20; 1 Kgs 3:11; Ezra 7:25; Neh 9:31; Isa 2:9; 5:15; 30:18; 38:15; Dan 9:18; Hos 6:6; Amos 5:12, 15; Mic 6:8; Mal 2:17; 3:15<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>What Is Good<\/h3>\n<p>Micah 6:8, a well-known and oft-memorized verse, answers a series of questions put forth by a confused people who had lost their moral and spiritual bearings.<\/p>\n<p>The people of Israel wanted to know what they could do to be acceptable to the Lord. In an oppressive and deceitful society, they had lost their sense of what the Lord regards as good. God gave them a concrete answer: He is not seeking mechanical, ritualistic worship (6:6-7), but that his people do what is right in relationship with him and in their relationships with each other. As they are motivated by love, their actions will be marked by justice, mercy, and humility. God’s people are not to oppress others, but to do what is just, righteous, and honest toward one another.<\/p>\n<p>Micah 6:8 summarizes what God had already made known in the past to Israel: Humility, faith, and obedience are pleasing to him. God declared this message to Abraham (Gen 15:6; 17:1, 9), to Moses at Sinai (Exod 20–23), through his prophets (e.g., Deut 6:1-8; Hos 6:6), and through Israel’s wise men (Prov 1:7).<\/p>\n<p>It pleases God when his people walk humbly in faith before him, as exemplified by Moses (Num 12:3), Habakkuk (Hab 3:17-19), Daniel (Dan 9:1-19), and Ezra (Ezra 9:5-15). Real spirituality and devotion result in doing good, seeking justice, relieving oppression, defending orphans, and aiding widows (see Exod 22:21-24; 23:2-12; Deut 15:4-11; 24:12-15; Neh 5:1-13; Jer 22:16; Dan 4:27; Amos 5:7-24; Jas 1:27). These acts are marks of God’s own character (Ps 146:9; Matt 11:5).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Exod 33:19; 34:6-7; Deut 8:3; 16:19-20; 1 Kgs 3:11; Ezra 7:25; Neh 9:31; Isa 2:9; 5:15; 30:18; 38:15; Dan 9:18; Hos 6:6; Amos 5:12, 15; Mic 6:8; Mal 2:17; 3:15<\/p>","summary_ro":"What Is Good Micah 6:8, a well-known and oft-memorized verse, answers a series of questions put forth by a confused people who had lost their moral and spiritual bearings. The people of Israel wanted to know what they could do to be acceptable to the Lord. In an oppressive and deceitful society, they had lost their sense of what the Lord regards as good. God gave them a concrete answer: He is not seeking mechanical, ritualistic worship (6:6-7), but that his people do what is right in relation...","summary_en":"What Is Good Micah 6:8, a well-known and oft-memorized verse, answers a series of questions put forth by a confused people who had lost their moral and spiritual bearings. The people of Israel wanted to know what they could do to be acceptable to the Lord. In an oppressive and deceitful society, they had lost their sense of what the Lord regards as good. God gave them a concrete answer: He is not seeking mechanical, ritualistic worship (6:6-7), but that his people do what is right in relation...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":116098,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"True Justice","title_en":"True Justice","content_ro":"<h3>True Justice<\/h3>\n<p>The community of God’s people in Old Testament Israel was to be responsible for the well-being of widows, orphans, and foreigners (Deut 27:19). The Israelites were to represent the just God whom they served (see 10:17-19) and always remember that they had been an enslaved and defenseless people in Egypt (see 10:19; 24:18-22). How could they, the beneficiaries of God’s unfailing love and faithfulness, ignore the rights and needs of the most vulnerable who lived among them?<\/p>\n<p>Every society has social structures that separate the powerful from the weak and the privileged from the ill-favored. This was true of Old Testament Israel despite its unique constitution and commission as a “holy nation” (Exod 19:6). Judges and other officials charged with upholding the law might tend to favor individuals with financial means, high social standing, or community influence, especially when these individuals offer bribes (Deut 16:19). However, God cannot be bribed, nor does he show partiality (10:17). The rich and the poor, the powerful and the weak, the exalted and the downtrodden are all alike to him.<\/p>\n<p>The prophets of Israel understood the need for equity and justice and often called for the application of these principles to community and national life (Isa 1:17; 10:1-4; 59:14-19; Ezek 22:23-29; Amos 2:6-8; Hab 1:4). The New Testament also appeals for proper treatment of the poor and disadvantaged and speaks of God’s displeasure when they are neglected (Matt 23:23; 2 Cor 9:6-10; Jas 2:1-7).<\/p>\n<p>Justice that falls short of God’s standard is not true justice, and those responsible for corrupting justice can expect full retribution from the Judge of all the earth (see Deut 25:13-16).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Exod 23:3; Lev 19:15; Deut 10:17-19; 16:19; 24:12-22; 25:13-16; 27:19; Ps 82:1-5; Prov 11:1; Isa 1:17; 10:1-4; 11:3-4; 59:14-19; Jer 22:13-17; Ezek 22:23-29; 45:9-10; Amos 2:6-8; 8:5-6; Hab 1:4; Matt 23:23; Luke 18:6-8; Jas 2:1-7<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>True Justice<\/h3>\n<p>The community of God’s people in Old Testament Israel was to be responsible for the well-being of widows, orphans, and foreigners (Deut 27:19). The Israelites were to represent the just God whom they served (see 10:17-19) and always remember that they had been an enslaved and defenseless people in Egypt (see 10:19; 24:18-22). How could they, the beneficiaries of God’s unfailing love and faithfulness, ignore the rights and needs of the most vulnerable who lived among them?<\/p>\n<p>Every society has social structures that separate the powerful from the weak and the privileged from the ill-favored. This was true of Old Testament Israel despite its unique constitution and commission as a “holy nation” (Exod 19:6). Judges and other officials charged with upholding the law might tend to favor individuals with financial means, high social standing, or community influence, especially when these individuals offer bribes (Deut 16:19). However, God cannot be bribed, nor does he show partiality (10:17). The rich and the poor, the powerful and the weak, the exalted and the downtrodden are all alike to him.<\/p>\n<p>The prophets of Israel understood the need for equity and justice and often called for the application of these principles to community and national life (Isa 1:17; 10:1-4; 59:14-19; Ezek 22:23-29; Amos 2:6-8; Hab 1:4). The New Testament also appeals for proper treatment of the poor and disadvantaged and speaks of God’s displeasure when they are neglected (Matt 23:23; 2 Cor 9:6-10; Jas 2:1-7).<\/p>\n<p>Justice that falls short of God’s standard is not true justice, and those responsible for corrupting justice can expect full retribution from the Judge of all the earth (see Deut 25:13-16).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Exod 23:3; Lev 19:15; Deut 10:17-19; 16:19; 24:12-22; 25:13-16; 27:19; Ps 82:1-5; Prov 11:1; Isa 1:17; 10:1-4; 11:3-4; 59:14-19; Jer 22:13-17; Ezek 22:23-29; 45:9-10; Amos 2:6-8; 8:5-6; Hab 1:4; Matt 23:23; Luke 18:6-8; Jas 2:1-7<\/p>","summary_ro":"True Justice The community of God’s people in Old Testament Israel was to be responsible for the well-being of widows, orphans, and foreigners (Deut 27:19). The Israelites were to represent the just God whom they served (see 10:17-19) and always remember that they had been an enslaved and defenseless people in Egypt (see 10:19; 24:18-22). How could they, the beneficiaries of God’s unfailing love and faithfulness, ignore the rights and needs of the most vulnerable who lived among them? Every s...","summary_en":"True Justice The community of God’s people in Old Testament Israel was to be responsible for the well-being of widows, orphans, and foreigners (Deut 27:19). The Israelites were to represent the just God whom they served (see 10:17-19) and always remember that they had been an enslaved and defenseless people in Egypt (see 10:19; 24:18-22). How could they, the beneficiaries of God’s unfailing love and faithfulness, ignore the rights and needs of the most vulnerable who lived among them? Every s...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":119988,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"What Is Good","title_en":"What Is Good","content_ro":"<h3>What Is Good<\/h3>\n<p>Micah 6:8, a well-known and oft-memorized verse, answers a series of questions put forth by a confused people who had lost their moral and spiritual bearings.<\/p>\n<p>The people of Israel wanted to know what they could do to be acceptable to the Lord. In an oppressive and deceitful society, they had lost their sense of what the Lord regards as good. God gave them a concrete answer: He is not seeking mechanical, ritualistic worship (6:6-7), but that his people do what is right in relationship with him and in their relationships with each other. As they are motivated by love, their actions will be marked by justice, mercy, and humility. God’s people are not to oppress others, but to do what is just, righteous, and honest toward one another.<\/p>\n<p>Micah 6:8 summarizes what God had already made known in the past to Israel: Humility, faith, and obedience are pleasing to him. God declared this message to Abraham (Gen 15:6; 17:1, 9), to Moses at Sinai (Exod 20–23), through his prophets (e.g., Deut 6:1-8; Hos 6:6), and through Israel’s wise men (Prov 1:7).<\/p>\n<p>It pleases God when his people walk humbly in faith before him, as exemplified by Moses (Num 12:3), Habakkuk (Hab 3:17-19), Daniel (Dan 9:1-19), and Ezra (Ezra 9:5-15). Real spirituality and devotion result in doing good, seeking justice, relieving oppression, defending orphans, and aiding widows (see Exod 22:21-24; 23:2-12; Deut 15:4-11; 24:12-15; Neh 5:1-13; Jer 22:16; Dan 4:27; Amos 5:7-24; Jas 1:27). These acts are marks of God’s own character (Ps 146:9; Matt 11:5).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Exod 33:19; 34:6-7; Deut 8:3; 16:19-20; 1 Kgs 3:11; Ezra 7:25; Neh 9:31; Isa 2:9; 5:15; 30:18; 38:15; Dan 9:18; Hos 6:6; Amos 5:12, 15; Mic 6:8; Mal 2:17; 3:15<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>What Is Good<\/h3>\n<p>Micah 6:8, a well-known and oft-memorized verse, answers a series of questions put forth by a confused people who had lost their moral and spiritual bearings.<\/p>\n<p>The people of Israel wanted to know what they could do to be acceptable to the Lord. In an oppressive and deceitful society, they had lost their sense of what the Lord regards as good. God gave them a concrete answer: He is not seeking mechanical, ritualistic worship (6:6-7), but that his people do what is right in relationship with him and in their relationships with each other. As they are motivated by love, their actions will be marked by justice, mercy, and humility. God’s people are not to oppress others, but to do what is just, righteous, and honest toward one another.<\/p>\n<p>Micah 6:8 summarizes what God had already made known in the past to Israel: Humility, faith, and obedience are pleasing to him. God declared this message to Abraham (Gen 15:6; 17:1, 9), to Moses at Sinai (Exod 20–23), through his prophets (e.g., Deut 6:1-8; Hos 6:6), and through Israel’s wise men (Prov 1:7).<\/p>\n<p>It pleases God when his people walk humbly in faith before him, as exemplified by Moses (Num 12:3), Habakkuk (Hab 3:17-19), Daniel (Dan 9:1-19), and Ezra (Ezra 9:5-15). Real spirituality and devotion result in doing good, seeking justice, relieving oppression, defending orphans, and aiding widows (see Exod 22:21-24; 23:2-12; Deut 15:4-11; 24:12-15; Neh 5:1-13; Jer 22:16; Dan 4:27; Amos 5:7-24; Jas 1:27). These acts are marks of God’s own character (Ps 146:9; Matt 11:5).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Exod 33:19; 34:6-7; Deut 8:3; 16:19-20; 1 Kgs 3:11; Ezra 7:25; Neh 9:31; Isa 2:9; 5:15; 30:18; 38:15; Dan 9:18; Hos 6:6; Amos 5:12, 15; Mic 6:8; Mal 2:17; 3:15<\/p>","summary_ro":"What Is Good Micah 6:8, a well-known and oft-memorized verse, answers a series of questions put forth by a confused people who had lost their moral and spiritual bearings. The people of Israel wanted to know what they could do to be acceptable to the Lord. In an oppressive and deceitful society, they had lost their sense of what the Lord regards as good. God gave them a concrete answer: He is not seeking mechanical, ritualistic worship (6:6-7), but that his people do what is right in relation...","summary_en":"What Is Good Micah 6:8, a well-known and oft-memorized verse, answers a series of questions put forth by a confused people who had lost their moral and spiritual bearings. The people of Israel wanted to know what they could do to be acceptable to the Lord. In an oppressive and deceitful society, they had lost their sense of what the Lord regards as good. God gave them a concrete answer: He is not seeking mechanical, ritualistic worship (6:6-7), but that his people do what is right in relation...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":143724,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"True Justice","title_en":"True Justice","content_ro":"<h3>True Justice<\/h3>\n<p>The community of God’s people in Old Testament Israel was to be responsible for the well-being of widows, orphans, and foreigners (Deut 27:19). The Israelites were to represent the just God whom they served (see 10:17-19) and always remember that they had been an enslaved and defenseless people in Egypt (see 10:19; 24:18-22). How could they, the beneficiaries of God’s unfailing love and faithfulness, ignore the rights and needs of the most vulnerable who lived among them?<\/p>\n<p>Every society has social structures that separate the powerful from the weak and the privileged from the ill-favored. This was true of Old Testament Israel despite its unique constitution and commission as a “holy nation” (Exod 19:6). Judges and other officials charged with upholding the law might tend to favor individuals with financial means, high social standing, or community influence, especially when these individuals offer bribes (Deut 16:19). However, God cannot be bribed, nor does he show partiality (10:17). The rich and the poor, the powerful and the weak, the exalted and the downtrodden are all alike to him.<\/p>\n<p>The prophets of Israel understood the need for equity and justice and often called for the application of these principles to community and national life (Isa 1:17; 10:1-4; 59:14-19; Ezek 22:23-29; Amos 2:6-8; Hab 1:4). The New Testament also appeals for proper treatment of the poor and disadvantaged and speaks of God’s displeasure when they are neglected (Matt 23:23; 2 Cor 9:6-10; Jas 2:1-7).<\/p>\n<p>Justice that falls short of God’s standard is not true justice, and those responsible for corrupting justice can expect full retribution from the Judge of all the earth (see Deut 25:13-16).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Exod 23:3; Lev 19:15; Deut 10:17-19; 16:19; 24:12-22; 25:13-16; 27:19; Ps 82:1-5; Prov 11:1; Isa 1:17; 10:1-4; 11:3-4; 59:14-19; Jer 22:13-17; Ezek 22:23-29; 45:9-10; Amos 2:6-8; 8:5-6; Hab 1:4; Matt 23:23; Luke 18:6-8; Jas 2:1-7<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>True Justice<\/h3>\n<p>The community of God’s people in Old Testament Israel was to be responsible for the well-being of widows, orphans, and foreigners (Deut 27:19). The Israelites were to represent the just God whom they served (see 10:17-19) and always remember that they had been an enslaved and defenseless people in Egypt (see 10:19; 24:18-22). How could they, the beneficiaries of God’s unfailing love and faithfulness, ignore the rights and needs of the most vulnerable who lived among them?<\/p>\n<p>Every society has social structures that separate the powerful from the weak and the privileged from the ill-favored. This was true of Old Testament Israel despite its unique constitution and commission as a “holy nation” (Exod 19:6). Judges and other officials charged with upholding the law might tend to favor individuals with financial means, high social standing, or community influence, especially when these individuals offer bribes (Deut 16:19). However, God cannot be bribed, nor does he show partiality (10:17). The rich and the poor, the powerful and the weak, the exalted and the downtrodden are all alike to him.<\/p>\n<p>The prophets of Israel understood the need for equity and justice and often called for the application of these principles to community and national life (Isa 1:17; 10:1-4; 59:14-19; Ezek 22:23-29; Amos 2:6-8; Hab 1:4). The New Testament also appeals for proper treatment of the poor and disadvantaged and speaks of God’s displeasure when they are neglected (Matt 23:23; 2 Cor 9:6-10; Jas 2:1-7).<\/p>\n<p>Justice that falls short of God’s standard is not true justice, and those responsible for corrupting justice can expect full retribution from the Judge of all the earth (see Deut 25:13-16).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Exod 23:3; Lev 19:15; Deut 10:17-19; 16:19; 24:12-22; 25:13-16; 27:19; Ps 82:1-5; Prov 11:1; Isa 1:17; 10:1-4; 11:3-4; 59:14-19; Jer 22:13-17; Ezek 22:23-29; 45:9-10; Amos 2:6-8; 8:5-6; Hab 1:4; Matt 23:23; Luke 18:6-8; Jas 2:1-7<\/p>","summary_ro":"True Justice The community of God’s people in Old Testament Israel was to be responsible for the well-being of widows, orphans, and foreigners (Deut 27:19). The Israelites were to represent the just God whom they served (see 10:17-19) and always remember that they had been an enslaved and defenseless people in Egypt (see 10:19; 24:18-22). How could they, the beneficiaries of God’s unfailing love and faithfulness, ignore the rights and needs of the most vulnerable who lived among them? Every s...","summary_en":"True Justice The community of God’s people in Old Testament Israel was to be responsible for the well-being of widows, orphans, and foreigners (Deut 27:19). The Israelites were to represent the just God whom they served (see 10:17-19) and always remember that they had been an enslaved and defenseless people in Egypt (see 10:19; 24:18-22). How could they, the beneficiaries of God’s unfailing love and faithfulness, ignore the rights and needs of the most vulnerable who lived among them? Every s...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":147614,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"What Is Good","title_en":"What Is Good","content_ro":"<h3>What Is Good<\/h3>\n<p>Micah 6:8, a well-known and oft-memorized verse, answers a series of questions put forth by a confused people who had lost their moral and spiritual bearings.<\/p>\n<p>The people of Israel wanted to know what they could do to be acceptable to the Lord. In an oppressive and deceitful society, they had lost their sense of what the Lord regards as good. God gave them a concrete answer: He is not seeking mechanical, ritualistic worship (6:6-7), but that his people do what is right in relationship with him and in their relationships with each other. As they are motivated by love, their actions will be marked by justice, mercy, and humility. God’s people are not to oppress others, but to do what is just, righteous, and honest toward one another.<\/p>\n<p>Micah 6:8 summarizes what God had already made known in the past to Israel: Humility, faith, and obedience are pleasing to him. God declared this message to Abraham (Gen 15:6; 17:1, 9), to Moses at Sinai (Exod 20–23), through his prophets (e.g., Deut 6:1-8; Hos 6:6), and through Israel’s wise men (Prov 1:7).<\/p>\n<p>It pleases God when his people walk humbly in faith before him, as exemplified by Moses (Num 12:3), Habakkuk (Hab 3:17-19), Daniel (Dan 9:1-19), and Ezra (Ezra 9:5-15). Real spirituality and devotion result in doing good, seeking justice, relieving oppression, defending orphans, and aiding widows (see Exod 22:21-24; 23:2-12; Deut 15:4-11; 24:12-15; Neh 5:1-13; Jer 22:16; Dan 4:27; Amos 5:7-24; Jas 1:27). These acts are marks of God’s own character (Ps 146:9; Matt 11:5).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Exod 33:19; 34:6-7; Deut 8:3; 16:19-20; 1 Kgs 3:11; Ezra 7:25; Neh 9:31; Isa 2:9; 5:15; 30:18; 38:15; Dan 9:18; Hos 6:6; Amos 5:12, 15; Mic 6:8; Mal 2:17; 3:15<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>What Is Good<\/h3>\n<p>Micah 6:8, a well-known and oft-memorized verse, answers a series of questions put forth by a confused people who had lost their moral and spiritual bearings.<\/p>\n<p>The people of Israel wanted to know what they could do to be acceptable to the Lord. In an oppressive and deceitful society, they had lost their sense of what the Lord regards as good. God gave them a concrete answer: He is not seeking mechanical, ritualistic worship (6:6-7), but that his people do what is right in relationship with him and in their relationships with each other. As they are motivated by love, their actions will be marked by justice, mercy, and humility. God’s people are not to oppress others, but to do what is just, righteous, and honest toward one another.<\/p>\n<p>Micah 6:8 summarizes what God had already made known in the past to Israel: Humility, faith, and obedience are pleasing to him. God declared this message to Abraham (Gen 15:6; 17:1, 9), to Moses at Sinai (Exod 20–23), through his prophets (e.g., Deut 6:1-8; Hos 6:6), and through Israel’s wise men (Prov 1:7).<\/p>\n<p>It pleases God when his people walk humbly in faith before him, as exemplified by Moses (Num 12:3), Habakkuk (Hab 3:17-19), Daniel (Dan 9:1-19), and Ezra (Ezra 9:5-15). Real spirituality and devotion result in doing good, seeking justice, relieving oppression, defending orphans, and aiding widows (see Exod 22:21-24; 23:2-12; Deut 15:4-11; 24:12-15; Neh 5:1-13; Jer 22:16; Dan 4:27; Amos 5:7-24; Jas 1:27). These acts are marks of God’s own character (Ps 146:9; Matt 11:5).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Exod 33:19; 34:6-7; Deut 8:3; 16:19-20; 1 Kgs 3:11; Ezra 7:25; Neh 9:31; Isa 2:9; 5:15; 30:18; 38:15; Dan 9:18; Hos 6:6; Amos 5:12, 15; Mic 6:8; Mal 2:17; 3:15<\/p>","summary_ro":"What Is Good Micah 6:8, a well-known and oft-memorized verse, answers a series of questions put forth by a confused people who had lost their moral and spiritual bearings. The people of Israel wanted to know what they could do to be acceptable to the Lord. In an oppressive and deceitful society, they had lost their sense of what the Lord regards as good. God gave them a concrete answer: He is not seeking mechanical, ritualistic worship (6:6-7), but that his people do what is right in relation...","summary_en":"What Is Good Micah 6:8, a well-known and oft-memorized verse, answers a series of questions put forth by a confused people who had lost their moral and spiritual bearings. The people of Israel wanted to know what they could do to be acceptable to the Lord. In an oppressive and deceitful society, they had lost their sense of what the Lord regards as good. God gave them a concrete answer: He is not seeking mechanical, ritualistic worship (6:6-7), but that his people do what is right in relation...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"13":[{"id":6937,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Clothing","title_en":"Clothing","content_ro":"<h3>CLOTHING<\/h3>\n<p>Clothing mentioned in the Bible is usually referred to in such general terms as “inner garment,” “outer garment,” or “tunic.” Few descriptions give specific details of costumes or clothing, and it is therefore necessary to rely on paintings, pottery, decorations, statues, and bas-reliefs to show the clothing styles of the period.<\/p>\n<p>Many ancient Near Eastern peoples (including the Israelites) kept flocks of sheep before the discovery of spinning and weaving and used the leather of their hides for clothing. Later, wool plucked from the sheep and from branches on which the fleece had accumulated as the animals brushed past was made into a feltlike fabric. Wool remained one of the most important fabrics for clothing throughout the biblical period.<\/p>\n<p>As the seminomadic Israelite tribes became more sedentary in nature, flax was cultivated. It was woven into linen, which became a commonly used fabric. At the beginning of the middle Bronze Age (c. 2000 <span>BC<\/span>), fine silks began to be imported from China, and wild silk was produced in some areas of the Near East. Cotton was known in Egypt, but it does not appear to have been produced anywhere in Palestine in the biblical period.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"MaleClothing\">Male Clothing<\/p>\n<p>Early in biblical times the loincloth formed an important item of male clothing that was worn by all levels of society. Prior to 2000 <span>BC<\/span>, a type of loincloth was also the customary piece of clothing for all Egyptians, from the lowliest laborer to the pharaoh. At a later period, however, it appeared only as part of military dress (Ez 23:15). The inner garment (a tunic or shirt) was made of wool or linen. It had openings for the neck and arms, and appears to have had long sleeves, although some styles had half sleeves. It was worn next to the skin and fell either to the knees or, more often, to the ankles, frequently being belted at the waist. The Greek <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">chiton<\/span> (“coat”) and the Roman tunic would have been undergarments of a similar character. A man who was wearing nothing except this undergarment was considered “naked.” The young man who followed after Jesus at Gethsemane at his arrest was probably attired in this manner (Mk 14:51-52).<\/p>\n<p>Generally speaking, the outer garment, formed out of a square-shaped piece of cloth, was referred to as a cloak or mantle. It had openings for the arms and was draped over one or both shoulders.<\/p>\n<p>A Hebrew man was considered improperly dressed without his cloak, and one was forbidden to demand another’s mantle as a loan or pledge. At night, when the other items of clothing were removed, the cloak, which was often made of animal skin or wool, was used as a blanket (Ex 22:26-27; Dt 24:13). Cloaks made of goat’s hair or camel’s hair, such as John the Baptist wore (Mt 3:4; Mk 1:6), would have been particularly warm at night.<\/p>\n<p>The coat of many colors that Jacob gave to Joseph was probably a striped shirt or tunic made of leather or wool felt. The entire garment may have been bound with a woolen border (Gn 37:3). The garment Hannah made each year for the young Samuel was probably a coat or mantle (1 Sm 2:19).<\/p>\n<p>Cloaks were usually made with a hem; it was this that the woman touched when she came to Jesus for healing (Mt 9:20). The robe that Roman soldiers placed derisively upon Jesus to symbolize his kingship was probably a purple military cloak such as Roman officers commonly wore (Mt 27:28-31; Mk 15:17; Jn 19:2).<\/p>\n<p>The Greeks used the term <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">himation<\/span> for an outer garment, similar to the robe that was placed on the prodigal son (Lk 15:22) when his father celebrated the son’s return with his best food, clothing, and jewelry. The cloak that Paul wore (2 Tm 4:13) may well have been a circular style of cape that was popular in the first century <span>AD<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p>Garments were of different qualities and signified rank or office (Is 3:6). The scribes and prophets wore special mantles symbolic of their professions. Elijah wore a prophet’s mantle (1 Kgs 19:13, 19; 2 Kgs 2:8, 13-14). In NT times scribes wore special robes (Mk 12:38; Lk 20:46).<\/p>\n<p>Christ and his disciples probably wore tunics and sandals, and carried moneybags and staffs (Mt 10:9-10; Mk 6:8; Lk 9:3; 10:4). When Roman soldiers divided Jesus’ clothing after the Crucifixion (Jn 19:23-24), they cast lots for the inner garment, one woven without any seams and probably made of wool. This was the most valuable of Jesus’ items of clothing.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Footwear\">Footwear<\/p>\n<p>In Bible times footwear consisted of shoes and sandals, which were an essential part of a person’s wardrobe (2 Chr 28:15; Acts 12:8). Occasionally sandals had wooden soles, but usually they were leather. Sometimes they had an enclosed upper front and open back. The upper part was typically made of open strips of leather, and sometimes the sandal merely consisted of a sole with thongs laced around the leg or ankle. A woman’s sandals were considered an attractive and fashionable part of her wardrobe (Jdt 10:4; 16:9).<\/p>\n<p>On a long journey through the country, one’s sandals might be carried and saved for arrival in the next town, so that they would not be worn out. (Being barefoot in a town or city was a sign of abject poverty.) Since sandals were so open in design, one can easily understand the necessity for the ritual foot washing of a guest.<\/p>\n<p>Shoes were not worn in the temple or on any holy ground (Ex 3:5; Jos 5:15) and were also taken off when a person was in a house. It was customary to remove the sandals at a time of mourning. The shoes that the Israelites wore in their wilderness wanderings did not wear out (Dt 29:5).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Cloth and Cloth Manufacturing.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>CLOTHING<\/h3>\n<p>Clothing mentioned in the Bible is usually referred to in such general terms as “inner garment,” “outer garment,” or “tunic.” Few descriptions give specific details of costumes or clothing, and it is therefore necessary to rely on paintings, pottery, decorations, statues, and bas-reliefs to show the clothing styles of the period.<\/p>\n<p>Many ancient Near Eastern peoples (including the Israelites) kept flocks of sheep before the discovery of spinning and weaving and used the leather of their hides for clothing. Later, wool plucked from the sheep and from branches on which the fleece had accumulated as the animals brushed past was made into a feltlike fabric. Wool remained one of the most important fabrics for clothing throughout the biblical period.<\/p>\n<p>As the seminomadic Israelite tribes became more sedentary in nature, flax was cultivated. It was woven into linen, which became a commonly used fabric. At the beginning of the middle Bronze Age (c. 2000 <span>BC<\/span>), fine silks began to be imported from China, and wild silk was produced in some areas of the Near East. Cotton was known in Egypt, but it does not appear to have been produced anywhere in Palestine in the biblical period.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"MaleClothing\">Male Clothing<\/p>\n<p>Early in biblical times the loincloth formed an important item of male clothing that was worn by all levels of society. Prior to 2000 <span>BC<\/span>, a type of loincloth was also the customary piece of clothing for all Egyptians, from the lowliest laborer to the pharaoh. At a later period, however, it appeared only as part of military dress (Ez 23:15). The inner garment (a tunic or shirt) was made of wool or linen. It had openings for the neck and arms, and appears to have had long sleeves, although some styles had half sleeves. It was worn next to the skin and fell either to the knees or, more often, to the ankles, frequently being belted at the waist. The Greek <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">chiton<\/span> (“coat”) and the Roman tunic would have been undergarments of a similar character. A man who was wearing nothing except this undergarment was considered “naked.” The young man who followed after Jesus at Gethsemane at his arrest was probably attired in this manner (Mk 14:51-52).<\/p>\n<p>Generally speaking, the outer garment, formed out of a square-shaped piece of cloth, was referred to as a cloak or mantle. It had openings for the arms and was draped over one or both shoulders.<\/p>\n<p>A Hebrew man was considered improperly dressed without his cloak, and one was forbidden to demand another’s mantle as a loan or pledge. At night, when the other items of clothing were removed, the cloak, which was often made of animal skin or wool, was used as a blanket (Ex 22:26-27; Dt 24:13). Cloaks made of goat’s hair or camel’s hair, such as John the Baptist wore (Mt 3:4; Mk 1:6), would have been particularly warm at night.<\/p>\n<p>The coat of many colors that Jacob gave to Joseph was probably a striped shirt or tunic made of leather or wool felt. The entire garment may have been bound with a woolen border (Gn 37:3). The garment Hannah made each year for the young Samuel was probably a coat or mantle (1 Sm 2:19).<\/p>\n<p>Cloaks were usually made with a hem; it was this that the woman touched when she came to Jesus for healing (Mt 9:20). The robe that Roman soldiers placed derisively upon Jesus to symbolize his kingship was probably a purple military cloak such as Roman officers commonly wore (Mt 27:28-31; Mk 15:17; Jn 19:2).<\/p>\n<p>The Greeks used the term <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">himation<\/span> for an outer garment, similar to the robe that was placed on the prodigal son (Lk 15:22) when his father celebrated the son’s return with his best food, clothing, and jewelry. The cloak that Paul wore (2 Tm 4:13) may well have been a circular style of cape that was popular in the first century <span>AD<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p>Garments were of different qualities and signified rank or office (Is 3:6). The scribes and prophets wore special mantles symbolic of their professions. Elijah wore a prophet’s mantle (1 Kgs 19:13, 19; 2 Kgs 2:8, 13-14). In NT times scribes wore special robes (Mk 12:38; Lk 20:46).<\/p>\n<p>Christ and his disciples probably wore tunics and sandals, and carried moneybags and staffs (Mt 10:9-10; Mk 6:8; Lk 9:3; 10:4). When Roman soldiers divided Jesus’ clothing after the Crucifixion (Jn 19:23-24), they cast lots for the inner garment, one woven without any seams and probably made of wool. This was the most valuable of Jesus’ items of clothing.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Footwear\">Footwear<\/p>\n<p>In Bible times footwear consisted of shoes and sandals, which were an essential part of a person’s wardrobe (2 Chr 28:15; Acts 12:8). Occasionally sandals had wooden soles, but usually they were leather. Sometimes they had an enclosed upper front and open back. The upper part was typically made of open strips of leather, and sometimes the sandal merely consisted of a sole with thongs laced around the leg or ankle. A woman’s sandals were considered an attractive and fashionable part of her wardrobe (Jdt 10:4; 16:9).<\/p>\n<p>On a long journey through the country, one’s sandals might be carried and saved for arrival in the next town, so that they would not be worn out. (Being barefoot in a town or city was a sign of abject poverty.) Since sandals were so open in design, one can easily understand the necessity for the ritual foot washing of a guest.<\/p>\n<p>Shoes were not worn in the temple or on any holy ground (Ex 3:5; Jos 5:15) and were also taken off when a person was in a house. It was customary to remove the sandals at a time of mourning. The shoes that the Israelites wore in their wilderness wanderings did not wear out (Dt 29:5).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Cloth and Cloth Manufacturing.<\/p>","summary_ro":"CLOTHING Clothing mentioned in the Bible is usually referred to in such general terms as “inner garment,” “outer garment,” or “tunic.” Few descriptions give specific details of costumes or clothing, and it is therefore necessary to rely on paintings, pottery, decorations, statues, and bas-reliefs to show the clothing styles of the period. Many ancient Near Eastern peoples (including the Israelites) kept flocks of sheep before the discovery of spinning and weaving and used the leather of their...","summary_en":"CLOTHING Clothing mentioned in the Bible is usually referred to in such general terms as “inner garment,” “outer garment,” or “tunic.” Few descriptions give specific details of costumes or clothing, and it is therefore necessary to rely on paintings, pottery, decorations, statues, and bas-reliefs to show the clothing styles of the period. Many ancient Near Eastern peoples (including the Israelites) kept flocks of sheep before the discovery of spinning and weaving and used the leather of their...","source":"Articles\/C.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":45144,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Deuteronomul 24:13","title_en":"Study Note: Deuteronomul 24:13","content_ro":"<p><strong>24:13<\/strong> <em>Return the cloak . . . by sunset:<\/em> The law was merciful.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>24:13<\/strong> <em>Return the cloak . . . by sunset:<\/em> The law was merciful.<\/p>","summary_ro":"24:13 Return the cloak . . . by sunset: The law was merciful.","summary_en":"24:13 Return the cloak . . . by sunset: The law was merciful.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":72770,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Deuteronomul 24:13","title_en":"Study Note: Deuteronomul 24:13","content_ro":"<p><strong>24:13<\/strong> <em>Return the cloak . . . by sunset:<\/em> The law was merciful.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>24:13<\/strong> <em>Return the cloak . . . by sunset:<\/em> The law was merciful.<\/p>","summary_ro":"24:13 Return the cloak . . . by sunset: The law was merciful.","summary_en":"24:13 Return the cloak . . . by sunset: The law was merciful.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":100396,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Deuteronomul 24:13","title_en":"Study Note: Deuteronomul 24:13","content_ro":"<p><strong>24:13<\/strong> <em>Return the cloak . . . by sunset:<\/em> The law was merciful.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>24:13<\/strong> <em>Return the cloak . . . by sunset:<\/em> The law was merciful.<\/p>","summary_ro":"24:13 Return the cloak . . . by sunset: The law was merciful.","summary_en":"24:13 Return the cloak . . . by sunset: The law was merciful.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":128022,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Deuteronomul 24:13","title_en":"Study Note: Deuteronomul 24:13","content_ro":"<p><strong>24:13<\/strong> <em>Return the cloak . . . by sunset:<\/em> The law was merciful.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>24:13<\/strong> <em>Return the cloak . . . by sunset:<\/em> The law was merciful.<\/p>","summary_ro":"24:13 Return the cloak . . . by sunset: The law was merciful.","summary_en":"24:13 Return the cloak . . . by sunset: The law was merciful.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"14":[{"id":4136,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Beggar","title_en":"Beggar","content_ro":"<h3>BEGGAR<\/h3>\n<p>One who asks for charity, especially one who lives by begging, a mendicant.<\/p>\n<p>Biblical references to begging are limited to such Hebrew verbs as “to seek” or “to ask,” and, as a noun, to “the poor and needy”; in the NT, Greek terms refer to being “poor” or “miserable,” and to those who “ask for more.” Professional beggars were unknown in Moses’ time, since the law made ample provision for taking care of the poor.<\/p>\n<p>Earliest legislation (Dt 15:11) mandated the care of those who were poor. There were regulations such as the Sabbath year, the year of remission to those indebted (Lv 25). In that year the produce of the land was left to the poor and destitute (Ex 23:11), and all debts were canceled (Dt 15:1). The duty of lending liberally to the poor was promoted (vv 7-11), and hired laborers were protected (24:14-15). The purpose was that “there should be no more poor among you” (15:4). Indeed, in the early days of Israelite settlement, all Israelites enjoyed a comparable standard of living.<\/p>\n<p>In excavations at Tirsah near Nablus, the size and arrangements of houses of the tenth century <span>BC<\/span> are all about the same. By the eighth century <span>BC<\/span>, there is a striking contrast, with houses on the same site clearly divided into the town’s richer and poorer quarters. The social revolution between those two centuries was associated with the rise of the Israelite monarchy and growth of a class of officials who gained private profits from their positions. The prophets condemned the fact that wealth was ill-gotten and badly distributed in their day (e.g., Is 5:8; Hos 12:8; Am 8:4-7; Mi 2:2). The prophet Amos denounced creditors who felt no pity for the poor (Am 2:6-8; 8:6). Yet, throughout the OT, there is essentially no reference to beggars. During the intertestamental period, however, almsgiving became an important religious duty.<\/p>\n<p>In the NT, begging seems to be prevalent. In the ministry of Jesus, references are made to a blind beggar (Jn 9:8-9), to blind Bartimaeus (Mk 10:46-52), and to Lazarus, a godly beggar who is contrasted with a rich man (Lk 16:19-31). The apostles Peter and John encountered a crippled beggar by the “Beautiful,” or Nicanor, Gate in Jerusalem (Acts 3:1-11). Jesus rebuked an ostentatious show of almsgiving (Mt 6:1-4) but stressed the importance of giving to the poor from right motives (Mt 5:42-48). By the time of Jesus, Jerusalem had become a center for beggars, probably because almsgiving in the Holy City was then regarded as particularly meritorious. Begging in Jerusalem was concentrated around the holy places. The pool of Beth-zatha was a place of healing, and the sick, blind, lame, and paralyzed lay there to beg as well as to get into the waters for healing (Jn 5:2-9).<\/p>\n<p>In the early Christian community, the first organization of officers was made to provide for a fair distribution of funds to the poor (Acts 4:32-35; 6:1-6). On the first day of each week, some portion of each Christian’s income was to be allotted to the needy (11:27-30; Rom 15:25-27; 1 Cor 16:1-4). Possibly the poverty of Palestine was made worse by heavy Roman taxation; tax gatherers as well as beggars are prominent in the Gospel narratives. It has also been suggested that the rise of the Zealots was closely associated with the social factor of poverty; the revolutionary Zealots were largely comprised of society’s “dregs,” according to the Jewish historian Josephus. In <span>AD<\/span> 66 the Zealots burned the Jerusalem archives, no doubt intending to destroy the records of their debts kept there. Josephus reports that before the Roman destruction of Jerusalem, gangs of beggars were terrorizing the whole city. <em>See<\/em> Alms; Poor, The.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>BEGGAR<\/h3>\n<p>One who asks for charity, especially one who lives by begging, a mendicant.<\/p>\n<p>Biblical references to begging are limited to such Hebrew verbs as “to seek” or “to ask,” and, as a noun, to “the poor and needy”; in the NT, Greek terms refer to being “poor” or “miserable,” and to those who “ask for more.” Professional beggars were unknown in Moses’ time, since the law made ample provision for taking care of the poor.<\/p>\n<p>Earliest legislation (Dt 15:11) mandated the care of those who were poor. There were regulations such as the Sabbath year, the year of remission to those indebted (Lv 25). In that year the produce of the land was left to the poor and destitute (Ex 23:11), and all debts were canceled (Dt 15:1). The duty of lending liberally to the poor was promoted (vv 7-11), and hired laborers were protected (24:14-15). The purpose was that “there should be no more poor among you” (15:4). Indeed, in the early days of Israelite settlement, all Israelites enjoyed a comparable standard of living.<\/p>\n<p>In excavations at Tirsah near Nablus, the size and arrangements of houses of the tenth century <span>BC<\/span> are all about the same. By the eighth century <span>BC<\/span>, there is a striking contrast, with houses on the same site clearly divided into the town’s richer and poorer quarters. The social revolution between those two centuries was associated with the rise of the Israelite monarchy and growth of a class of officials who gained private profits from their positions. The prophets condemned the fact that wealth was ill-gotten and badly distributed in their day (e.g., Is 5:8; Hos 12:8; Am 8:4-7; Mi 2:2). The prophet Amos denounced creditors who felt no pity for the poor (Am 2:6-8; 8:6). Yet, throughout the OT, there is essentially no reference to beggars. During the intertestamental period, however, almsgiving became an important religious duty.<\/p>\n<p>In the NT, begging seems to be prevalent. In the ministry of Jesus, references are made to a blind beggar (Jn 9:8-9), to blind Bartimaeus (Mk 10:46-52), and to Lazarus, a godly beggar who is contrasted with a rich man (Lk 16:19-31). The apostles Peter and John encountered a crippled beggar by the “Beautiful,” or Nicanor, Gate in Jerusalem (Acts 3:1-11). Jesus rebuked an ostentatious show of almsgiving (Mt 6:1-4) but stressed the importance of giving to the poor from right motives (Mt 5:42-48). By the time of Jesus, Jerusalem had become a center for beggars, probably because almsgiving in the Holy City was then regarded as particularly meritorious. Begging in Jerusalem was concentrated around the holy places. The pool of Beth-zatha was a place of healing, and the sick, blind, lame, and paralyzed lay there to beg as well as to get into the waters for healing (Jn 5:2-9).<\/p>\n<p>In the early Christian community, the first organization of officers was made to provide for a fair distribution of funds to the poor (Acts 4:32-35; 6:1-6). On the first day of each week, some portion of each Christian’s income was to be allotted to the needy (11:27-30; Rom 15:25-27; 1 Cor 16:1-4). Possibly the poverty of Palestine was made worse by heavy Roman taxation; tax gatherers as well as beggars are prominent in the Gospel narratives. It has also been suggested that the rise of the Zealots was closely associated with the social factor of poverty; the revolutionary Zealots were largely comprised of society’s “dregs,” according to the Jewish historian Josephus. In <span>AD<\/span> 66 the Zealots burned the Jerusalem archives, no doubt intending to destroy the records of their debts kept there. Josephus reports that before the Roman destruction of Jerusalem, gangs of beggars were terrorizing the whole city. <em>See<\/em> Alms; Poor, The.<\/p>","summary_ro":"BEGGAR One who asks for charity, especially one who lives by begging, a mendicant. Biblical references to begging are limited to such Hebrew verbs as “to seek” or “to ask,” and, as a noun, to “the poor and needy”; in the NT, Greek terms refer to being “poor” or “miserable,” and to those who “ask for more.” Professional beggars were unknown in Moses’ time, since the law made ample provision for taking care of the poor. Earliest legislation (Dt 15:11) mandated the care of those who were poor. T...","summary_en":"BEGGAR One who asks for charity, especially one who lives by begging, a mendicant. Biblical references to begging are limited to such Hebrew verbs as “to seek” or “to ask,” and, as a noun, to “the poor and needy”; in the NT, Greek terms refer to being “poor” or “miserable,” and to those who “ask for more.” Professional beggars were unknown in Moses’ time, since the law made ample provision for taking care of the poor. Earliest legislation (Dt 15:11) mandated the care of those who were poor. T...","source":"Articles\/B.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":12638,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Foreigner","title_en":"Foreigner","content_ro":"<h3>FOREIGNER<\/h3>\n<p>Noncitizen or alien, temporary guest, sojourner, or stranger.<\/p>\n<p>The Hebrew word meaning “foreigner” is rendered correctly on all occasions in the <span>rsv<\/span>, but the <span>kjv<\/span> uses it in its truest sense on only two occasions (Dt 15:3; Ob 1:11). In most cases the <span>kjv<\/span> translates the word as “alien” (Dt 14:21; Jb 19:15; Ps 69:8; Lam 5:2) or “stranger” (Gn 15:13; Ex 2:22; Lv 25:35). Another Hebrew word means “dweller” (Lv 25:35; 1 Chr 29:15; Ps 39:12) or “settler.” For the most part, however, it is rendered “foreigner.”<\/p>\n<p>A temporary guest or sojourner was usually someone who wanted to take up temporary residence or had moved from one tribe of people to another, and then attempted to obtain certain privileges or rights belonging to the natives. A whole tribe might be sojourners in Israel. This was the case with the Gibeonites (Jos 9) and the Beerothites (2 Sm 4:3; cf. 2 Chr 2:17). The Israelites themselves were sojourners in the land of Egypt (Gn 15:13; 23:4; 26:3; 47:4; Ex 2:22; 23:9) and in other lands (Ru 1:1).<\/p>\n<p>Foreigners or sojourners had certain rights but also certain limitations while in Israel. They could offer sacrifices (Lv 17:8; 22:18) but could not enter the sanctuary unless circumcised (Ez 44:9). They were allowed to participate in the three great Jewish festivals (Dt 16:11, 14) but could not eat the Passover meal unless circumcised (Ex 12:43, 48). Foreigners were not obliged to follow the Israelite religion, but they shared in some of its benefits (Dt 14:29). They were not to work on the Sabbath or the Day of Atonement (Ex 20:10; 23:12; Lv 16:29; Dt 5:14) and could be stoned for reviling or blaspheming God’s name (Lv 24:16; Nm 15:30). Foreigners were forbidden to eat blood (Lv 17:10-12) but could eat animals that had died a natural death (Dt 14:21). Israel’s code of sexual morality also applied to the foreigner (Lv 18:26). There were prohibitions against Israelites intermarrying with foreigners, but it was nevertheless a common occurrence (Gn 34:14; Ex 34:12, 16; Dt 7:3-4; Jos 23:12).<\/p>\n<p>Civil rights were provided for foreigners by the law of Moses (Ex 12:49; Lv 24:22), and they came under the same legal processes and penalties (Lv 20:2; 24:16, 22; Dt 1:16). They were to be treated politely (Ex 22:21; 23:9), loved as those under the love of God (Lv 19:34; Dt 10:18-19), and treated generously (Lv 19:10; 23:22; Dt 24:19-22). They could receive asylum in times of trouble (Nm 35:15; Jos 20:9). Foreign servants were to receive treatment equal to Hebrew servants (Dt 24:14). A foreigner could not take part in tribal deliberations or become a king (17:15). The prophet Ezekiel looked forward to the messianic age when the foreigner would share all the blessings of the land with God’s own people (Ez 47:22-23).<\/p>\n<p>In the NT, “foreigner” is often used metaphorically. On the one hand, the work of Christ allowed all foreigners (i.e., those alienated from Christ) to become members of God’s household (Eph 2:11-19). On the other hand, Christians should consider themselves foreigners in this world (Heb 11:13; 1 Pt 2:11).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Barbarian; Neighbor.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>FOREIGNER<\/h3>\n<p>Noncitizen or alien, temporary guest, sojourner, or stranger.<\/p>\n<p>The Hebrew word meaning “foreigner” is rendered correctly on all occasions in the <span>rsv<\/span>, but the <span>kjv<\/span> uses it in its truest sense on only two occasions (Dt 15:3; Ob 1:11). In most cases the <span>kjv<\/span> translates the word as “alien” (Dt 14:21; Jb 19:15; Ps 69:8; Lam 5:2) or “stranger” (Gn 15:13; Ex 2:22; Lv 25:35). Another Hebrew word means “dweller” (Lv 25:35; 1 Chr 29:15; Ps 39:12) or “settler.” For the most part, however, it is rendered “foreigner.”<\/p>\n<p>A temporary guest or sojourner was usually someone who wanted to take up temporary residence or had moved from one tribe of people to another, and then attempted to obtain certain privileges or rights belonging to the natives. A whole tribe might be sojourners in Israel. This was the case with the Gibeonites (Jos 9) and the Beerothites (2 Sm 4:3; cf. 2 Chr 2:17). The Israelites themselves were sojourners in the land of Egypt (Gn 15:13; 23:4; 26:3; 47:4; Ex 2:22; 23:9) and in other lands (Ru 1:1).<\/p>\n<p>Foreigners or sojourners had certain rights but also certain limitations while in Israel. They could offer sacrifices (Lv 17:8; 22:18) but could not enter the sanctuary unless circumcised (Ez 44:9). They were allowed to participate in the three great Jewish festivals (Dt 16:11, 14) but could not eat the Passover meal unless circumcised (Ex 12:43, 48). Foreigners were not obliged to follow the Israelite religion, but they shared in some of its benefits (Dt 14:29). They were not to work on the Sabbath or the Day of Atonement (Ex 20:10; 23:12; Lv 16:29; Dt 5:14) and could be stoned for reviling or blaspheming God’s name (Lv 24:16; Nm 15:30). Foreigners were forbidden to eat blood (Lv 17:10-12) but could eat animals that had died a natural death (Dt 14:21). Israel’s code of sexual morality also applied to the foreigner (Lv 18:26). There were prohibitions against Israelites intermarrying with foreigners, but it was nevertheless a common occurrence (Gn 34:14; Ex 34:12, 16; Dt 7:3-4; Jos 23:12).<\/p>\n<p>Civil rights were provided for foreigners by the law of Moses (Ex 12:49; Lv 24:22), and they came under the same legal processes and penalties (Lv 20:2; 24:16, 22; Dt 1:16). They were to be treated politely (Ex 22:21; 23:9), loved as those under the love of God (Lv 19:34; Dt 10:18-19), and treated generously (Lv 19:10; 23:22; Dt 24:19-22). They could receive asylum in times of trouble (Nm 35:15; Jos 20:9). Foreign servants were to receive treatment equal to Hebrew servants (Dt 24:14). A foreigner could not take part in tribal deliberations or become a king (17:15). The prophet Ezekiel looked forward to the messianic age when the foreigner would share all the blessings of the land with God’s own people (Ez 47:22-23).<\/p>\n<p>In the NT, “foreigner” is often used metaphorically. On the one hand, the work of Christ allowed all foreigners (i.e., those alienated from Christ) to become members of God’s household (Eph 2:11-19). On the other hand, Christians should consider themselves foreigners in this world (Heb 11:13; 1 Pt 2:11).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Barbarian; Neighbor.<\/p>","summary_ro":"FOREIGNER Noncitizen or alien, temporary guest, sojourner, or stranger. The Hebrew word meaning “foreigner” is rendered correctly on all occasions in the rsv, but the kjv uses it in its truest sense on only two occasions (Dt 15:3; Ob 1:11). In most cases the kjv translates the word as “alien” (Dt 14:21; Jb 19:15; Ps 69:8; Lam 5:2) or “stranger” (Gn 15:13; Ex 2:22; Lv 25:35). Another Hebrew word means “dweller” (Lv 25:35; 1 Chr 29:15; Ps 39:12) or “settler.” For the most part, however, it is r...","summary_en":"FOREIGNER Noncitizen or alien, temporary guest, sojourner, or stranger. The Hebrew word meaning “foreigner” is rendered correctly on all occasions in the rsv, but the kjv uses it in its truest sense on only two occasions (Dt 15:3; Ob 1:11). In most cases the kjv translates the word as “alien” (Dt 14:21; Jb 19:15; Ps 69:8; Lam 5:2) or “stranger” (Gn 15:13; Ex 2:22; Lv 25:35). Another Hebrew word means “dweller” (Lv 25:35; 1 Chr 29:15; Ps 39:12) or “settler.” For the most part, however, it is r...","source":"Articles\/F.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"16":[{"id":11982,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Family Life and Relations","title_en":"Family Life and Relations","content_ro":"<h3>FAMILY LIFE AND RELATIONS<\/h3>\n<p>In Bible times, the family comprised members of a household, including not only parents and children, along with other relatives and concubines, but also servants, travelers, aliens, and anyone else who happened to be within the house and was therefore under the protection of the head of the family. The family of Jacob, for example, comprised three generations (Gn 46:8-26). Biblically, the term “family” is interchangeable with “house,” and “founding a house” can refer to setting up a separate dwelling as well as establishing a family. In the broader sense, “house” may refer to an entire nation (“house of Israel”). The heads of families returning from Babylon in the postexilic period controlled sometimes several hundred family members (Ezr 8:1-14). The family was a smaller part of a clan and tribe. In nomadic times the responsibilities and allegiances centered on the larger family group.<\/p>\n<p>Those who belonged to the clan knew that they had to work for common interests and accept responsibility for the whole group. All members of the family were to be protected and assisted in time of need.<\/p>\n<p>As the life of the Israelites became more settled, families (in the wider sense of the term) lived in villages surrounded by fields of wheat, barley, and flax, with areas of grazing land for sheep and goats. Each group of villages consisted of an intermarried, interdependent family group, such as that of the Danites of Zorah and Eshtaol (Jgs 18:11). The hard life of those days demanded a sharing of work and the loyal cooperation of the entire family for survival.<\/p>\n<p>As crafts and trades developed, along with a more sedentary lifestyle, sons learned their fathers’ skills and continued the family trade. Consequently, the whole village might follow a particular craft (1 Chr 4:14; Neh 11:35). By specializing in such trades, however, the villagers became less self-sufficient, depending more on farmers for food and on other specialized villages for the production of cloth or pottery (1 Chr 4:21-23).<\/p>\n<p>With the growth of cities, related groups lived together in specific areas. Many members of the tribes of Benjamin and Judah were listed in the census of Jerusalem by Nehemiah (Neh 11:4-8), and by the writer of Chronicles (1 Chr 9:3-9). One consequence of life in the cities was the fragmentation of the family group. As the bonds of the wider family were loosened, the unit consisted increasingly of a husband and wife with their children, living in one house. The size of houses that have been excavated precludes the idea of any larger family unit as the norm in OT societies.<\/p>\n<p>During the kingdom period, King David’s sons Amnon and Absalom set up their own separate houses (2 Sm 13:7-8, 20). At that time there were few slaves in Hebrew society, but they also were considered members of the family. As bonds of the wider family loosened, and the master of the household lost a degree of authority, the society became one in which the king was sovereign and all the people were his subjects.<\/p>\n<p>The early kings of Israel promoted such a change in order to establish a central ruling authority for the entire country. The king’s subjects fell broadly into the categories of employers and employees, corresponding to the rich and poor of society. By the eighth century <span>BC<\/span>, members of the wider family no longer worked for the communal good under the authority of the clan’s head; rather, individuals worked primarily for the good of their own immediate family. Hence one’s labor and devotion were focused more narrowly, and the greatest beneficiary was the king, the personal symbol of the nation.<\/p>\n<p>Emphasis on the smaller family unit increased, and old duties that had been willingly accepted by the wider groups in former times came to be neglected. People did not always help relatives in times of need, and they frequently had to be reminded of their obligations, particularly toward widows and orphans (Is 1:17; Jer 7:6). Family feuds also declined because members no longer felt responsible to take vengeance as a way to uphold the honor of the clan (2 Sm 3:27; 16:8; 2 Kgs 9:26). Nevertheless, Nehemiah expected Israelites to fight for their family honor (Neh 4:14). In NT times, the family was such a unit that it could be sold for a debt incurred by one of its members (Mt 18:25).<\/p>\n<p>The Hebrew religion’s emphasis on family participation in certain celebrations strengthened the small unit. The Passover, for example, was always celebrated as a family thanksgiving meal (Ex 12:3-4, 46). The prophet Samuel’s parents made a traditional annual pilgrimage to the shrine at Shiloh (1 Sm 2:19). In modern times, a young Jewish boy’s arrival at the threshold of manhood is celebrated with the Bar Mitzvah ceremony. Being so honored in the midst of a religious family preserves the ancient Hebrew tradition of family participation in religious ceremonies.<\/p>\n<p>In his preaching Jesus used the family as a symbol for the relationship of God to his people (Mt 19:14; 23:9; Lk 8:21). From the cross he handed over responsibility for the care of his mother to his disciple John (Jn 19:27).<\/p>\n<p>In NT times, the communion meals in the Jerusalem church took place by households (Acts 2:46). Early Christian meetings were held in the homes of believers because of opposition by the authorities. The book of Acts contains examples of entire families being converted to Christianity (Acts 10:24, 44-48; 16:15, 31-32). Timothy learned the gospel from his grandmother and mother (2 Tm 1:5).<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Status of Family Members<\/p>\n<p>• Marital Security<\/p>\n<p>• Position of Children<\/p>\n<p>• The Rights of Children<\/p>\n<p>• Daily Life of the Hebrew Family<\/p>\n<p>• In New Testament Times<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"StatusofFamilyMembers\">Status of Family Members<\/p>\n<p>From nomadic times, a father’s authority held the family group together in their encampment, and he became the symbol of their security. In ancient patriarchal societies, the father was an absolute master who had the power of life and death over family members, ruling with unchallenged authority. Although he had extensive responsibilities for those under his care, his power was awesome and his status unquestioned.<\/p>\n<p>A man’s possessions included his wife, servants, slaves, and animals (Ex 20:17; Dt 5:21). In fact, the phrase “to marry a wife” comes from a Hebrew root meaning “to become the master of a wife.” A husband was as much the master of his wife as he was of his home or his fields. Consequently, the wife addressed him in a subservient manner, as a slave would address a master (Gn 18:12; Jgs 19:26). This low status for a woman extended to a daughter’s position in the ancient household. Females were always under the authority of a male relative: first, the father; then a husband. If a woman became a widow, she was subject to her husband’s nearest male relative, who became her “redeemer.” The bride price (Gn 29:18, 27; Ex 22:16-17; 1 Sm 18:25; 2 Sm 3:14) paid by her husband was not exactly a purchase of the woman from her father, but the exchange of money did stigmatize her. The amount of a bride price depended on the father’s status (Gn 34:12). The usual price was probably 20 to 30 shekels of silver. The bride received gifts of jewelry, ornaments, and clothing from her future husband, and she occasionally enjoyed some sort of financial or material return from the bride price for her own use (Jos 15:19; Jgs 1:15). When her father or husband died, the money frequently reverted to her.<\/p>\n<p>An engaged woman was considered her fiancé’s property just as much as if she were already married to him (Dt 22:23-27). The woman left her own family at marriage, to live with and become part of her new husband’s family. Normally, any succeeding marriages would be with members of that family.<\/p>\n<p>Despite the low legal status of the mother of the family, her life was not as bad as one might suppose. She was the legal wife, not an unpaid servant, and she frequently took a strong role as adviser to her husband in family affairs. Her most important function, aside from childbearing, was organization of the household, of which she was generally the respected manager. Even though the wife might have been acquired through capture in war (Dt 21:10-14), she could not be sold as a slave or daughter could (Ex 21:7; Neh 5:5).<\/p>\n<p>Nevertheless, her position was precarious, in that she could be disowned or divorced by her husband as the result of a simple renunciation: “She is no longer my wife, and I am no longer her husband.” Perhaps he had found fault with her culinary skills, or possibly he was casting his eyes on another woman. In any event, a husband knew that if his wife did not obey even a signal or a glance, he was within his rights to obtain a divorce (cf. Ecclus 25:26). The wife, however, obtained a certain degree of protection in the letter of repudiation, by which her freedom was formally restored. Under Jewish tradition, a wife could not divorce her husband.<\/p>\n<p>In matters of domestic protocol, the Hebrew wife was not introduced to her husband’s guests, a tradition that subsequently led to considerable embarrassment for Abraham’s wife, Sarah, and for Rebekah (Gn 20:16). A woman normally remained veiled in public (24:65; 38:14; Is 47:2).<\/p>\n<p>The imagery in Proverbs 19:13 and 27:15 draws a vigorous comparison between a contentious woman and water dripping from a leaky roof. The OT leaves little doubt about the type of behavior expected from a woman. She was expected to be charming, soft-spoken, discreet, and calm (Prv 9:13; 11:16, 22; 21:9). She was also to be responsible, well-organized, intelligent, thoughtful, reverent, and a good manager of both the household and the family purse (31:10-31). A woman should also be pious and beautiful, and in NT tradition, submissive to her husband, as befitted a woman adorned with the priceless jewel of a gentle and quiet spirit (Ti 2:4-5; 1 Pt 3:1-6).<\/p>\n<p>The actions of a few women whose roles in life do not seem to fit the pattern of the meek, passive female pictured above, are recorded in the Bible and the Apocrypha. The books of Judith and Esther recount heroic tales of how national fortunes were saved by women. Deborah and Jael were renowned heroines (Jgs 4–5), and the kingdom of Judah was ruled by a vicious woman, Athaliah, for several years (2 Kgs 11). The women who stepped to the forefront of public life were exceptional and few in number. Judith was a rich widow, an unusual thing in Israel.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"MaritalSecurity\">Marital Security<\/p>\n<p>The security of a wife’s position improved considerably when she produced her first child, particularly if it was a son. A woman’s primary duty to her husband and his family was procreation (Gn 1:28; 9:1), and until she gave birth to a son, she feared displacement by a second wife or a concubine. Polygamous marriages were by no means rare, especially in wealthy families. They resulted in two ill-defined family groups, controlled by the mothers but under the overall authority of fathers; there were inevitable jealousies and frictions.<\/p>\n<p>The legal status of a woman was consistently poor in Bible times. With no evidence at all, a husband could accuse his wife of adultery, and she was compelled to face a trial by ordeal. She had to abase herself by taking an oath, eating dust and a cereal offering, and drinking bitter water. A priest, meanwhile, made pronouncements regarding the dire results that would come to her if she were guilty: she would become an outcast with no hope of survival. But if she maintained her serenity, and if her thigh did not rot nor her abdomen swell, she was considered to have “proved” her innocence. In such an event she would go free, and her husband bore no blame whatsoever for his false accusation (Nm 5:12-31).<\/p>\n<p>If a woman took a vow, it was legal only as long as her father or husband approved it. If she became a widow, the vow still remained in force and could be used against her (Nm 30:3-15).<\/p>\n<p>A woman in Israel was always under the protection of a male, be it her father, grandfather, great-grandfather, brother, husband, or some other member of her husband’s family. She had few legal rights and, in contrast to Babylonian traditions, could not inherit at her husband’s death. It is small wonder that widows were classed with orphans and the poor. A childless widow could on occasion return to her father’s family (Gn 38:11; Lv 22:13; Ru 1:8), thus becoming subject again to the authority of her father. A Hebrew widow could also remain with her late husband’s family. She would then come under the protection of her “redeemer,” a male relative of her husband’s family who assumed responsibility for her. If a husband died leaving a woman childless, it was the responsibility of the husband’s brother to marry her. The first son born of such a union was then regarded as the heir of the first husband.<\/p>\n<p>It was normal for a brother to accept the obligation for such a marriage (levirate). It could be refused on various grounds, but such refusal was considered dishonorable, for it was a man’s duty to perpetuate his brother’s name and to safeguard the family fortune.<\/p>\n<p>A redeemer’s responsibilities were considerable. In addition to the marriage, he was perhaps involved in avenging the family reputation, and he had to ensure that family property increased and remained within family control.<\/p>\n<p>If an Israelite fell into debt and was forced to sell himself into slavery, he would normally be “redeemed” by one of his relatives (Lv 25:47-49). If in his penury an Israelite had to sell his land or his house, the redeemer had the right of first refusal over all other prospective purchasers. It was as much his duty as his right to prevent family property from passing into the hands of strangers (v 25). The prophet Jeremiah bought his cousin Hanamel’s field under similar circumstances (Jer 32:6-15).<\/p>\n<p>The most familiar OT story of a childless widow, her “redeemer,” and their levirate marriage is recorded in the book of Ruth. One of Naomi’s two sons married Ruth. When Ruth was widowed, her impoverished mother-in-law, Naomi, left her home in Moab and returned to Bethlehem to sell some of the family property. Although a close relative was prepared to buy the land and keep it in the family, he was not ready to marry Ruth as well (Ru 3:12; 4:4). He knew that a son of that union would be deemed a son of the deceased, bearing the dead husband’s name, and thus ultimately inheriting the land (4:4-6). The next relative in order of kinship was Boaz, who became Ruth’s “redeemer.” He was prepared to accept the double obligation of purchasing the land and marrying Ruth (4:9-10).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"PositionofChildren\">Position of Children<\/p>\n<p>Children were generally well loved, but their childhood was short and they were often regarded as laborers for the house or fields. According to the law of primogeniture, the eldest son received a double portion of the estate as his birthright (Dt 21:17). Thus, he was assured of the position of family head. Even during his father’s lifetime, the eldest son took precedence over his brothers and sisters (Gn 43:33). Where twins were born, the first to emerge from the womb was considered the elder, with all the attendant privileges (25:24-26; 38:27-30).<\/p>\n<p>For a serious offense, the eldest son could lose the right of primogeniture (Gn 35:22; 49:3-4; 1 Chr 5:1), or it could be surrendered voluntarily, as Esau did by selling his birthright to his brother Jacob (Gn 25:29-34). There was a law protecting the eldest son from his father’s favoritism for a younger brother (Dt 21:15-17). Nevertheless, King David gave his kingdom to Solomon, his youngest son (1 Kgs 2:15).<\/p>\n<p>In a family with no sons, a daughter could inherit property (Nm 27:8). Frequently, parents consulted neither sons nor daughters when marriage partners were arranged for them. Marriage was often an alliance or contract between two families, and thus the wishes and concerns of individuals were considered unimportant. Love matches were few, although occasionally a son would marry in defiance of his parents, as Esau did (Gn 26:34-35). Although it was rare for young people to express their feelings and preferences about marriage in an open fashion, Saul’s daughter, Michal, made known her love for David (1 Sm 18:20).<\/p>\n<p>There is no record of legal adoption among the Hebrews, but it was practiced from ancient times in Mesopotamia. It was especially useful as a means of ensuring a childless couple that their land would be tilled and that they would be cared for in their old age. All examples of adoption mentioned in the OT took place outside the land of Israel (Ex 2:10; 1 Kgs 11:20; Est 2:7, 15) and are not examples of true adoption as a lifetime member of a family.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheRightsofChildren\">The Rights of Children<\/p>\n<p>The nature of patriarchal society made for unfortunate distinctions between male and female children. The position of a daughter, who could be sold into slavery or sold to be the concubine of a man and then possibly sold again (Ex 21:7-11), was certainly inferior to that of a son. In the patriarchal period, however, both a son and a daughter could be put to death for disobeying the head of the family. One’s children could also be sacrificed in worship rituals (see Gn 22; Jgs 11). It is probable that infant sacrifice was practiced by nations neighboring Israel, including Canaan and Ammon.<\/p>\n<p>The rights of children were improved considerably with the promulgation of the code of Mosaic law. A father was no longer permitted to put his child to death without referring the case to the elders (Dt 21:18-21). Both sons and daughters could be brought before such authorities and accused of being disobedient, gluttonous, or drunkards. A father’s absolute authority even extended to his married son and family if they were living under his roof. The law also prohibited children from being held responsible for the crimes of their parents (Dt 24:16). In King David’s time a person convicted by the community had the right of appeal to the king (2 Sm 14:4-11).<\/p>\n<p>In Hebrew families both parents were held in high respect. Honor had to be given to both mother and father (Ex 20:12), and the law condemned offenses against either parent (21:17; Lv 20:9; Dt 21:18; 27:16). Respect due to the mother is a recurrent theme in the Wisdom Literature (Prv 19:26; 20:20; cf. Ecclus 3:1-16).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"DailyLifeoftheHebrewFamily\">Daily Life of the Hebrew Family<\/p>\n<p>In the everyday affairs of a Hebrew household, it was the father’s responsibility to maintain the family fortune and to be the provider. He might work in the fields, most probably with crops of flax, barley, or wheat. Or he would work at a trade, possibly as a weaver, builder, potter, dyer, fuller, or a worker in copper or bronze. If he lived near the shore, he might be a fisherman.<\/p>\n<p>The father was also responsible for the religious well-being of the family. It was his duty to take over his sons’ education from the mother at an early age, teaching them the tenets of Hebrew religion (Ex 10:2; 12:26; Dt 4:9; 6:7). He also explained all the facets of the law and the interwoven history of the nation.<\/p>\n<p>The father was the disciplinarian of the family, with the rod being used to drive home the lessons taught (Prv 13:24; 22:15; 29:15-17). Though children were loved and valued, they were not pampered (Ecclus 30:9-12). In postexilic times education also took place within the precincts of the synagogue, and shortly before the time of Christ, a general elementary education was introduced. It was also imperative that a father teach his sons a trade, normally his own, for a man without a trade either starved or became a thief. Another important paternal responsibility was to provide wives for male offspring in the household.<\/p>\n<p>The mother was responsible for her sons’ and daughters’ early education (Prv 1:8; 6:20), teaching them religious songs and prayers as soon as they could talk. A father took over the education of his sons, but the mother continued with the daughters, training them to spin, weave, cook, clean, trim the lamps, and generally to become competent in all the household duties (31:13-31).<\/p>\n<p>With little furniture, keeping a house clean meant sweeping the floors to keep them free from dust and dirt. Cooking was at once simple and difficult. It was simple in that much of the food was cooked in the form of a soup or stew, or else made into a cake and cooked on a griddle. It was difficult in that the corn had to be ground by hand and bread was baked daily.<\/p>\n<p>A mother was expected to take wool, card it, spin it, and often weave and make clothes for her family. In addition, she would help her husband in the fields at harvesttime. Because many families had one or more olive trees, a few grapevines, and fig trees, the mother would also assist in picking the fruit. She would sometimes work at the press when the olives or grapes were being processed. Frequently the treading of grapes in the family vat would be done together by husband and wife. Drawing water from the well was considered a menial task and was generally the wife’s responsibility, although sometimes it was assigned to the children (Gn 24:15-16).<\/p>\n<p>As in all societies, there was a time when children laughed and played together (Zec 8:5; Mt 11:16), although childhood and adolescence were not recognized as specific stages of development. Children were considered as sucklings if under three, but were regarded as boys or girls when they were able to take care of themselves. A small child sat on his mother’s lap and was played with (Is 66:12). There is no evidence of organized sports for children. Toys, including whistles, rattles, dolls, and miniature cooking utensils, have been excavated at Palestinian sites.<\/p>\n<p>As soon as a boy was old enough, he took his place in the family and accepted his appointed task. Among other things, children were expected to gather fuel (Jer 7:18). Young boys and girls tended the flocks. The sheep had to be protected from marauding wild beasts, guarded against their own folly when they wandered near crevices, steered toward good pasture and water, and carried home when sick or injured (Gn 29:6; Ex 2:16). The care of cattle was also the responsibility of children (1 Sm 16:11). Of necessity, boys were trained in the various arts of war.<\/p>\n<p>Children sometimes joined their fathers in the fields, and their presence was always welcome. From earliest times, boys in particular would watch their fathers until they too picked up a tool or implement to try their skill; girls watched and learned from their mothers. Young children frequently listened to the talk of the elders at the city gates or in the villages. A visit to a sanctuary at festival time was a family affair, furnishing an ideal learning experience. As a child, Jesus accompanied his parents, Mary and Joseph, to the temple in Jerusalem (Lk 2:42-47).<\/p>\n<p>Young girls were surprisingly free to go about their appointed tasks. They were not secluded or veiled and could visit uninhibited with friends and neighbors (Gn 34:1). They were also able to converse with men without embarrassment (24:15-25; 29:11-12; 1 Sm 9:11-13).<\/p>\n<p>Mealtimes were strictly family times. It is doubtful whether a meal comparable to a breakfast was eaten, and a farmer would probably have a light lunch in the fields. The main meal of the day was prepared by the mother, and it would be eaten in the early evening. Although the variety of food available was limited, its preparation was time-consuming.<\/p>\n<p>Feast times were periods of great religious significance and were also the days when family members participated in the symbolic rituals of their faith. Among the Israelites several kinds of food were fundamental to their religious ritual. Family unity and the national religion were molded together by special meals in the home.<\/p>\n<p>Daylight played an important part in the daily habits of the people in antiquity. Although oil lamps were readily available in later periods, it was customary to rise with the sun and go to bed relatively soon after dark. The wife would probably be up before sunrise and might continue her labor after dark.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"InNewTestamentTimes\">In New Testament Times<\/p>\n<p>By NT times, for those who followed the Greek and Roman style, life became more elegant. Despite that, the status of many family members did not change substantially. Wealthier families had more slaves, and the children were more likely to have formal education, sometimes spending less effort on family chores. Even in Roman times, however, the father still had a legal right to accept or reject his child.<\/p>\n<p>The status of the woman had definitely improved by the NT period. A Roman matron was highly respected and exerted a strong influence over her husband. She was not sequestered in a particular section of the house, as a Greek woman was, but managed and supervised tasks in any part of her home. She helped her husband in business, had her own place in theaters, games, and religious festivals, and sometimes managed her own property. Palestinian women began to enjoy a new status and dignity as the result of Jesus’ attitude toward women and its influence on the early Christian church.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Education; Marriage, Marriage Customs; Sex, Sexuality; Widow; Woman.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>FAMILY LIFE AND RELATIONS<\/h3>\n<p>In Bible times, the family comprised members of a household, including not only parents and children, along with other relatives and concubines, but also servants, travelers, aliens, and anyone else who happened to be within the house and was therefore under the protection of the head of the family. The family of Jacob, for example, comprised three generations (Gn 46:8-26). Biblically, the term “family” is interchangeable with “house,” and “founding a house” can refer to setting up a separate dwelling as well as establishing a family. In the broader sense, “house” may refer to an entire nation (“house of Israel”). The heads of families returning from Babylon in the postexilic period controlled sometimes several hundred family members (Ezr 8:1-14). The family was a smaller part of a clan and tribe. In nomadic times the responsibilities and allegiances centered on the larger family group.<\/p>\n<p>Those who belonged to the clan knew that they had to work for common interests and accept responsibility for the whole group. All members of the family were to be protected and assisted in time of need.<\/p>\n<p>As the life of the Israelites became more settled, families (in the wider sense of the term) lived in villages surrounded by fields of wheat, barley, and flax, with areas of grazing land for sheep and goats. Each group of villages consisted of an intermarried, interdependent family group, such as that of the Danites of Zorah and Eshtaol (Jgs 18:11). The hard life of those days demanded a sharing of work and the loyal cooperation of the entire family for survival.<\/p>\n<p>As crafts and trades developed, along with a more sedentary lifestyle, sons learned their fathers’ skills and continued the family trade. Consequently, the whole village might follow a particular craft (1 Chr 4:14; Neh 11:35). By specializing in such trades, however, the villagers became less self-sufficient, depending more on farmers for food and on other specialized villages for the production of cloth or pottery (1 Chr 4:21-23).<\/p>\n<p>With the growth of cities, related groups lived together in specific areas. Many members of the tribes of Benjamin and Judah were listed in the census of Jerusalem by Nehemiah (Neh 11:4-8), and by the writer of Chronicles (1 Chr 9:3-9). One consequence of life in the cities was the fragmentation of the family group. As the bonds of the wider family were loosened, the unit consisted increasingly of a husband and wife with their children, living in one house. The size of houses that have been excavated precludes the idea of any larger family unit as the norm in OT societies.<\/p>\n<p>During the kingdom period, King David’s sons Amnon and Absalom set up their own separate houses (2 Sm 13:7-8, 20). At that time there were few slaves in Hebrew society, but they also were considered members of the family. As bonds of the wider family loosened, and the master of the household lost a degree of authority, the society became one in which the king was sovereign and all the people were his subjects.<\/p>\n<p>The early kings of Israel promoted such a change in order to establish a central ruling authority for the entire country. The king’s subjects fell broadly into the categories of employers and employees, corresponding to the rich and poor of society. By the eighth century <span>BC<\/span>, members of the wider family no longer worked for the communal good under the authority of the clan’s head; rather, individuals worked primarily for the good of their own immediate family. Hence one’s labor and devotion were focused more narrowly, and the greatest beneficiary was the king, the personal symbol of the nation.<\/p>\n<p>Emphasis on the smaller family unit increased, and old duties that had been willingly accepted by the wider groups in former times came to be neglected. People did not always help relatives in times of need, and they frequently had to be reminded of their obligations, particularly toward widows and orphans (Is 1:17; Jer 7:6). Family feuds also declined because members no longer felt responsible to take vengeance as a way to uphold the honor of the clan (2 Sm 3:27; 16:8; 2 Kgs 9:26). Nevertheless, Nehemiah expected Israelites to fight for their family honor (Neh 4:14). In NT times, the family was such a unit that it could be sold for a debt incurred by one of its members (Mt 18:25).<\/p>\n<p>The Hebrew religion’s emphasis on family participation in certain celebrations strengthened the small unit. The Passover, for example, was always celebrated as a family thanksgiving meal (Ex 12:3-4, 46). The prophet Samuel’s parents made a traditional annual pilgrimage to the shrine at Shiloh (1 Sm 2:19). In modern times, a young Jewish boy’s arrival at the threshold of manhood is celebrated with the Bar Mitzvah ceremony. Being so honored in the midst of a religious family preserves the ancient Hebrew tradition of family participation in religious ceremonies.<\/p>\n<p>In his preaching Jesus used the family as a symbol for the relationship of God to his people (Mt 19:14; 23:9; Lk 8:21). From the cross he handed over responsibility for the care of his mother to his disciple John (Jn 19:27).<\/p>\n<p>In NT times, the communion meals in the Jerusalem church took place by households (Acts 2:46). Early Christian meetings were held in the homes of believers because of opposition by the authorities. The book of Acts contains examples of entire families being converted to Christianity (Acts 10:24, 44-48; 16:15, 31-32). Timothy learned the gospel from his grandmother and mother (2 Tm 1:5).<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Status of Family Members<\/p>\n<p>• Marital Security<\/p>\n<p>• Position of Children<\/p>\n<p>• The Rights of Children<\/p>\n<p>• Daily Life of the Hebrew Family<\/p>\n<p>• In New Testament Times<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"StatusofFamilyMembers\">Status of Family Members<\/p>\n<p>From nomadic times, a father’s authority held the family group together in their encampment, and he became the symbol of their security. In ancient patriarchal societies, the father was an absolute master who had the power of life and death over family members, ruling with unchallenged authority. Although he had extensive responsibilities for those under his care, his power was awesome and his status unquestioned.<\/p>\n<p>A man’s possessions included his wife, servants, slaves, and animals (Ex 20:17; Dt 5:21). In fact, the phrase “to marry a wife” comes from a Hebrew root meaning “to become the master of a wife.” A husband was as much the master of his wife as he was of his home or his fields. Consequently, the wife addressed him in a subservient manner, as a slave would address a master (Gn 18:12; Jgs 19:26). This low status for a woman extended to a daughter’s position in the ancient household. Females were always under the authority of a male relative: first, the father; then a husband. If a woman became a widow, she was subject to her husband’s nearest male relative, who became her “redeemer.” The bride price (Gn 29:18, 27; Ex 22:16-17; 1 Sm 18:25; 2 Sm 3:14) paid by her husband was not exactly a purchase of the woman from her father, but the exchange of money did stigmatize her. The amount of a bride price depended on the father’s status (Gn 34:12). The usual price was probably 20 to 30 shekels of silver. The bride received gifts of jewelry, ornaments, and clothing from her future husband, and she occasionally enjoyed some sort of financial or material return from the bride price for her own use (Jos 15:19; Jgs 1:15). When her father or husband died, the money frequently reverted to her.<\/p>\n<p>An engaged woman was considered her fiancé’s property just as much as if she were already married to him (Dt 22:23-27). The woman left her own family at marriage, to live with and become part of her new husband’s family. Normally, any succeeding marriages would be with members of that family.<\/p>\n<p>Despite the low legal status of the mother of the family, her life was not as bad as one might suppose. She was the legal wife, not an unpaid servant, and she frequently took a strong role as adviser to her husband in family affairs. Her most important function, aside from childbearing, was organization of the household, of which she was generally the respected manager. Even though the wife might have been acquired through capture in war (Dt 21:10-14), she could not be sold as a slave or daughter could (Ex 21:7; Neh 5:5).<\/p>\n<p>Nevertheless, her position was precarious, in that she could be disowned or divorced by her husband as the result of a simple renunciation: “She is no longer my wife, and I am no longer her husband.” Perhaps he had found fault with her culinary skills, or possibly he was casting his eyes on another woman. In any event, a husband knew that if his wife did not obey even a signal or a glance, he was within his rights to obtain a divorce (cf. Ecclus 25:26). The wife, however, obtained a certain degree of protection in the letter of repudiation, by which her freedom was formally restored. Under Jewish tradition, a wife could not divorce her husband.<\/p>\n<p>In matters of domestic protocol, the Hebrew wife was not introduced to her husband’s guests, a tradition that subsequently led to considerable embarrassment for Abraham’s wife, Sarah, and for Rebekah (Gn 20:16). A woman normally remained veiled in public (24:65; 38:14; Is 47:2).<\/p>\n<p>The imagery in Proverbs 19:13 and 27:15 draws a vigorous comparison between a contentious woman and water dripping from a leaky roof. The OT leaves little doubt about the type of behavior expected from a woman. She was expected to be charming, soft-spoken, discreet, and calm (Prv 9:13; 11:16, 22; 21:9). She was also to be responsible, well-organized, intelligent, thoughtful, reverent, and a good manager of both the household and the family purse (31:10-31). A woman should also be pious and beautiful, and in NT tradition, submissive to her husband, as befitted a woman adorned with the priceless jewel of a gentle and quiet spirit (Ti 2:4-5; 1 Pt 3:1-6).<\/p>\n<p>The actions of a few women whose roles in life do not seem to fit the pattern of the meek, passive female pictured above, are recorded in the Bible and the Apocrypha. The books of Judith and Esther recount heroic tales of how national fortunes were saved by women. Deborah and Jael were renowned heroines (Jgs 4–5), and the kingdom of Judah was ruled by a vicious woman, Athaliah, for several years (2 Kgs 11). The women who stepped to the forefront of public life were exceptional and few in number. Judith was a rich widow, an unusual thing in Israel.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"MaritalSecurity\">Marital Security<\/p>\n<p>The security of a wife’s position improved considerably when she produced her first child, particularly if it was a son. A woman’s primary duty to her husband and his family was procreation (Gn 1:28; 9:1), and until she gave birth to a son, she feared displacement by a second wife or a concubine. Polygamous marriages were by no means rare, especially in wealthy families. They resulted in two ill-defined family groups, controlled by the mothers but under the overall authority of fathers; there were inevitable jealousies and frictions.<\/p>\n<p>The legal status of a woman was consistently poor in Bible times. With no evidence at all, a husband could accuse his wife of adultery, and she was compelled to face a trial by ordeal. She had to abase herself by taking an oath, eating dust and a cereal offering, and drinking bitter water. A priest, meanwhile, made pronouncements regarding the dire results that would come to her if she were guilty: she would become an outcast with no hope of survival. But if she maintained her serenity, and if her thigh did not rot nor her abdomen swell, she was considered to have “proved” her innocence. In such an event she would go free, and her husband bore no blame whatsoever for his false accusation (Nm 5:12-31).<\/p>\n<p>If a woman took a vow, it was legal only as long as her father or husband approved it. If she became a widow, the vow still remained in force and could be used against her (Nm 30:3-15).<\/p>\n<p>A woman in Israel was always under the protection of a male, be it her father, grandfather, great-grandfather, brother, husband, or some other member of her husband’s family. She had few legal rights and, in contrast to Babylonian traditions, could not inherit at her husband’s death. It is small wonder that widows were classed with orphans and the poor. A childless widow could on occasion return to her father’s family (Gn 38:11; Lv 22:13; Ru 1:8), thus becoming subject again to the authority of her father. A Hebrew widow could also remain with her late husband’s family. She would then come under the protection of her “redeemer,” a male relative of her husband’s family who assumed responsibility for her. If a husband died leaving a woman childless, it was the responsibility of the husband’s brother to marry her. The first son born of such a union was then regarded as the heir of the first husband.<\/p>\n<p>It was normal for a brother to accept the obligation for such a marriage (levirate). It could be refused on various grounds, but such refusal was considered dishonorable, for it was a man’s duty to perpetuate his brother’s name and to safeguard the family fortune.<\/p>\n<p>A redeemer’s responsibilities were considerable. In addition to the marriage, he was perhaps involved in avenging the family reputation, and he had to ensure that family property increased and remained within family control.<\/p>\n<p>If an Israelite fell into debt and was forced to sell himself into slavery, he would normally be “redeemed” by one of his relatives (Lv 25:47-49). If in his penury an Israelite had to sell his land or his house, the redeemer had the right of first refusal over all other prospective purchasers. It was as much his duty as his right to prevent family property from passing into the hands of strangers (v 25). The prophet Jeremiah bought his cousin Hanamel’s field under similar circumstances (Jer 32:6-15).<\/p>\n<p>The most familiar OT story of a childless widow, her “redeemer,” and their levirate marriage is recorded in the book of Ruth. One of Naomi’s two sons married Ruth. When Ruth was widowed, her impoverished mother-in-law, Naomi, left her home in Moab and returned to Bethlehem to sell some of the family property. Although a close relative was prepared to buy the land and keep it in the family, he was not ready to marry Ruth as well (Ru 3:12; 4:4). He knew that a son of that union would be deemed a son of the deceased, bearing the dead husband’s name, and thus ultimately inheriting the land (4:4-6). The next relative in order of kinship was Boaz, who became Ruth’s “redeemer.” He was prepared to accept the double obligation of purchasing the land and marrying Ruth (4:9-10).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"PositionofChildren\">Position of Children<\/p>\n<p>Children were generally well loved, but their childhood was short and they were often regarded as laborers for the house or fields. According to the law of primogeniture, the eldest son received a double portion of the estate as his birthright (Dt 21:17). Thus, he was assured of the position of family head. Even during his father’s lifetime, the eldest son took precedence over his brothers and sisters (Gn 43:33). Where twins were born, the first to emerge from the womb was considered the elder, with all the attendant privileges (25:24-26; 38:27-30).<\/p>\n<p>For a serious offense, the eldest son could lose the right of primogeniture (Gn 35:22; 49:3-4; 1 Chr 5:1), or it could be surrendered voluntarily, as Esau did by selling his birthright to his brother Jacob (Gn 25:29-34). There was a law protecting the eldest son from his father’s favoritism for a younger brother (Dt 21:15-17). Nevertheless, King David gave his kingdom to Solomon, his youngest son (1 Kgs 2:15).<\/p>\n<p>In a family with no sons, a daughter could inherit property (Nm 27:8). Frequently, parents consulted neither sons nor daughters when marriage partners were arranged for them. Marriage was often an alliance or contract between two families, and thus the wishes and concerns of individuals were considered unimportant. Love matches were few, although occasionally a son would marry in defiance of his parents, as Esau did (Gn 26:34-35). Although it was rare for young people to express their feelings and preferences about marriage in an open fashion, Saul’s daughter, Michal, made known her love for David (1 Sm 18:20).<\/p>\n<p>There is no record of legal adoption among the Hebrews, but it was practiced from ancient times in Mesopotamia. It was especially useful as a means of ensuring a childless couple that their land would be tilled and that they would be cared for in their old age. All examples of adoption mentioned in the OT took place outside the land of Israel (Ex 2:10; 1 Kgs 11:20; Est 2:7, 15) and are not examples of true adoption as a lifetime member of a family.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheRightsofChildren\">The Rights of Children<\/p>\n<p>The nature of patriarchal society made for unfortunate distinctions between male and female children. The position of a daughter, who could be sold into slavery or sold to be the concubine of a man and then possibly sold again (Ex 21:7-11), was certainly inferior to that of a son. In the patriarchal period, however, both a son and a daughter could be put to death for disobeying the head of the family. One’s children could also be sacrificed in worship rituals (see Gn 22; Jgs 11). It is probable that infant sacrifice was practiced by nations neighboring Israel, including Canaan and Ammon.<\/p>\n<p>The rights of children were improved considerably with the promulgation of the code of Mosaic law. A father was no longer permitted to put his child to death without referring the case to the elders (Dt 21:18-21). Both sons and daughters could be brought before such authorities and accused of being disobedient, gluttonous, or drunkards. A father’s absolute authority even extended to his married son and family if they were living under his roof. The law also prohibited children from being held responsible for the crimes of their parents (Dt 24:16). In King David’s time a person convicted by the community had the right of appeal to the king (2 Sm 14:4-11).<\/p>\n<p>In Hebrew families both parents were held in high respect. Honor had to be given to both mother and father (Ex 20:12), and the law condemned offenses against either parent (21:17; Lv 20:9; Dt 21:18; 27:16). Respect due to the mother is a recurrent theme in the Wisdom Literature (Prv 19:26; 20:20; cf. Ecclus 3:1-16).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"DailyLifeoftheHebrewFamily\">Daily Life of the Hebrew Family<\/p>\n<p>In the everyday affairs of a Hebrew household, it was the father’s responsibility to maintain the family fortune and to be the provider. He might work in the fields, most probably with crops of flax, barley, or wheat. Or he would work at a trade, possibly as a weaver, builder, potter, dyer, fuller, or a worker in copper or bronze. If he lived near the shore, he might be a fisherman.<\/p>\n<p>The father was also responsible for the religious well-being of the family. It was his duty to take over his sons’ education from the mother at an early age, teaching them the tenets of Hebrew religion (Ex 10:2; 12:26; Dt 4:9; 6:7). He also explained all the facets of the law and the interwoven history of the nation.<\/p>\n<p>The father was the disciplinarian of the family, with the rod being used to drive home the lessons taught (Prv 13:24; 22:15; 29:15-17). Though children were loved and valued, they were not pampered (Ecclus 30:9-12). In postexilic times education also took place within the precincts of the synagogue, and shortly before the time of Christ, a general elementary education was introduced. It was also imperative that a father teach his sons a trade, normally his own, for a man without a trade either starved or became a thief. Another important paternal responsibility was to provide wives for male offspring in the household.<\/p>\n<p>The mother was responsible for her sons’ and daughters’ early education (Prv 1:8; 6:20), teaching them religious songs and prayers as soon as they could talk. A father took over the education of his sons, but the mother continued with the daughters, training them to spin, weave, cook, clean, trim the lamps, and generally to become competent in all the household duties (31:13-31).<\/p>\n<p>With little furniture, keeping a house clean meant sweeping the floors to keep them free from dust and dirt. Cooking was at once simple and difficult. It was simple in that much of the food was cooked in the form of a soup or stew, or else made into a cake and cooked on a griddle. It was difficult in that the corn had to be ground by hand and bread was baked daily.<\/p>\n<p>A mother was expected to take wool, card it, spin it, and often weave and make clothes for her family. In addition, she would help her husband in the fields at harvesttime. Because many families had one or more olive trees, a few grapevines, and fig trees, the mother would also assist in picking the fruit. She would sometimes work at the press when the olives or grapes were being processed. Frequently the treading of grapes in the family vat would be done together by husband and wife. Drawing water from the well was considered a menial task and was generally the wife’s responsibility, although sometimes it was assigned to the children (Gn 24:15-16).<\/p>\n<p>As in all societies, there was a time when children laughed and played together (Zec 8:5; Mt 11:16), although childhood and adolescence were not recognized as specific stages of development. Children were considered as sucklings if under three, but were regarded as boys or girls when they were able to take care of themselves. A small child sat on his mother’s lap and was played with (Is 66:12). There is no evidence of organized sports for children. Toys, including whistles, rattles, dolls, and miniature cooking utensils, have been excavated at Palestinian sites.<\/p>\n<p>As soon as a boy was old enough, he took his place in the family and accepted his appointed task. Among other things, children were expected to gather fuel (Jer 7:18). Young boys and girls tended the flocks. The sheep had to be protected from marauding wild beasts, guarded against their own folly when they wandered near crevices, steered toward good pasture and water, and carried home when sick or injured (Gn 29:6; Ex 2:16). The care of cattle was also the responsibility of children (1 Sm 16:11). Of necessity, boys were trained in the various arts of war.<\/p>\n<p>Children sometimes joined their fathers in the fields, and their presence was always welcome. From earliest times, boys in particular would watch their fathers until they too picked up a tool or implement to try their skill; girls watched and learned from their mothers. Young children frequently listened to the talk of the elders at the city gates or in the villages. A visit to a sanctuary at festival time was a family affair, furnishing an ideal learning experience. As a child, Jesus accompanied his parents, Mary and Joseph, to the temple in Jerusalem (Lk 2:42-47).<\/p>\n<p>Young girls were surprisingly free to go about their appointed tasks. They were not secluded or veiled and could visit uninhibited with friends and neighbors (Gn 34:1). They were also able to converse with men without embarrassment (24:15-25; 29:11-12; 1 Sm 9:11-13).<\/p>\n<p>Mealtimes were strictly family times. It is doubtful whether a meal comparable to a breakfast was eaten, and a farmer would probably have a light lunch in the fields. The main meal of the day was prepared by the mother, and it would be eaten in the early evening. Although the variety of food available was limited, its preparation was time-consuming.<\/p>\n<p>Feast times were periods of great religious significance and were also the days when family members participated in the symbolic rituals of their faith. Among the Israelites several kinds of food were fundamental to their religious ritual. Family unity and the national religion were molded together by special meals in the home.<\/p>\n<p>Daylight played an important part in the daily habits of the people in antiquity. Although oil lamps were readily available in later periods, it was customary to rise with the sun and go to bed relatively soon after dark. The wife would probably be up before sunrise and might continue her labor after dark.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"InNewTestamentTimes\">In New Testament Times<\/p>\n<p>By NT times, for those who followed the Greek and Roman style, life became more elegant. Despite that, the status of many family members did not change substantially. Wealthier families had more slaves, and the children were more likely to have formal education, sometimes spending less effort on family chores. Even in Roman times, however, the father still had a legal right to accept or reject his child.<\/p>\n<p>The status of the woman had definitely improved by the NT period. A Roman matron was highly respected and exerted a strong influence over her husband. She was not sequestered in a particular section of the house, as a Greek woman was, but managed and supervised tasks in any part of her home. She helped her husband in business, had her own place in theaters, games, and religious festivals, and sometimes managed her own property. Palestinian women began to enjoy a new status and dignity as the result of Jesus’ attitude toward women and its influence on the early Christian church.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Education; Marriage, Marriage Customs; Sex, Sexuality; Widow; Woman.<\/p>","summary_ro":"FAMILY LIFE AND RELATIONS In Bible times, the family comprised members of a household, including not only parents and children, along with other relatives and concubines, but also servants, travelers, aliens, and anyone else who happened to be within the house and was therefore under the protection of the head of the family. The family of Jacob, for example, comprised three generations (Gn 46:8-26). Biblically, the term “family” is interchangeable with “house,” and “founding a house” can refe...","summary_en":"FAMILY LIFE AND RELATIONS In Bible times, the family comprised members of a household, including not only parents and children, along with other relatives and concubines, but also servants, travelers, aliens, and anyone else who happened to be within the house and was therefore under the protection of the head of the family. The family of Jacob, for example, comprised three generations (Gn 46:8-26). Biblically, the term “family” is interchangeable with “house,” and “founding a house” can refe...","source":"Articles\/F.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":22056,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Books of First and Second Kings","title_en":"Books of First and Second Kings","content_ro":"<h3>KINGS, Books of First and Second<\/h3>\n<p>Books continuing the history of the covenant people as recorded in Joshua, Judges, and the books of Samuel. The record in Kings begins with the events at the end of David’s reign (1 Kgs 1–2). It continues through the reign of Solomon (chs 3–11); the histories of the divided kingdoms (1 Kgs 12—2 Kgs 17); and the history of the surviving kingdom in the south, through its fall in 586 <span>BC<\/span> and the subsequent kindness shown Jehoiachin by Evil-merodach, king of Babylon, around 561 <span>BC<\/span> (2 Kgs 18–25).<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Authorship and Date<\/p>\n<p>• Sources<\/p>\n<p>• Theology and Purpose<\/p>\n<p>• Content<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"AuthorshipandDate\">Authorship and Date<\/p>\n<p>Kings was originally regarded as one book in the Hebrew canon; the division into two books of approximately equal length appeared first in the Septuagint and finally entered the Hebrew Bible in the 15th century <span>AD<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p>The book itself is anonymous, and information about its author can only be deduced by examining the concerns and perspectives of the work. The Babylonian Talmud (<em>Baba Bathra<\/em> 15a) attributes Kings to Jeremiah. Although this identification could have arisen from the tendency of later Jewish tradition to assign biblical books to prophetic authors, the theory of origin in prophetic circles fits the evidence quite well. Substantial portions are given to the lives of the prophets; 16 of 47 chapters are devoted to the lives of Elijah and Elisha (1 Kgs 17—2 Kgs 10), and there is considerable interest in other prophetic figures such as Ahijah (1 Kgs 11:29-39; 14:1-16), an unnamed man of God (13:1-10), and Micaiah (22:13-28). Possible dependence on Isaiah (2 Kgs 18–20; cf. Is 36–39) and Jeremiah (2 Kgs 24–25; cf. Jer 52) also suggest prophetic origin. The author-compiler also shows intense concern with the efficacy of the prophetic word, frequently calling attention to the fulfillment of words spoken earlier by the prophets.<\/p>\n<p>One might initially think that such a history would be unlikely for a prophet, but the evidence is to the contrary. The prophets were the guardians of the covenant relationship and are known to have produced accounts used as sources by other biblical historians. The following are among such sources: the acts of Samuel the seer, the acts of Nathan the prophet, the acts of Gad the seer (1 Chr 29:29); the acts of Nathan the prophet, the prophecy of Ahijah the Shilonite, the visions of Iddo the seer (2 Chr 9:29); the chronicles of Shemaiah the prophet and of Iddo the seer (12:15); the annotations of the prophet Iddo (13:22); and the acts of Uzziah by Isaiah the prophet (26:22). Add to this the fact that Kings is positioned in the Hebrew canon in the Former Prophets (Joshua to 2 Kings), and a consistent picture of prophetic origin emerges.<\/p>\n<p>The date of the final part of the book must be after the last events recorded. Evil-merodach’s kindness toward Jehoiachin (c. 561 <span>BC<\/span>) is the terminus of the book and therefore fixes the earliest date. Since the work shows no knowledge of the restoration period, a date before 539 <span>BC<\/span> is probable. The author’s selection of his data to answer the burning theological questions of the exilic community also suggests a date between 561 and 539 <span>BC<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Sources\">Sources<\/p>\n<p>The compiler of Kings specifically names three of the sources that he used in his work, and biblical scholars have suggested the presence of a number of other sources that may have been cited. Of course, the sources not mentioned specifically by the compiler are only the speculations of those who have studied his work and can have only varying degrees of probability. The sources both specified and alleged are as follows.<\/p>\n<h5>The Book of the Acts of Solomon<\/h5>\n<p>As 1 Kings 11:41 says, “The rest of the events in Solomon’s reign, including his wisdom, are recorded in <em>The Book of the Acts of Solomon”<\/em> (<span>nlt<\/span>). Presumably additional materials of a biographical nature were included, specifically accounts similar to the judgment between the two mothers (3:16-28) or the visit of the queen of Sheba (10:1-10). There has been debate as to whether these materials were official court records or nonofficial documents. Some scholars have attempted to isolate further materials within this section by identifying descriptions of the buildings as from temple archives (chs 6–7) and lists of administrators as from administrative documents (chs 4–5), but this must remain speculative.<\/p>\n<h5>The Book of the History of the Kings of Israel<\/h5>\n<p>This source is mentioned 17 times in Kings, usually in the closing formulas at the end of the account of the reign of a northern king. Some idea of the nature of these chronicles can be derived from looking at the type of information to which the compiler refers his readers (see 1 Kgs 14:19; 16:27; 22:39; 2 Kgs 13:12; 14:28). These passages suggest that this source was the official annals covering the reigns of the kings.<\/p>\n<h5>The Book of the History of the Kings of Judah<\/h5>\n<p>This source is mentioned in 15 passages, and as with the kings of Israel, is found in the concluding formulas to the accounts of the reigns. This source was to be consulted for additional details on individuals’ reigns (for example, see 1 Kgs 15:23; 22:45; 2 Kgs 20:20; 21:17). These sources for the histories of the two kingdoms were probably similar to the annals known from the surrounding cultures, particularly from the reigns of Assyrian kings. They were likely official court histories kept in Samaria and Jerusalem.<\/p>\n<p>In addition to these explicitly mentioned sources, scholars have suggested the compiler drew on other sources that he does not name.<\/p>\n<h5>Davidic Court History<\/h5>\n<p>Second Samuel 9–20 is often identified as a unit of material in the composition of the books of Samuel; it is variously called “the court history” or “the succession narrative.” Because of similar vocabulary and outlook, 1 Kings 1–2 are often associated with this material from Samuel. The statement of 1 Kings 2:46, “so the kingdom was now firmly in Solomon’s grip,” is taken to be the end of this record.<\/p>\n<h5>Sources for the House of Ahab<\/h5>\n<p>The reigns of individual kings are ordinarily given only brief notices; for example, the father of Ahab, Omri, is given eight verses, even though when judged by political and economic significance, he was among the greatest of the northern kings (1 Kgs 16:21-28). However, beginning with the reign of Ahab, the record becomes quite expansive, and extensive coverage is given the dynasty of Ahab through the coup by Jehu (1 Kgs 16—2 Kgs 12). The use of the stereotyped formulas for the reigns is suspended in this material, and the existence of other literature used by the compiler is probable. This material is commonly subdivided into further sources for the lives of Elijah and Elisha and the reign of Ahab.<\/p>\n<p>The Elijah section covers material in the following chapters: 1 Kings 17–19, including the feeding by the ravens, the incidents with the widow of Zarephath, the drought, the fire on Carmel, and the revelation of God at Sinai; 1 Kings 21, the affair of Naboth’s vineyard; and 2 Kings 1, the death of Ahaziah’s messengers. The reign of Ahab, which gets so much attention in Kings, is primarily a backdrop for the accounts concerning Elijah.<\/p>\n<p>The Elisha material found in 2 Kings 2–13 may have had an independent literary development from that of the Elijah accounts. It includes the following: chapter 2 (Elisha’s succession to the prophetic office, the purification of a spring, the death of mocking children); chapter 3 (on the campaign against Moab); chapter 4 (the widow’s oil, the Shunammite woman); chapter 5 (Naaman’s leprosy); chapter 6 (the Aramean attempt to capture Elisha); chapter 7 (the famine in Samaria); chapter 8 (the Shunammite’s property, the coup of Hazael); chapter 9 (the anointing of Jehu); and chapter 13 (the death of Elisha). No other portion of the OT takes the sheer delight in the miraculous that is seen in the Elisha narratives.<\/p>\n<p>In 1 Kings 16 to 2 Kings 13 there are additional incidents not directly related to the biographies of Elijah and Elisha; accounts such as the military campaigns of 1 Kings 20:1-34 and further details of Jehu’s coup (2 Kgs 9:11–10:36) are often attributed to a third source containing accounts of the dynasty of Ahab and his successors. In all three of these possible sources the orientation is toward affairs in the northern kingdom.<\/p>\n<h5>Isaiah Source<\/h5>\n<p>The account of the reign of Hezekiah contains a section (2 Kgs 18:13–20:19) that is nearly a verbatim citation of material also found in Isaiah (Is 36:1–39:8). The section records the invasion of Sennacherib, the mission of the Rabshakeh, Hezekiah’s prayer, Isaiah’s prophecy, Hezekiah’s illness, the regression of the sun, and the envoys from Merodach-baladan. The material must be regarded as based on the book of Isaiah or some other source used in both Isaiah and Kings.<\/p>\n<h5>A Prophetic Source<\/h5>\n<p>Because Kings shows great interest in the prophets and their ministries, various scholars have suggested that yet another source was used by the compiler; this would be an independent literary unit containing accounts of the prophets. This source would have contained the records for the material on Ahijah (1 Kgs 11:29-39; 14:1-16), unnamed prophets (ch 12; 20:35-43), Micaiah (22:13-28), and other references.<\/p>\n<p>Apart from the sources explicitly mentioned and inferences about their character, the remainder of the sources suggested have only varying degrees of probability. Considerable scholarly effort has gone into identifying and characterizing such sources, but it remains speculative. When considering the sources the compiler may have used, one important caution must be kept in mind. Even if such sources did exist, one cannot have confidence in a reconstruction of the compositional history. Which sources had already been integrated into a larger composition before they were used by the compiler of Kings? We cannot be certain that the life situation out of which these other sources grew has been correctly identified, nor can we know that even the compiler himself was aware of the past history of his sources. Biblical scholarship has expended considerable energy in trying to delineate the past history of the book of Kings, but it has often been at the neglect of the unity of perspective that is the product of the final compiler(s) in whose hands the book received its canonical form.<\/p>\n<p>What is important to understanding the book is not the perspective of its various sources (of which the compiler himself may have been unaware), but the perspective of the book as a whole on the history of the kingdoms. It is the outline that the compiler has imposed on the sources that establishes the teaching of the book; his sources are used in accord with his own purposes, a fact that makes the purposes for which the sources had been prepared largely irrelevant to the teaching of the book in its present form. Exploring possible sources, worthwhile in itself, must not eclipse the message of the book as a whole. This is not to imply that the books of Kings are simply a compilation of unaltered sources. The writer(s) undoubtedly exercised a measure of selectivity and literary skill in composing the historical narrative.<\/p>\n<p>One compositional technique of the compiler is quite prominent in the histories of the divided kingdoms: this is the use of formulaic introductions and conclusions to the various reigns. The formulas for both kingdoms are quite similar, differing only in minor details. For the kings of Judah, the full introductory formula is as follows: (1) year of accession synchronized with the regnal year of the northern king; (2) age of the king at his accession; (3) length of his reign; (4) name of his mother; (5) judgment on the character of the reign. The account of a Judean king’s reign is concluded as follows: (1) a reference to the chronicles of the kings of Judah for further information; (2) a statement regarding the death of the king, including the place of burial; (3) successor: “And his son reigned in his stead” (<span>rsv<\/span>). The full formula for a Judean king can be seen, for example, in the reign of Rehoboam (1 Kgs 14:21-22, 29-31).<\/p>\n<p>The formulas differ slightly for the kings of Israel; the introduction is as follows: (1) year of succession synchronized with the regnal year of the southern king; (2) length of his reign; (3) location of the royal residence; (4) condemnation for idolatry; (5) name of the king’s father. The account of an Israelite king’s reign ends as follows: (1) a reference to the chronicles of the kings of Israel for further information; (2) a statement regarding his death; (3) a statement of the succession of his son, unless a usurper follows. The full formula for an Israelite king can be seen, for example, in the reign of Baasha (1 Kgs 15:33-34; 16:5-6).<\/p>\n<p>There is some variation in the use of these patterns, but on the whole, they are consistently followed and provide the basic framework for the history of the divided kingdom. The synchronisms of the reigns provide data for constructing the chronology of the period. The variations in the formulas may reflect the characteristics of the sources the compiler was using or may reflect his own interests. The name of the mother of a Judean king is recorded, but not of an Israelite king, perhaps reflecting concern with a more exact and fuller record of the Davidic succession. The royal residence is presumed to be Jerusalem for the southern kings (though it may be mentioned) but is recorded for the northern kings since it moved several times, from Shechem to Penuel to Tirzah to Samaria. The mention of the king’s father for a northern ruler also reflects the frequent change in dynasties there, as opposed to the dynastic stability of Judah, which is reinforced by mentioning the burial of almost all its kings in the city of David.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheologyandPurpose\">Theology and Purpose<\/p>\n<p>The books of Kings record the history of the covenant people from the end of the reign of David (961 <span>BC<\/span>) through the fall of the southern kingdom (586 <span>BC<\/span>). Yet it is not history written in accord with modern expectations for history textbooks. Rather than concentrating on economic, political, and military themes as they shaped the history of the period, the compiler of Kings is motivated by theological concerns.<\/p>\n<p>Evaluation of the theology and purpose of the books of Kings is made easier by the fact that there is a parallel history for much of Kings found in the books of Chronicles. By comparing the two accounts, especially where the later Chronicler adds or deletes material found in Kings, the interests of both histories are thrown into clearer relief.<\/p>\n<p>The books of Kings were composed during the exile, likely between 560 and 539 <span>BC<\/span>. Jerusalem had been turned into rubble, and there was no longer a throne of David. Those two pillars of the popular theology—the inviolability of the temple and the throne of David (Jer 7:4; 13:13-14; 22:1-9; see 1 Kgs 8:16, 29)—had tumbled. If Israel’s faith was to survive, the burning questions that had to be answered were “How did it all happen? Can’t God keep his promises to David and to Zion? Have the promises failed?” The writer of Kings aims to deal with the bewilderment of the chosen people in response to the disasters of 722 <span>BC<\/span> (fall of Samaria) and 586 <span>BC<\/span> (fall of Jerusalem). Kings, like the book of Job, is a theodicy, a justification of the ways of God to men.<\/p>\n<p>In order to answer the question “How did it happen?” the compiler adopts the procedure of recounting the history of the covenant people in light of standards propounded in the Law. For this reason Kings could be called Pentateuchal history, or even more pointedly, Deuteronomic history, for standards propounded only in the book of Deuteronomy in the Pentateuch are used by the compiler to measure the kingdoms. Among the prominent themes selected from Deuteronomy and applied to the kingdoms are the centralization of worship, the institution of the monarchy, the efficacy of the prophetic word, and the outworking of the covenant curses on disobedience.<\/p>\n<h5>Centralization of Worship<\/h5>\n<p>The primary concern of the writer is the purity of the worship of the Lord. His major criterion for measuring this purity is the attitude of the kings toward centralization of worship in the Jerusalem temple as opposed to the worship of the Lord elsewhere and the continuation of Canaanite cults mingled with Yahwism at the high places. Centralization of worship at the central shrine is called for in Deuteronomy 12. Perhaps “centralization of worship” is a misnomer, for worship was always centered around the tabernacle in the periods prior to the temple; the change that is envisaged in Deuteronomy is not the centralizing of worship but rather the fact that the shrine would no longer be mobile but stationary. For the kings of the northern kingdom, this criterion becomes virtually a stereotyped formula that “he did that which was evil in the sight of the Lord and walked in the way of Jeroboam son of Nebat, who sinned and made all Israel sin along with him” (see 1 Kgs 14:16; 15:30; 16:31; 2 Kgs 3:3; 10:31; 13:2, 11; 14:24; 15:9, 18, 24, 28; 17:22). The compiler of Kings sees the rival altars with the golden calves at Dan and Bethel as the great sin of which the northern kings never repented (1 Kgs 12:25–13:34). Rejecting the primacy of Jerusalem, these altars became the rod with which to measure the northern kings. All the kings of Israel are condemned by this standard (except for Shallum, who reigned but a month, and Hoshea, the last of the northern kings)—even Zimri, the murderer of Elah, who ruled only one week before committing suicide in the flames of his own palace (16:9-20). For the kings of Judah, a different standard is used: what their attitude was to the high places where heterodox worship was allowed to flourish in the environs of Jerusalem. Only Hezekiah and Josiah receive the compiler’s unqualified endorsement for following the ways of David (2 Kgs 18:3; 22:2). Six others are commended for their zeal in suppressing idolatry, though they did not remove the high places (Asa, 1 Kgs 15:9-15; Jehoshaphat, 22:43; Jehoash, 2 Kgs 12:2-3; Amaziah, 14:3-4; Azariah, 15:3-4; Jotham, 15:34-35). The remainder of the Judean kings are condemned for their participation in the high places and their desecration of the temple itself. This one theme is the preeminent motif in the book.<\/p>\n<h5>History of the Monarchy<\/h5>\n<p>A second prominent interest for the compiler was to trace the history of the monarchy. Deuteronomy 17:14-20 provides for the day when Israel would ask for a king and charges that king with the basic religious responsibility for the people. This provision for a king, again a feature found only in Deuteronomy, becomes the basis for the compiler’s intense interest in the history of the monarchy, and particularly the religious fidelity of the kings. David becomes the model of the ideal king, the one by whom the others are measured, the one whose sons “continue long in his kingdom in the midst of Israel” (17:20; see also 1 Kgs 15:11; 2 Kgs 18:3; 22:2 for following in the ways of David, and 1 Kgs 14:8; 15:3-5; 2 Kgs 14:3; 16:2 for the reverse). The compiler wanted to show that God had been faithful to David even though David’s sons were not faithful. While both kingdoms had about the same number of kings, the northern kingdom is marked by repeated dynastic changes and regicide through its 200 years, while the dynasty of David is maintained as a lamp in the south through 350 years (1 Kgs 11:13, 32, 36; 15:4-5; 2 Kgs 8:19; 19:34; 20:6). It is the disaster that had befallen the house of David, and the consequent doubts about the promises of God, that prompted the compiler to write.<\/p>\n<h5>Efficacy of the Prophetic Word<\/h5>\n<p>Another reason why Kings can be called Deuteronomic history is its concern with the efficacy of the prophetic word. There are three passages in the Pentateuch that deal with the institution of the prophetic order: Numbers 12:1-8; Deuteronomy 13:1-5; and Deuteronomy 18:14-22. It is only in Deuteronomy 18 that the test of a true prophet is given: that what he has spoken comes about, that his words are fulfilled. Notice the number of instances where the writer calls attention to the fulfillment of the words of the prophets: 2 Samuel 7:13 in 1 Kings 8:20; 1 Kings 11:29-36 in 12:15; 1 Kings 13:1-3 in 2 Kings 23:16-18; 1 Kings 14:6-12 in 14:17-18 and 15:29; 1 Kings 16:1-4 in 16:7, 11-12; Joshua 6:26 in 1 Kings 16:34; 1 Kings 22:17 in 22:35-38; 1 Kings 21:21-29 in 2 Kings 9:7-10, 30-37 and 10:10-11, 30; 2 Kings 1:6 in 1:17; 2 Kings 21:10-15 in 24:2; 2 Kings 22:15-20 in 23:30. The writer is concerned to show that the words of the prophets were efficacious, powerful words. His concern with the prophetic order is also seen in the material devoted to Elijah and Elisha and to other prophetic figures.<\/p>\n<h5>Fulfillment of the Curses<\/h5>\n<p>Another aspect of the compiler’s interest in Deuteronomy is seen in his concern to trace the fulfillment of the covenant curses on disobedience. God’s covenant with Israel would issue in curses or blessings depending on the obedience of the people; the compiler of Kings sees the curses inflicted on the two kingdoms because of their failure to meet the demands of the covenant. He takes care to show that most of the curses of Deuteronomy 28:15-68 had some historical realization in the life of the people. Moses had warned that disobedience would “bring a nation against you from afar, from the end of the earth, as the eagle swoops down” (Dt 28:49, <span>nasb<\/span>), and the Assyrians came to Samaria and the Babylonians to Jerusalem (28:52). The siege of Samaria lasted from 724 to 722 <span>BC<\/span>, and the siege of Jerusalem from 588 to 586 <span>BC<\/span>. The dire conditions of the siege would drive the people to devouring their own children; women would feed on their afterbirths. It happened to Israel in the siege of Ben-hadad (2 Kgs 6:24-30). Just as the Lord had delighted to prosper and multiply his people, so he would not refrain from destroying them and scattering them among the peoples of the earth (Dt 28:63-67).<\/p>\n<p>In these and other ways the writer of Kings set out to write the history of Israel and Judah to solve a theological dilemma. How was one to reconcile the exile with God’s promises to the nation and David? His answer is twofold: (1) the problem was not with God but with the people’s disobedience—God remains just; (2) the end of the state does not equal the end of the people or the house of David. Here the ending of the book is instructive: Evil-merodach releases Jehoiachin from prison, elevates him above the other kings, and provides his rations (2 Kgs 25:27-30). Even during the exile, though cut down to almost nothing, the house of David still enjoys the favor and blessing of God. God has not abandoned his promises; the people should keep hope.<\/p>\n<p>Other themes in Kings also show the theological motivations underlying the compiler’s selection and arrangement of the data, particularly his use of Deuteronomy as a framework for examining the history of the people. Compare the laws governing the observance of Passover in Exodus 12:1-20 and Deuteronomy 16:1-8: whereas the Passover is centered in the family in Exodus, it is celebrated at the sanctuary in Deuteronomy. The writer of Kings is careful to show that the Passover during the reign of Josiah was celebrated in accordance with the requirements of Deuteronomy (2 Kgs 23:21-23). A passage in Deuteronomy is explicitly cited with reference to Amaziah’s keeping the law (Dt 24:16 in 2 Kgs 14:6).<\/p>\n<h5>Contrast with Chronicles<\/h5>\n<p>The interests of Kings are further highlighted when compared with the parallel accounts in Chronicles. While the writer of Kings worked in the aftermath of the destruction of Jerusalem and had to answer the “how?” and “why?” questions, the Chronicler is part of the restoration community. Here the burning theological questions were not “how?” and “why?” but rather “What continuity do we have with David? Is God still interested in us?” The need is not to account for the exile but rather to relate the postexilic and the preexilic. The building of the second temple and the ordering of worship there show up in increased detail in Chronicles in any matter pertaining to the former temple. Chronicles is a history of Judah and of the Davidic line, reflecting the fact that it alone survives after the exile. Interesting, too, are the things omitted from the account by the Chronicler. Since he is not building a case for an indictment, as was done in Samuel and Kings, he is free to omit references to David’s sin with Bathsheba (2 Sm 11) or to Solomon’s difficulties in gaining the throne (1 Kgs 1–2). Since in his day the northern kingdom had not survived, the Chronicler did not go into detail about the sins of Jeroboam (chs 13–14). Chronicles is interested more in the affairs of the temple and does not show the marked interest in prophetic matters found in Kings, so that the lives of Elijah and Elisha are omitted (1 Kgs 16—2 Kgs 10). Nor does the Chronicler recite the sins that led to the demise of the northern kingdom (2 Kgs 17:1–18:12). In all these examples one can see the interplay of the historical moment and theological concerns of the people and the compilers. Each compiler has selected and arranged the data in accordance with the concerns and needs of the community in which he was a member; comparing the two accounts throws the interests of each into sharp relief.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Content\">Content<\/p>\n\n<p>The books of Kings fall into three parts: (1) the reign of Solomon (1 Kgs 1–11); (2) the history of the divided kingdom (1 Kgs 12–2 Kgs 17); (3) the history of the surviving kingdom in Judah (2 Kgs 18–25).<\/p>\n<h5>The Reign of Solomon (1 Kgs 1–11)<\/h5>\n<p>The record begins with an account of the court intrigue surrounding Solomon’s accession to the throne, set against the backdrop of the abortive coup by Adonijah (ch 1). The dying David charges Solomon to obey the commandments of God (2:1-4) and also to take vengeance on his enemies (vv 5-9). After David’s death Solomon orders the deaths of Adonijah, Joab, and Shimei, and the banishment of Abiathar, the priest who had supported Adonijah in his bid for the throne (vv 13-46). Enemies eliminated, the kingdom was firmly established by Solomon (v 46).<\/p>\n<p>The remainder of Solomon’s reign is divided into two parts: Solomon the good, who follows in the ways of his father, David (chs 3–10); and Solomon the bad, whose heart is led astray (ch 11). While sacrificing at Gibeon, Solomon asks God to give him the gift of wisdom to rule—wisdom promptly demonstrated in the quarrel of two prostitutes about a child (ch 3). An account is given of the administrative organization of the kingdom and the incomparable wisdom of Solomon (ch 4). The compiler of Kings gives extensive coverage to the preparations (ch 5), building (chs 6–7), and dedication (ch 8) of the temple. God appeared to Solomon a second time, reminding him to keep his commandments as David had done (9:1-9). Details are given of the king’s building and commercial activities (vv 10-27). The account of the visit by the queen of Sheba is followed with elaboration of Solomon’s splendor (ch 10). But Solomon did not keep God’s commands; seduced to pagan worship by his foreign wives, he was not fully devoted to the Lord as David had been (11:4), and God determined to take away the northern tribes from the rule of his son (vv 11-13). As punishment from the hand of God, Solomon faced rebellion among conquered peoples (vv 14-25) and within Israel in the person of Jeroboam (vv 26-40).<\/p>\n<h5>History of the Divided Kingdom (1 Kgs 12—2 Kgs 17)<\/h5>\n\n<p>The united monarchy dissolved after the death of Solomon. The northern kingdom (Israel) would exist for about two centuries, would be ruled by 20 kings from nine different dynasties, and would show a history of internal weakness riddled with regicide and usurpation. In contrast, the southern kingdom would last for three and a half centuries and would be ruled by 19 kings of Davidic descent (apart from a short period under the dynastic interloper Athaliah).<\/p>\n<p>There had been a long history of independent action and even warfare between the northern and southern tribes prior to David and Solomon, so it is no surprise that the division would take place along the lines that it did. The immediate cause, however, was the unwise severity with which Rehoboam replied to the representatives of the northern tribes while negotiating for the kingship. Jeroboam, the popular hero of the earlier insurrection against Solomon, became king in the north. He immediately erected the rival sanctuaries at Dan and Bethel (1 Kgs 12); these rival altars became the measure by which the kings of Israel were condemned for following in the sins of Jeroboam.<\/p>\n<p>For two generations there would be warfare between Israel and Judah over the border areas in Benjamin claimed by both sides. Fifty years of sporadic fighting on their mutual frontier, interlaced with invasions from the Arameans in the north or the Egyptians in the south, would consume the reigns of Jeroboam, Nadab, Baasha, Elah, and Zimri in Israel and of Rehoboam, Abijam, and Asa in Judah (1 Kgs 13:1–16:20).<\/p>\n<p>The accession of Omri in Israel introduced a ruling house that would last for a total of four generations and end the dynastic instability of the northern kingdom. Though Kings gives Omri a scant eight verses (1 Kgs 16:21-28), he was among the greatest of the northern kings, forging alliances with the Phoenicians and Judah; for over a century, the Assyrians would call Israel “the house of Omri.”<\/p>\n<p>The reigns of Omri’s successors, Ahab, Ahaziah, and Jehoram, are treated at disproportionate length, taking almost a third of the total book, 16 of 47 chapters (1 Kgs 17—2 Kgs 10). This is due to the fact that the compiler of Kings incorporated extensive coverage of the lives of Elijah and Elisha, weaving a contrast between good and evil by paralleling the dynasty of Omri with these prophets. Ahab and Jezebel were used as foils for the account of Elijah, so that Ahab became a paradigm of the evil king (e.g., 2 Kgs 21:3).<\/p>\n<p>Because of this preoccupation with the dynasty of Omri and the lives of Elijah and Elisha, the equivalent period in Judah is not given as extensive coverage. During this period, the northern kingdom appears to have exercised some hegemony over Judah, as attested by the marriage of an Omride (Athaliah, 2 Kgs 8:18, 26) to Jehoram of Judah and the subservient role of Jehoshaphat to Ahab at the battle of Ramoth-gilead (1 Kgs 22). Judah’s fortunes declined in this period when Edom revolted against Jehoram (2 Kgs 8:20-22), costing Judah control over the port at Ezion-geber and consequent economic losses.<\/p>\n<p>In 842 <span>BC<\/span> Jehu, after being anointed king by a prophet (2 Kgs 9:1-13), led a coup ending the house of Omri and also killing Ahaziah of Judah (vv 14-29). Jehu’s purge also brought the death of Jezebel, Ahab’s family, members of the family of Ahaziah, and the ministers of Baal (9:30–10:36). The consequences were severe politically: the murder of the Phoenician princess Jezebel and the king of Judah cost Israel its allies to the north and south.<\/p>\n<p>Jehu’s dynasty had the longest succession of any in Israel, including Jehoahaz, Jehoash, Jeroboam II, and Zechariah, a period spanning 90 years. Jehu’s murder of Ahaziah of Judah set the stage for the one threat to the continuity of the Davidic dynasty. Queen Athaliah, herself an Omride, seized the throne and attempted a purge of Davidic pretenders. She ruled for six years, until the faithful priest Jehoiada staged a countercoup to place the child Joash on the throne of David (ch 11).<\/p>\n<p>Israel endured a half century of weakness as a result of Jehu’s coup, during which the Arameans had a free hand, reducing the forces of Jehu’s son Jehoahaz to a small army and bodyguard (2 Kgs 13:1-7).<\/p>\n<p>The reemergence of Assyria early in the ninth century <span>BC<\/span> gave relief to Israel and Judah. Assyrian armies conquered the Arameans; with that threat removed, Israel and Judah enjoyed a dramatic resurgence. Jehoash of Israel, grandson of Jehu, reconquered cities lost to the Arameans (2 Kgs 13:25); Elisha died during his reign (v 20). In the south Amaziah reconquered the Edomites (14:7). Amaziah and Jehoash renewed the warfare between the kingdoms, with the north again victorious (vv 8-14).<\/p>\n<p>Under Jeroboam II, Israel enjoyed a period of prosperity when the borders of the kingdom reached the same extent as they had under Solomon (2 Kgs 14:23-28). Uzziah (Azariah), his contemporary in Judah, also fortified Jerusalem and undertook a program of offensive operations extending Judah’s sway to the south (14:21-22; 15:1-7).<\/p>\n<p>Yet this resurgence was but a brilliant sunset in the history of the two kingdoms. After the death of Jeroboam II, the history is one of successive disasters, culminating in the fall of Israel and the subjugation of Judah to the might of Assyria. The next 30 years in Israel would see four dynasties, three represented by only one king, and repeated regicides as the northern kingdom hastened to its demise. A period of civil war and anarchy would see five kings in just over ten years (2 Kgs 15). Heavy tribute was paid to Tiglath-pileser III in both the north and south (15:19-20; 16:7-10). Israel and the Arameans forged a coalition to throw back the Assyrians and sought to press Ahaz of Judah into the fight; Ahaz appealed to Tiglath-pileser III for help. The coalition was destroyed, and Israel and Judah became vassals. Hoshea defected as soon as he felt safe, looking to Egypt for help, but it was suicide for the northern kingdom. Shalmaneser V retaliated, and the political history of the state of Israel came to an end (17:1-23). The area was resettled with other displaced populations (vv 24-41).<\/p>\n<p>Israel had faced the Arameans and survived, only to fall to Assyria. And now, similarly, Judah would outlast Assyria, only to fall to Babylon.<\/p>\n<h5>History of the Surviving Kingdom of Judah (2 Kgs 18–25)<\/h5>\n<p>Ahaz’s appeal for Assyrian aid cost him his liberty, and Judah became a vassal of the Assyrian Empire. Illegitimate worship flourished under his rule (2 Kgs 16:1-19). Ahaz was succeeded by the first of the outstanding reform kings of Judah: Hezekiah. Much of the account of his reign is given to his rebellion against Sennacherib of Assyria: the rebellion, the Assyrian envoys and threats, Isaiah’s assurances of deliverance, and the destruction of the Assyrian armies (18:9–19:37). Hezekiah’s illness was averted after a sign and oracle from Isaiah (20:1-11). As part of what appears to be negotiations toward an anti-Assyrian alliance, Hezekiah also entertained envoys from Babylon, a decision that the prophet announced would be costly (vv 12-21).<\/p>\n<p>Hezekiah was followed by Manasseh, who ruled longer than any other king of Judah (a total of 55 years). His reign was marked by great apostasy—apostasy so severe that the compiler of Kings regarded his reign as sufficient reason for the exile that was unavoidable (2 Kgs 21:1-18; cf. 23:26; 24:3-4; Jer 15:1-4). Manasseh was followed by his son Amon, a carbon copy of his father, who ruled only two years before he was deposed by the people (2 Kings 21:19-26).<\/p>\n<p>The second great reform king of Judah, Josiah, followed. In his reign the Book of the Law was found while the temple was being refurbished; he led the people in a renewal of the covenant and suppressed illegitimate worship (2 Kgs 22:1–23:14). The Assyrian Empire was in rapid decline, so Josiah extended his borders to the north, destroying the altar at Bethel and the high places throughout Samaria (23:15-20). A great Passover celebration was convened in Jerusalem, and further measures were taken to rectify worship (vv 21-25). Josiah tried to block Pharaoh Neco’s foray to assist Assyria, and he lost his life at Megiddo (vv 26-30).<\/p>\n<p>Josiah was the only king of Judah to have three of his sons succeed him. At his death the people put Jehoahaz on the throne, but Neco removed him three months later and took him to Egypt in chains (2 Kgs 23:31-33), replacing him with another son of Josiah, Eliakim, whose name was changed to Jehoiakim (vv 34-37). During his reign, Nebuchadnezzar conquered Judah, and Jehoiakim became his vassal. Late in his life Jehoiakim rebelled against Nebuchadnezzar. Jehoiakim died, leaving his son Jehoiachin to face retaliation from Babylon (24:1-10). Nebuchadnezzar besieged Jerusalem; when the city fell, Jehoiachin, the queen mother, the army, and the leaders of the land were carried away captive. Nebuchadnezzar put Mattaniah (uncle of Jehoiachin and third son of Josiah) on the throne, changing his name to Zedekiah (vv 11-17). Nine years later Zedekiah, too, would rebel against Babylon. Nebuchadnezzar besieged the city for two years and, when it fell, utterly destroyed it. Zedekiah’s sons were killed before his eyes, and then his own eyes were put out, and he was taken to Babylon (24:18–25:21). Nebuchadnezzar appointed Gedaliah to rule as governor from nearby Mizpah; he was assassinated, and the conspirators fled to Egypt (25:22-26).<\/p>\n<p>The book concludes by showing that God had not forgotten his promise to David, mentioning that in captivity Jehoiachin enjoyed favor from the hand of Evil-merodach, successor of Nebuchadnezzar (2 Kgs 25:27-30).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Chronicles, Books of First and Second.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>KINGS, Books of First and Second<\/h3>\n<p>Books continuing the history of the covenant people as recorded in Joshua, Judges, and the books of Samuel. The record in Kings begins with the events at the end of David’s reign (1 Kgs 1–2). It continues through the reign of Solomon (chs 3–11); the histories of the divided kingdoms (1 Kgs 12—2 Kgs 17); and the history of the surviving kingdom in the south, through its fall in 586 <span>BC<\/span> and the subsequent kindness shown Jehoiachin by Evil-merodach, king of Babylon, around 561 <span>BC<\/span> (2 Kgs 18–25).<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Authorship and Date<\/p>\n<p>• Sources<\/p>\n<p>• Theology and Purpose<\/p>\n<p>• Content<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"AuthorshipandDate\">Authorship and Date<\/p>\n<p>Kings was originally regarded as one book in the Hebrew canon; the division into two books of approximately equal length appeared first in the Septuagint and finally entered the Hebrew Bible in the 15th century <span>AD<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p>The book itself is anonymous, and information about its author can only be deduced by examining the concerns and perspectives of the work. The Babylonian Talmud (<em>Baba Bathra<\/em> 15a) attributes Kings to Jeremiah. Although this identification could have arisen from the tendency of later Jewish tradition to assign biblical books to prophetic authors, the theory of origin in prophetic circles fits the evidence quite well. Substantial portions are given to the lives of the prophets; 16 of 47 chapters are devoted to the lives of Elijah and Elisha (1 Kgs 17—2 Kgs 10), and there is considerable interest in other prophetic figures such as Ahijah (1 Kgs 11:29-39; 14:1-16), an unnamed man of God (13:1-10), and Micaiah (22:13-28). Possible dependence on Isaiah (2 Kgs 18–20; cf. Is 36–39) and Jeremiah (2 Kgs 24–25; cf. Jer 52) also suggest prophetic origin. The author-compiler also shows intense concern with the efficacy of the prophetic word, frequently calling attention to the fulfillment of words spoken earlier by the prophets.<\/p>\n<p>One might initially think that such a history would be unlikely for a prophet, but the evidence is to the contrary. The prophets were the guardians of the covenant relationship and are known to have produced accounts used as sources by other biblical historians. The following are among such sources: the acts of Samuel the seer, the acts of Nathan the prophet, the acts of Gad the seer (1 Chr 29:29); the acts of Nathan the prophet, the prophecy of Ahijah the Shilonite, the visions of Iddo the seer (2 Chr 9:29); the chronicles of Shemaiah the prophet and of Iddo the seer (12:15); the annotations of the prophet Iddo (13:22); and the acts of Uzziah by Isaiah the prophet (26:22). Add to this the fact that Kings is positioned in the Hebrew canon in the Former Prophets (Joshua to 2 Kings), and a consistent picture of prophetic origin emerges.<\/p>\n<p>The date of the final part of the book must be after the last events recorded. Evil-merodach’s kindness toward Jehoiachin (c. 561 <span>BC<\/span>) is the terminus of the book and therefore fixes the earliest date. Since the work shows no knowledge of the restoration period, a date before 539 <span>BC<\/span> is probable. The author’s selection of his data to answer the burning theological questions of the exilic community also suggests a date between 561 and 539 <span>BC<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Sources\">Sources<\/p>\n<p>The compiler of Kings specifically names three of the sources that he used in his work, and biblical scholars have suggested the presence of a number of other sources that may have been cited. Of course, the sources not mentioned specifically by the compiler are only the speculations of those who have studied his work and can have only varying degrees of probability. The sources both specified and alleged are as follows.<\/p>\n<h5>The Book of the Acts of Solomon<\/h5>\n<p>As 1 Kings 11:41 says, “The rest of the events in Solomon’s reign, including his wisdom, are recorded in <em>The Book of the Acts of Solomon”<\/em> (<span>nlt<\/span>). Presumably additional materials of a biographical nature were included, specifically accounts similar to the judgment between the two mothers (3:16-28) or the visit of the queen of Sheba (10:1-10). There has been debate as to whether these materials were official court records or nonofficial documents. Some scholars have attempted to isolate further materials within this section by identifying descriptions of the buildings as from temple archives (chs 6–7) and lists of administrators as from administrative documents (chs 4–5), but this must remain speculative.<\/p>\n<h5>The Book of the History of the Kings of Israel<\/h5>\n<p>This source is mentioned 17 times in Kings, usually in the closing formulas at the end of the account of the reign of a northern king. Some idea of the nature of these chronicles can be derived from looking at the type of information to which the compiler refers his readers (see 1 Kgs 14:19; 16:27; 22:39; 2 Kgs 13:12; 14:28). These passages suggest that this source was the official annals covering the reigns of the kings.<\/p>\n<h5>The Book of the History of the Kings of Judah<\/h5>\n<p>This source is mentioned in 15 passages, and as with the kings of Israel, is found in the concluding formulas to the accounts of the reigns. This source was to be consulted for additional details on individuals’ reigns (for example, see 1 Kgs 15:23; 22:45; 2 Kgs 20:20; 21:17). These sources for the histories of the two kingdoms were probably similar to the annals known from the surrounding cultures, particularly from the reigns of Assyrian kings. They were likely official court histories kept in Samaria and Jerusalem.<\/p>\n<p>In addition to these explicitly mentioned sources, scholars have suggested the compiler drew on other sources that he does not name.<\/p>\n<h5>Davidic Court History<\/h5>\n<p>Second Samuel 9–20 is often identified as a unit of material in the composition of the books of Samuel; it is variously called “the court history” or “the succession narrative.” Because of similar vocabulary and outlook, 1 Kings 1–2 are often associated with this material from Samuel. The statement of 1 Kings 2:46, “so the kingdom was now firmly in Solomon’s grip,” is taken to be the end of this record.<\/p>\n<h5>Sources for the House of Ahab<\/h5>\n<p>The reigns of individual kings are ordinarily given only brief notices; for example, the father of Ahab, Omri, is given eight verses, even though when judged by political and economic significance, he was among the greatest of the northern kings (1 Kgs 16:21-28). However, beginning with the reign of Ahab, the record becomes quite expansive, and extensive coverage is given the dynasty of Ahab through the coup by Jehu (1 Kgs 16—2 Kgs 12). The use of the stereotyped formulas for the reigns is suspended in this material, and the existence of other literature used by the compiler is probable. This material is commonly subdivided into further sources for the lives of Elijah and Elisha and the reign of Ahab.<\/p>\n<p>The Elijah section covers material in the following chapters: 1 Kings 17–19, including the feeding by the ravens, the incidents with the widow of Zarephath, the drought, the fire on Carmel, and the revelation of God at Sinai; 1 Kings 21, the affair of Naboth’s vineyard; and 2 Kings 1, the death of Ahaziah’s messengers. The reign of Ahab, which gets so much attention in Kings, is primarily a backdrop for the accounts concerning Elijah.<\/p>\n<p>The Elisha material found in 2 Kings 2–13 may have had an independent literary development from that of the Elijah accounts. It includes the following: chapter 2 (Elisha’s succession to the prophetic office, the purification of a spring, the death of mocking children); chapter 3 (on the campaign against Moab); chapter 4 (the widow’s oil, the Shunammite woman); chapter 5 (Naaman’s leprosy); chapter 6 (the Aramean attempt to capture Elisha); chapter 7 (the famine in Samaria); chapter 8 (the Shunammite’s property, the coup of Hazael); chapter 9 (the anointing of Jehu); and chapter 13 (the death of Elisha). No other portion of the OT takes the sheer delight in the miraculous that is seen in the Elisha narratives.<\/p>\n<p>In 1 Kings 16 to 2 Kings 13 there are additional incidents not directly related to the biographies of Elijah and Elisha; accounts such as the military campaigns of 1 Kings 20:1-34 and further details of Jehu’s coup (2 Kgs 9:11–10:36) are often attributed to a third source containing accounts of the dynasty of Ahab and his successors. In all three of these possible sources the orientation is toward affairs in the northern kingdom.<\/p>\n<h5>Isaiah Source<\/h5>\n<p>The account of the reign of Hezekiah contains a section (2 Kgs 18:13–20:19) that is nearly a verbatim citation of material also found in Isaiah (Is 36:1–39:8). The section records the invasion of Sennacherib, the mission of the Rabshakeh, Hezekiah’s prayer, Isaiah’s prophecy, Hezekiah’s illness, the regression of the sun, and the envoys from Merodach-baladan. The material must be regarded as based on the book of Isaiah or some other source used in both Isaiah and Kings.<\/p>\n<h5>A Prophetic Source<\/h5>\n<p>Because Kings shows great interest in the prophets and their ministries, various scholars have suggested that yet another source was used by the compiler; this would be an independent literary unit containing accounts of the prophets. This source would have contained the records for the material on Ahijah (1 Kgs 11:29-39; 14:1-16), unnamed prophets (ch 12; 20:35-43), Micaiah (22:13-28), and other references.<\/p>\n<p>Apart from the sources explicitly mentioned and inferences about their character, the remainder of the sources suggested have only varying degrees of probability. Considerable scholarly effort has gone into identifying and characterizing such sources, but it remains speculative. When considering the sources the compiler may have used, one important caution must be kept in mind. Even if such sources did exist, one cannot have confidence in a reconstruction of the compositional history. Which sources had already been integrated into a larger composition before they were used by the compiler of Kings? We cannot be certain that the life situation out of which these other sources grew has been correctly identified, nor can we know that even the compiler himself was aware of the past history of his sources. Biblical scholarship has expended considerable energy in trying to delineate the past history of the book of Kings, but it has often been at the neglect of the unity of perspective that is the product of the final compiler(s) in whose hands the book received its canonical form.<\/p>\n<p>What is important to understanding the book is not the perspective of its various sources (of which the compiler himself may have been unaware), but the perspective of the book as a whole on the history of the kingdoms. It is the outline that the compiler has imposed on the sources that establishes the teaching of the book; his sources are used in accord with his own purposes, a fact that makes the purposes for which the sources had been prepared largely irrelevant to the teaching of the book in its present form. Exploring possible sources, worthwhile in itself, must not eclipse the message of the book as a whole. This is not to imply that the books of Kings are simply a compilation of unaltered sources. The writer(s) undoubtedly exercised a measure of selectivity and literary skill in composing the historical narrative.<\/p>\n<p>One compositional technique of the compiler is quite prominent in the histories of the divided kingdoms: this is the use of formulaic introductions and conclusions to the various reigns. The formulas for both kingdoms are quite similar, differing only in minor details. For the kings of Judah, the full introductory formula is as follows: (1) year of accession synchronized with the regnal year of the northern king; (2) age of the king at his accession; (3) length of his reign; (4) name of his mother; (5) judgment on the character of the reign. The account of a Judean king’s reign is concluded as follows: (1) a reference to the chronicles of the kings of Judah for further information; (2) a statement regarding the death of the king, including the place of burial; (3) successor: “And his son reigned in his stead” (<span>rsv<\/span>). The full formula for a Judean king can be seen, for example, in the reign of Rehoboam (1 Kgs 14:21-22, 29-31).<\/p>\n<p>The formulas differ slightly for the kings of Israel; the introduction is as follows: (1) year of succession synchronized with the regnal year of the southern king; (2) length of his reign; (3) location of the royal residence; (4) condemnation for idolatry; (5) name of the king’s father. The account of an Israelite king’s reign ends as follows: (1) a reference to the chronicles of the kings of Israel for further information; (2) a statement regarding his death; (3) a statement of the succession of his son, unless a usurper follows. The full formula for an Israelite king can be seen, for example, in the reign of Baasha (1 Kgs 15:33-34; 16:5-6).<\/p>\n<p>There is some variation in the use of these patterns, but on the whole, they are consistently followed and provide the basic framework for the history of the divided kingdom. The synchronisms of the reigns provide data for constructing the chronology of the period. The variations in the formulas may reflect the characteristics of the sources the compiler was using or may reflect his own interests. The name of the mother of a Judean king is recorded, but not of an Israelite king, perhaps reflecting concern with a more exact and fuller record of the Davidic succession. The royal residence is presumed to be Jerusalem for the southern kings (though it may be mentioned) but is recorded for the northern kings since it moved several times, from Shechem to Penuel to Tirzah to Samaria. The mention of the king’s father for a northern ruler also reflects the frequent change in dynasties there, as opposed to the dynastic stability of Judah, which is reinforced by mentioning the burial of almost all its kings in the city of David.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheologyandPurpose\">Theology and Purpose<\/p>\n<p>The books of Kings record the history of the covenant people from the end of the reign of David (961 <span>BC<\/span>) through the fall of the southern kingdom (586 <span>BC<\/span>). Yet it is not history written in accord with modern expectations for history textbooks. Rather than concentrating on economic, political, and military themes as they shaped the history of the period, the compiler of Kings is motivated by theological concerns.<\/p>\n<p>Evaluation of the theology and purpose of the books of Kings is made easier by the fact that there is a parallel history for much of Kings found in the books of Chronicles. By comparing the two accounts, especially where the later Chronicler adds or deletes material found in Kings, the interests of both histories are thrown into clearer relief.<\/p>\n<p>The books of Kings were composed during the exile, likely between 560 and 539 <span>BC<\/span>. Jerusalem had been turned into rubble, and there was no longer a throne of David. Those two pillars of the popular theology—the inviolability of the temple and the throne of David (Jer 7:4; 13:13-14; 22:1-9; see 1 Kgs 8:16, 29)—had tumbled. If Israel’s faith was to survive, the burning questions that had to be answered were “How did it all happen? Can’t God keep his promises to David and to Zion? Have the promises failed?” The writer of Kings aims to deal with the bewilderment of the chosen people in response to the disasters of 722 <span>BC<\/span> (fall of Samaria) and 586 <span>BC<\/span> (fall of Jerusalem). Kings, like the book of Job, is a theodicy, a justification of the ways of God to men.<\/p>\n<p>In order to answer the question “How did it happen?” the compiler adopts the procedure of recounting the history of the covenant people in light of standards propounded in the Law. For this reason Kings could be called Pentateuchal history, or even more pointedly, Deuteronomic history, for standards propounded only in the book of Deuteronomy in the Pentateuch are used by the compiler to measure the kingdoms. Among the prominent themes selected from Deuteronomy and applied to the kingdoms are the centralization of worship, the institution of the monarchy, the efficacy of the prophetic word, and the outworking of the covenant curses on disobedience.<\/p>\n<h5>Centralization of Worship<\/h5>\n<p>The primary concern of the writer is the purity of the worship of the Lord. His major criterion for measuring this purity is the attitude of the kings toward centralization of worship in the Jerusalem temple as opposed to the worship of the Lord elsewhere and the continuation of Canaanite cults mingled with Yahwism at the high places. Centralization of worship at the central shrine is called for in Deuteronomy 12. Perhaps “centralization of worship” is a misnomer, for worship was always centered around the tabernacle in the periods prior to the temple; the change that is envisaged in Deuteronomy is not the centralizing of worship but rather the fact that the shrine would no longer be mobile but stationary. For the kings of the northern kingdom, this criterion becomes virtually a stereotyped formula that “he did that which was evil in the sight of the Lord and walked in the way of Jeroboam son of Nebat, who sinned and made all Israel sin along with him” (see 1 Kgs 14:16; 15:30; 16:31; 2 Kgs 3:3; 10:31; 13:2, 11; 14:24; 15:9, 18, 24, 28; 17:22). The compiler of Kings sees the rival altars with the golden calves at Dan and Bethel as the great sin of which the northern kings never repented (1 Kgs 12:25–13:34). Rejecting the primacy of Jerusalem, these altars became the rod with which to measure the northern kings. All the kings of Israel are condemned by this standard (except for Shallum, who reigned but a month, and Hoshea, the last of the northern kings)—even Zimri, the murderer of Elah, who ruled only one week before committing suicide in the flames of his own palace (16:9-20). For the kings of Judah, a different standard is used: what their attitude was to the high places where heterodox worship was allowed to flourish in the environs of Jerusalem. Only Hezekiah and Josiah receive the compiler’s unqualified endorsement for following the ways of David (2 Kgs 18:3; 22:2). Six others are commended for their zeal in suppressing idolatry, though they did not remove the high places (Asa, 1 Kgs 15:9-15; Jehoshaphat, 22:43; Jehoash, 2 Kgs 12:2-3; Amaziah, 14:3-4; Azariah, 15:3-4; Jotham, 15:34-35). The remainder of the Judean kings are condemned for their participation in the high places and their desecration of the temple itself. This one theme is the preeminent motif in the book.<\/p>\n<h5>History of the Monarchy<\/h5>\n<p>A second prominent interest for the compiler was to trace the history of the monarchy. Deuteronomy 17:14-20 provides for the day when Israel would ask for a king and charges that king with the basic religious responsibility for the people. This provision for a king, again a feature found only in Deuteronomy, becomes the basis for the compiler’s intense interest in the history of the monarchy, and particularly the religious fidelity of the kings. David becomes the model of the ideal king, the one by whom the others are measured, the one whose sons “continue long in his kingdom in the midst of Israel” (17:20; see also 1 Kgs 15:11; 2 Kgs 18:3; 22:2 for following in the ways of David, and 1 Kgs 14:8; 15:3-5; 2 Kgs 14:3; 16:2 for the reverse). The compiler wanted to show that God had been faithful to David even though David’s sons were not faithful. While both kingdoms had about the same number of kings, the northern kingdom is marked by repeated dynastic changes and regicide through its 200 years, while the dynasty of David is maintained as a lamp in the south through 350 years (1 Kgs 11:13, 32, 36; 15:4-5; 2 Kgs 8:19; 19:34; 20:6). It is the disaster that had befallen the house of David, and the consequent doubts about the promises of God, that prompted the compiler to write.<\/p>\n<h5>Efficacy of the Prophetic Word<\/h5>\n<p>Another reason why Kings can be called Deuteronomic history is its concern with the efficacy of the prophetic word. There are three passages in the Pentateuch that deal with the institution of the prophetic order: Numbers 12:1-8; Deuteronomy 13:1-5; and Deuteronomy 18:14-22. It is only in Deuteronomy 18 that the test of a true prophet is given: that what he has spoken comes about, that his words are fulfilled. Notice the number of instances where the writer calls attention to the fulfillment of the words of the prophets: 2 Samuel 7:13 in 1 Kings 8:20; 1 Kings 11:29-36 in 12:15; 1 Kings 13:1-3 in 2 Kings 23:16-18; 1 Kings 14:6-12 in 14:17-18 and 15:29; 1 Kings 16:1-4 in 16:7, 11-12; Joshua 6:26 in 1 Kings 16:34; 1 Kings 22:17 in 22:35-38; 1 Kings 21:21-29 in 2 Kings 9:7-10, 30-37 and 10:10-11, 30; 2 Kings 1:6 in 1:17; 2 Kings 21:10-15 in 24:2; 2 Kings 22:15-20 in 23:30. The writer is concerned to show that the words of the prophets were efficacious, powerful words. His concern with the prophetic order is also seen in the material devoted to Elijah and Elisha and to other prophetic figures.<\/p>\n<h5>Fulfillment of the Curses<\/h5>\n<p>Another aspect of the compiler’s interest in Deuteronomy is seen in his concern to trace the fulfillment of the covenant curses on disobedience. God’s covenant with Israel would issue in curses or blessings depending on the obedience of the people; the compiler of Kings sees the curses inflicted on the two kingdoms because of their failure to meet the demands of the covenant. He takes care to show that most of the curses of Deuteronomy 28:15-68 had some historical realization in the life of the people. Moses had warned that disobedience would “bring a nation against you from afar, from the end of the earth, as the eagle swoops down” (Dt 28:49, <span>nasb<\/span>), and the Assyrians came to Samaria and the Babylonians to Jerusalem (28:52). The siege of Samaria lasted from 724 to 722 <span>BC<\/span>, and the siege of Jerusalem from 588 to 586 <span>BC<\/span>. The dire conditions of the siege would drive the people to devouring their own children; women would feed on their afterbirths. It happened to Israel in the siege of Ben-hadad (2 Kgs 6:24-30). Just as the Lord had delighted to prosper and multiply his people, so he would not refrain from destroying them and scattering them among the peoples of the earth (Dt 28:63-67).<\/p>\n<p>In these and other ways the writer of Kings set out to write the history of Israel and Judah to solve a theological dilemma. How was one to reconcile the exile with God’s promises to the nation and David? His answer is twofold: (1) the problem was not with God but with the people’s disobedience—God remains just; (2) the end of the state does not equal the end of the people or the house of David. Here the ending of the book is instructive: Evil-merodach releases Jehoiachin from prison, elevates him above the other kings, and provides his rations (2 Kgs 25:27-30). Even during the exile, though cut down to almost nothing, the house of David still enjoys the favor and blessing of God. God has not abandoned his promises; the people should keep hope.<\/p>\n<p>Other themes in Kings also show the theological motivations underlying the compiler’s selection and arrangement of the data, particularly his use of Deuteronomy as a framework for examining the history of the people. Compare the laws governing the observance of Passover in Exodus 12:1-20 and Deuteronomy 16:1-8: whereas the Passover is centered in the family in Exodus, it is celebrated at the sanctuary in Deuteronomy. The writer of Kings is careful to show that the Passover during the reign of Josiah was celebrated in accordance with the requirements of Deuteronomy (2 Kgs 23:21-23). A passage in Deuteronomy is explicitly cited with reference to Amaziah’s keeping the law (Dt 24:16 in 2 Kgs 14:6).<\/p>\n<h5>Contrast with Chronicles<\/h5>\n<p>The interests of Kings are further highlighted when compared with the parallel accounts in Chronicles. While the writer of Kings worked in the aftermath of the destruction of Jerusalem and had to answer the “how?” and “why?” questions, the Chronicler is part of the restoration community. Here the burning theological questions were not “how?” and “why?” but rather “What continuity do we have with David? Is God still interested in us?” The need is not to account for the exile but rather to relate the postexilic and the preexilic. The building of the second temple and the ordering of worship there show up in increased detail in Chronicles in any matter pertaining to the former temple. Chronicles is a history of Judah and of the Davidic line, reflecting the fact that it alone survives after the exile. Interesting, too, are the things omitted from the account by the Chronicler. Since he is not building a case for an indictment, as was done in Samuel and Kings, he is free to omit references to David’s sin with Bathsheba (2 Sm 11) or to Solomon’s difficulties in gaining the throne (1 Kgs 1–2). Since in his day the northern kingdom had not survived, the Chronicler did not go into detail about the sins of Jeroboam (chs 13–14). Chronicles is interested more in the affairs of the temple and does not show the marked interest in prophetic matters found in Kings, so that the lives of Elijah and Elisha are omitted (1 Kgs 16—2 Kgs 10). Nor does the Chronicler recite the sins that led to the demise of the northern kingdom (2 Kgs 17:1–18:12). In all these examples one can see the interplay of the historical moment and theological concerns of the people and the compilers. Each compiler has selected and arranged the data in accordance with the concerns and needs of the community in which he was a member; comparing the two accounts throws the interests of each into sharp relief.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Content\">Content<\/p>\n\n<p>The books of Kings fall into three parts: (1) the reign of Solomon (1 Kgs 1–11); (2) the history of the divided kingdom (1 Kgs 12–2 Kgs 17); (3) the history of the surviving kingdom in Judah (2 Kgs 18–25).<\/p>\n<h5>The Reign of Solomon (1 Kgs 1–11)<\/h5>\n<p>The record begins with an account of the court intrigue surrounding Solomon’s accession to the throne, set against the backdrop of the abortive coup by Adonijah (ch 1). The dying David charges Solomon to obey the commandments of God (2:1-4) and also to take vengeance on his enemies (vv 5-9). After David’s death Solomon orders the deaths of Adonijah, Joab, and Shimei, and the banishment of Abiathar, the priest who had supported Adonijah in his bid for the throne (vv 13-46). Enemies eliminated, the kingdom was firmly established by Solomon (v 46).<\/p>\n<p>The remainder of Solomon’s reign is divided into two parts: Solomon the good, who follows in the ways of his father, David (chs 3–10); and Solomon the bad, whose heart is led astray (ch 11). While sacrificing at Gibeon, Solomon asks God to give him the gift of wisdom to rule—wisdom promptly demonstrated in the quarrel of two prostitutes about a child (ch 3). An account is given of the administrative organization of the kingdom and the incomparable wisdom of Solomon (ch 4). The compiler of Kings gives extensive coverage to the preparations (ch 5), building (chs 6–7), and dedication (ch 8) of the temple. God appeared to Solomon a second time, reminding him to keep his commandments as David had done (9:1-9). Details are given of the king’s building and commercial activities (vv 10-27). The account of the visit by the queen of Sheba is followed with elaboration of Solomon’s splendor (ch 10). But Solomon did not keep God’s commands; seduced to pagan worship by his foreign wives, he was not fully devoted to the Lord as David had been (11:4), and God determined to take away the northern tribes from the rule of his son (vv 11-13). As punishment from the hand of God, Solomon faced rebellion among conquered peoples (vv 14-25) and within Israel in the person of Jeroboam (vv 26-40).<\/p>\n<h5>History of the Divided Kingdom (1 Kgs 12—2 Kgs 17)<\/h5>\n\n<p>The united monarchy dissolved after the death of Solomon. The northern kingdom (Israel) would exist for about two centuries, would be ruled by 20 kings from nine different dynasties, and would show a history of internal weakness riddled with regicide and usurpation. In contrast, the southern kingdom would last for three and a half centuries and would be ruled by 19 kings of Davidic descent (apart from a short period under the dynastic interloper Athaliah).<\/p>\n<p>There had been a long history of independent action and even warfare between the northern and southern tribes prior to David and Solomon, so it is no surprise that the division would take place along the lines that it did. The immediate cause, however, was the unwise severity with which Rehoboam replied to the representatives of the northern tribes while negotiating for the kingship. Jeroboam, the popular hero of the earlier insurrection against Solomon, became king in the north. He immediately erected the rival sanctuaries at Dan and Bethel (1 Kgs 12); these rival altars became the measure by which the kings of Israel were condemned for following in the sins of Jeroboam.<\/p>\n<p>For two generations there would be warfare between Israel and Judah over the border areas in Benjamin claimed by both sides. Fifty years of sporadic fighting on their mutual frontier, interlaced with invasions from the Arameans in the north or the Egyptians in the south, would consume the reigns of Jeroboam, Nadab, Baasha, Elah, and Zimri in Israel and of Rehoboam, Abijam, and Asa in Judah (1 Kgs 13:1–16:20).<\/p>\n<p>The accession of Omri in Israel introduced a ruling house that would last for a total of four generations and end the dynastic instability of the northern kingdom. Though Kings gives Omri a scant eight verses (1 Kgs 16:21-28), he was among the greatest of the northern kings, forging alliances with the Phoenicians and Judah; for over a century, the Assyrians would call Israel “the house of Omri.”<\/p>\n<p>The reigns of Omri’s successors, Ahab, Ahaziah, and Jehoram, are treated at disproportionate length, taking almost a third of the total book, 16 of 47 chapters (1 Kgs 17—2 Kgs 10). This is due to the fact that the compiler of Kings incorporated extensive coverage of the lives of Elijah and Elisha, weaving a contrast between good and evil by paralleling the dynasty of Omri with these prophets. Ahab and Jezebel were used as foils for the account of Elijah, so that Ahab became a paradigm of the evil king (e.g., 2 Kgs 21:3).<\/p>\n<p>Because of this preoccupation with the dynasty of Omri and the lives of Elijah and Elisha, the equivalent period in Judah is not given as extensive coverage. During this period, the northern kingdom appears to have exercised some hegemony over Judah, as attested by the marriage of an Omride (Athaliah, 2 Kgs 8:18, 26) to Jehoram of Judah and the subservient role of Jehoshaphat to Ahab at the battle of Ramoth-gilead (1 Kgs 22). Judah’s fortunes declined in this period when Edom revolted against Jehoram (2 Kgs 8:20-22), costing Judah control over the port at Ezion-geber and consequent economic losses.<\/p>\n<p>In 842 <span>BC<\/span> Jehu, after being anointed king by a prophet (2 Kgs 9:1-13), led a coup ending the house of Omri and also killing Ahaziah of Judah (vv 14-29). Jehu’s purge also brought the death of Jezebel, Ahab’s family, members of the family of Ahaziah, and the ministers of Baal (9:30–10:36). The consequences were severe politically: the murder of the Phoenician princess Jezebel and the king of Judah cost Israel its allies to the north and south.<\/p>\n<p>Jehu’s dynasty had the longest succession of any in Israel, including Jehoahaz, Jehoash, Jeroboam II, and Zechariah, a period spanning 90 years. Jehu’s murder of Ahaziah of Judah set the stage for the one threat to the continuity of the Davidic dynasty. Queen Athaliah, herself an Omride, seized the throne and attempted a purge of Davidic pretenders. She ruled for six years, until the faithful priest Jehoiada staged a countercoup to place the child Joash on the throne of David (ch 11).<\/p>\n<p>Israel endured a half century of weakness as a result of Jehu’s coup, during which the Arameans had a free hand, reducing the forces of Jehu’s son Jehoahaz to a small army and bodyguard (2 Kgs 13:1-7).<\/p>\n<p>The reemergence of Assyria early in the ninth century <span>BC<\/span> gave relief to Israel and Judah. Assyrian armies conquered the Arameans; with that threat removed, Israel and Judah enjoyed a dramatic resurgence. Jehoash of Israel, grandson of Jehu, reconquered cities lost to the Arameans (2 Kgs 13:25); Elisha died during his reign (v 20). In the south Amaziah reconquered the Edomites (14:7). Amaziah and Jehoash renewed the warfare between the kingdoms, with the north again victorious (vv 8-14).<\/p>\n<p>Under Jeroboam II, Israel enjoyed a period of prosperity when the borders of the kingdom reached the same extent as they had under Solomon (2 Kgs 14:23-28). Uzziah (Azariah), his contemporary in Judah, also fortified Jerusalem and undertook a program of offensive operations extending Judah’s sway to the south (14:21-22; 15:1-7).<\/p>\n<p>Yet this resurgence was but a brilliant sunset in the history of the two kingdoms. After the death of Jeroboam II, the history is one of successive disasters, culminating in the fall of Israel and the subjugation of Judah to the might of Assyria. The next 30 years in Israel would see four dynasties, three represented by only one king, and repeated regicides as the northern kingdom hastened to its demise. A period of civil war and anarchy would see five kings in just over ten years (2 Kgs 15). Heavy tribute was paid to Tiglath-pileser III in both the north and south (15:19-20; 16:7-10). Israel and the Arameans forged a coalition to throw back the Assyrians and sought to press Ahaz of Judah into the fight; Ahaz appealed to Tiglath-pileser III for help. The coalition was destroyed, and Israel and Judah became vassals. Hoshea defected as soon as he felt safe, looking to Egypt for help, but it was suicide for the northern kingdom. Shalmaneser V retaliated, and the political history of the state of Israel came to an end (17:1-23). The area was resettled with other displaced populations (vv 24-41).<\/p>\n<p>Israel had faced the Arameans and survived, only to fall to Assyria. And now, similarly, Judah would outlast Assyria, only to fall to Babylon.<\/p>\n<h5>History of the Surviving Kingdom of Judah (2 Kgs 18–25)<\/h5>\n<p>Ahaz’s appeal for Assyrian aid cost him his liberty, and Judah became a vassal of the Assyrian Empire. Illegitimate worship flourished under his rule (2 Kgs 16:1-19). Ahaz was succeeded by the first of the outstanding reform kings of Judah: Hezekiah. Much of the account of his reign is given to his rebellion against Sennacherib of Assyria: the rebellion, the Assyrian envoys and threats, Isaiah’s assurances of deliverance, and the destruction of the Assyrian armies (18:9–19:37). Hezekiah’s illness was averted after a sign and oracle from Isaiah (20:1-11). As part of what appears to be negotiations toward an anti-Assyrian alliance, Hezekiah also entertained envoys from Babylon, a decision that the prophet announced would be costly (vv 12-21).<\/p>\n<p>Hezekiah was followed by Manasseh, who ruled longer than any other king of Judah (a total of 55 years). His reign was marked by great apostasy—apostasy so severe that the compiler of Kings regarded his reign as sufficient reason for the exile that was unavoidable (2 Kgs 21:1-18; cf. 23:26; 24:3-4; Jer 15:1-4). Manasseh was followed by his son Amon, a carbon copy of his father, who ruled only two years before he was deposed by the people (2 Kings 21:19-26).<\/p>\n<p>The second great reform king of Judah, Josiah, followed. In his reign the Book of the Law was found while the temple was being refurbished; he led the people in a renewal of the covenant and suppressed illegitimate worship (2 Kgs 22:1–23:14). The Assyrian Empire was in rapid decline, so Josiah extended his borders to the north, destroying the altar at Bethel and the high places throughout Samaria (23:15-20). A great Passover celebration was convened in Jerusalem, and further measures were taken to rectify worship (vv 21-25). Josiah tried to block Pharaoh Neco’s foray to assist Assyria, and he lost his life at Megiddo (vv 26-30).<\/p>\n<p>Josiah was the only king of Judah to have three of his sons succeed him. At his death the people put Jehoahaz on the throne, but Neco removed him three months later and took him to Egypt in chains (2 Kgs 23:31-33), replacing him with another son of Josiah, Eliakim, whose name was changed to Jehoiakim (vv 34-37). During his reign, Nebuchadnezzar conquered Judah, and Jehoiakim became his vassal. Late in his life Jehoiakim rebelled against Nebuchadnezzar. Jehoiakim died, leaving his son Jehoiachin to face retaliation from Babylon (24:1-10). Nebuchadnezzar besieged Jerusalem; when the city fell, Jehoiachin, the queen mother, the army, and the leaders of the land were carried away captive. Nebuchadnezzar put Mattaniah (uncle of Jehoiachin and third son of Josiah) on the throne, changing his name to Zedekiah (vv 11-17). Nine years later Zedekiah, too, would rebel against Babylon. Nebuchadnezzar besieged the city for two years and, when it fell, utterly destroyed it. Zedekiah’s sons were killed before his eyes, and then his own eyes were put out, and he was taken to Babylon (24:18–25:21). Nebuchadnezzar appointed Gedaliah to rule as governor from nearby Mizpah; he was assassinated, and the conspirators fled to Egypt (25:22-26).<\/p>\n<p>The book concludes by showing that God had not forgotten his promise to David, mentioning that in captivity Jehoiachin enjoyed favor from the hand of Evil-merodach, successor of Nebuchadnezzar (2 Kgs 25:27-30).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Chronicles, Books of First and Second.<\/p>","summary_ro":"KINGS, Books of First and Second Books continuing the history of the covenant people as recorded in Joshua, Judges, and the books of Samuel. The record in Kings begins with the events at the end of David’s reign (1 Kgs 1–2). It continues through the reign of Solomon (chs 3–11); the histories of the divided kingdoms (1 Kgs 12—2 Kgs 17); and the history of the surviving kingdom in the south, through its fall in 586 BC and the subsequent kindness shown Jehoiachin by Evil-merodach, king of Babylo...","summary_en":"KINGS, Books of First and Second Books continuing the history of the covenant people as recorded in Joshua, Judges, and the books of Samuel. The record in Kings begins with the events at the end of David’s reign (1 Kgs 1–2). It continues through the reign of Solomon (chs 3–11); the histories of the divided kingdoms (1 Kgs 12—2 Kgs 17); and the history of the surviving kingdom in the south, through its fall in 586 BC and the subsequent kindness shown Jehoiachin by Evil-merodach, king of Babylo...","source":"Articles\/K.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"17":[{"id":8091,"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":9162,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Debt","title_en":"Debt","content_ro":"<h3>DEBT<\/h3>\n<p>Something owed to another person, such as goods, property, or money. In the Bible, righteous conduct is something one “owes” to God; hence, in theology, sin is described figuratively as being “in debt.”<\/p>\n<p>In Hebrew culture, debt was usually connected with usury (the business of lending money on interest). The Hebrew verbs describing usury picture a painful situation. One word for usury means “to bite,” a vivid image for the way high interest “ate up” any kind of business transaction so that borrowers never received the full value of the money. People could be ruined financially by heartless exaction of interest (2 Kgs 4:1-7). Another verb is usually translated as “increase” or “profit” (Lv 25:37), since lenders profited from others’ labor. Ancient Near Eastern interest rates on produce and goods might be as much as 30 percent of the loan per year; on money, as much as 20 percent. Clay tablets from Nuzi, an ancient town in northeastern Mesopotamia, indicate interest rates of even 50 percent.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheLawofMoses\">The Law of Moses<\/p>\n<p>The Mosaic covenant given to Israel immediately after the exodus sought to eliminate extortionist practices from Hebrew life. Thus God’s revelation had many rules and restrictions relating to debt and credit in Israel.<\/p>\n<h5>Protection for the Poor<\/h5>\n<p>Portions of the legislative sections of the Pentateuch (the first five books of the Bible) regulated the practice of lending in a way that protected the poor and secured each person’s right to earn a living and support a family. Many popular Hebrew proverbs dealt with that theme. The positive thrust of the biblical laws was to ensure help for the financially needy, without interest. No personal profit was to be made at the expense of the poor (Ex 22:25; Dt 23:19-20); God was their special advocate. Thus, by lending without interest, the Israelites could demonstrate their reverence for God (Lv 25:35-37).<\/p>\n<p>That point was reemphasized 40 years later when Moses renewed the covenant with Israel just before their entrance into the Promised Land. God was the landlord, and his tenants were to respect his word. God promised the Israelites that if they would lend so as to alleviate human misery, they would be unusually blessed by the Lord (Dt 15:6; 23:19-20; 28:12). Interest could be charged to a foreigner not living under the Mosaic law, which was a condition parallel to commercial treaties prevalent in the ancient Near East.<\/p>\n<p>In ancient Israel, financial ruin was frequently brought about by poor harvests. Often they were taken as an indication that the relationship between God and his people was not right (Lv 26:14, 20). The wealthy were expected to help, not to add more burdens to those who suffered from poor harvests.<\/p>\n<h5>Violation of the Law<\/h5>\n<p>The law was so often violated that eventually exorbitant interest became a social plague, making the situation of debtors hopeless. Many of the fighting men who rallied around David early in his military career were “outlaws” unable to repay their loans and interest (1 Sm 22:2). The prophet Ezekiel called people to task for their failure to observe God’s commands about usury (Ez 18:5-18; 22:12). When Nehemiah returned from the exile to rebuild the walls of Jerusalem, he brought charges against the government officials whose interest rates had enslaved the people (Neh 5:6-13).<\/p>\n<p>The Wisdom Literature, which included Job, Proverbs, and Ecclesiastes, added that those who acquired riches by usury would not profit in the long run, because God would give their profits to others who looked after the welfare of the poor (e.g., Prv 28:8). The prophet Amos gave a similar warning to corrupt merchants in Israel: “Because you trample upon the poor and take from him exactions of wheat, . . . you have planted pleasant vineyards, but you shall not drink their wine” (Am 5:11, <span>rsv<\/span>). In spite of such warnings, the law was often ignored, and burdensome interest charges were laid on borrowers who were already poor.<\/p>\n<h5>Pledges and Surety<\/h5>\n<p>When it was necessary to borrow, the law provided alternatives to the unfair practice of usury. When taking out a loan, a borrower would surrender some movable property as collateral to ensure repayment. That “pledge” represented a tangible sign of the debtor’s intention to repay the loan. Certain restrictions applied to such pledges. For example, a creditor could not take a widow’s clothes (Dt 24:17). Tools (such as millstones) or animals (such as oxen) necessary for daily life were forbidden as pledges (v 6). Clothing absolutely essential to the borrower (e.g., to keep warm) could be temporarily offered as a pledge, but the temporary token had to be returned before nightfall (Ex 22:26-27; Dt 24:10-13).<\/p>\n<p>In drastic circumstances, where there was no collateral, a debtor could pledge a son, daughter, or slave. The value of the child’s or slave’s labor could then be credited against both interest and principal. An account in the Bible of a widow’s two sons about to go into slavery shows how cruel the custom could be (2 Kgs 4:1-7). Pledging labor or their children’s labor was the only way slaves could pay off a debt when they had to borrow.<\/p>\n<p>A borrower could also have a wealthy friend assume responsibility as a cosigner on a loan and thus become the pledge, or surety. The book of Proverbs cautioned against standing surety for others, however, especially for strangers (Prv 6:1-3; 11:15; 17:18; 22:26; 27:13).<\/p>\n<h5>Sabbatical and Jubilee Years<\/h5>\n<p>Two legal provisions to curb the enslavement of people by long-standing debts were the sabbatical year and the jubilee year. The sabbatical year, or “year of release,” took place every seventh year. At that time debts were canceled and slates wiped clean (Dt 15:1-12; cf. Ex 21:2; 23:10-11; Lv 25:2-7). The law clearly forbade lenders to withhold loans to those in desperate need during a sixth year. Jewish tradition held strict injunctions against a lender trying to collect on a loan that should have been forgiven in the sabbatical year.<\/p>\n<p>Every 50 years Israel had its Year of Jubilee. In that year land reverted to its original owner if it had not already been redeemed by some relative. That provision prevented the buildup of landed estates by the wealthy few while the many poor suffered in slavery (Lv 25:13-17). Although the Mosaic law could not guarantee economic utopia, it sought to curb the greediness in human nature. It also aimed at providing everyone with an equal opportunity and a fresh start every 50 years.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"DebtintheNewTestament\">Debt in the New Testament<\/p>\n<p>The NT shows how various cultures handled the matter of loans and debts. There were Jewish people who adhered strictly to the Mosaic law and refused to charge their fellow Jews high interest. Hellenistic and Roman legal practices, however, penetrated parts of Jewish society.<\/p>\n<h5>Jesus’ Parables<\/h5>\n<p>Jesus alluded to non-Jewish economic practices in his parable of a servant who jailed a fellow slave for not repaying a loan (Mt 18:23-35). The parable illustrates the ordinary Hellenistic and Roman custom of jailing or restraining such a person as surety. That practice forced a debtor to sell his property, to ask family and friends to cover the loss, or to sell himself into slavery. The parable of the talents (25:14-28) and the parable of the pounds (Lk 19:12-24), speaking allegorically about the kingdom of God, mention earning interest on money invested with bankers.<\/p>\n<h5>Economic and Theological Instruction<\/h5>\n<p>The apostle Paul instructed Christians to “owe nothing to anyone” (Rom 13:8), which means at the very least that Christians should make good on loans promptly. On the other hand, a Christian’s economic activity should be characterized by kindness toward those in need, generosity, and willingness to help (Mt 5:42; Lk 6:35).<\/p>\n<p>The NT also presents a number of lessons in doctrine based on a figurative use of “debts” and “debtors.” Jesus once referred to sinners (Lk 13:2) with a word literally meaning “debtors” (v 4). In the Lord’s Prayer “debts” is paralleled with “sins” (Mt 6:12; Lk 11:4).<\/p>\n<p>Sin is seen as an enslavement (Jn 8:34), and all men and women as debtors to God. Redemption can be made only by God, who “gave his only Son” to set people free (3:16-18). The writer to the Hebrews showed that Jesus was made the surety of the new covenant (Heb 7:22).<\/p>\n<p>The apostle Paul felt indebted to all people because of his own salvation, a debt he could pay by preaching the gospel (Rom 1:14-15). The NT teaches that all who receive the gospel are likewise in debt and therefore should devote themselves to serving others as a way of serving God (cf. 15:26-27).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Banker, Banking; Money.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>DEBT<\/h3>\n<p>Something owed to another person, such as goods, property, or money. In the Bible, righteous conduct is something one “owes” to God; hence, in theology, sin is described figuratively as being “in debt.”<\/p>\n<p>In Hebrew culture, debt was usually connected with usury (the business of lending money on interest). The Hebrew verbs describing usury picture a painful situation. One word for usury means “to bite,” a vivid image for the way high interest “ate up” any kind of business transaction so that borrowers never received the full value of the money. People could be ruined financially by heartless exaction of interest (2 Kgs 4:1-7). Another verb is usually translated as “increase” or “profit” (Lv 25:37), since lenders profited from others’ labor. Ancient Near Eastern interest rates on produce and goods might be as much as 30 percent of the loan per year; on money, as much as 20 percent. Clay tablets from Nuzi, an ancient town in northeastern Mesopotamia, indicate interest rates of even 50 percent.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheLawofMoses\">The Law of Moses<\/p>\n<p>The Mosaic covenant given to Israel immediately after the exodus sought to eliminate extortionist practices from Hebrew life. Thus God’s revelation had many rules and restrictions relating to debt and credit in Israel.<\/p>\n<h5>Protection for the Poor<\/h5>\n<p>Portions of the legislative sections of the Pentateuch (the first five books of the Bible) regulated the practice of lending in a way that protected the poor and secured each person’s right to earn a living and support a family. Many popular Hebrew proverbs dealt with that theme. The positive thrust of the biblical laws was to ensure help for the financially needy, without interest. No personal profit was to be made at the expense of the poor (Ex 22:25; Dt 23:19-20); God was their special advocate. Thus, by lending without interest, the Israelites could demonstrate their reverence for God (Lv 25:35-37).<\/p>\n<p>That point was reemphasized 40 years later when Moses renewed the covenant with Israel just before their entrance into the Promised Land. God was the landlord, and his tenants were to respect his word. God promised the Israelites that if they would lend so as to alleviate human misery, they would be unusually blessed by the Lord (Dt 15:6; 23:19-20; 28:12). Interest could be charged to a foreigner not living under the Mosaic law, which was a condition parallel to commercial treaties prevalent in the ancient Near East.<\/p>\n<p>In ancient Israel, financial ruin was frequently brought about by poor harvests. Often they were taken as an indication that the relationship between God and his people was not right (Lv 26:14, 20). The wealthy were expected to help, not to add more burdens to those who suffered from poor harvests.<\/p>\n<h5>Violation of the Law<\/h5>\n<p>The law was so often violated that eventually exorbitant interest became a social plague, making the situation of debtors hopeless. Many of the fighting men who rallied around David early in his military career were “outlaws” unable to repay their loans and interest (1 Sm 22:2). The prophet Ezekiel called people to task for their failure to observe God’s commands about usury (Ez 18:5-18; 22:12). When Nehemiah returned from the exile to rebuild the walls of Jerusalem, he brought charges against the government officials whose interest rates had enslaved the people (Neh 5:6-13).<\/p>\n<p>The Wisdom Literature, which included Job, Proverbs, and Ecclesiastes, added that those who acquired riches by usury would not profit in the long run, because God would give their profits to others who looked after the welfare of the poor (e.g., Prv 28:8). The prophet Amos gave a similar warning to corrupt merchants in Israel: “Because you trample upon the poor and take from him exactions of wheat, . . . you have planted pleasant vineyards, but you shall not drink their wine” (Am 5:11, <span>rsv<\/span>). In spite of such warnings, the law was often ignored, and burdensome interest charges were laid on borrowers who were already poor.<\/p>\n<h5>Pledges and Surety<\/h5>\n<p>When it was necessary to borrow, the law provided alternatives to the unfair practice of usury. When taking out a loan, a borrower would surrender some movable property as collateral to ensure repayment. That “pledge” represented a tangible sign of the debtor’s intention to repay the loan. Certain restrictions applied to such pledges. For example, a creditor could not take a widow’s clothes (Dt 24:17). Tools (such as millstones) or animals (such as oxen) necessary for daily life were forbidden as pledges (v 6). Clothing absolutely essential to the borrower (e.g., to keep warm) could be temporarily offered as a pledge, but the temporary token had to be returned before nightfall (Ex 22:26-27; Dt 24:10-13).<\/p>\n<p>In drastic circumstances, where there was no collateral, a debtor could pledge a son, daughter, or slave. The value of the child’s or slave’s labor could then be credited against both interest and principal. An account in the Bible of a widow’s two sons about to go into slavery shows how cruel the custom could be (2 Kgs 4:1-7). Pledging labor or their children’s labor was the only way slaves could pay off a debt when they had to borrow.<\/p>\n<p>A borrower could also have a wealthy friend assume responsibility as a cosigner on a loan and thus become the pledge, or surety. The book of Proverbs cautioned against standing surety for others, however, especially for strangers (Prv 6:1-3; 11:15; 17:18; 22:26; 27:13).<\/p>\n<h5>Sabbatical and Jubilee Years<\/h5>\n<p>Two legal provisions to curb the enslavement of people by long-standing debts were the sabbatical year and the jubilee year. The sabbatical year, or “year of release,” took place every seventh year. At that time debts were canceled and slates wiped clean (Dt 15:1-12; cf. Ex 21:2; 23:10-11; Lv 25:2-7). The law clearly forbade lenders to withhold loans to those in desperate need during a sixth year. Jewish tradition held strict injunctions against a lender trying to collect on a loan that should have been forgiven in the sabbatical year.<\/p>\n<p>Every 50 years Israel had its Year of Jubilee. In that year land reverted to its original owner if it had not already been redeemed by some relative. That provision prevented the buildup of landed estates by the wealthy few while the many poor suffered in slavery (Lv 25:13-17). Although the Mosaic law could not guarantee economic utopia, it sought to curb the greediness in human nature. It also aimed at providing everyone with an equal opportunity and a fresh start every 50 years.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"DebtintheNewTestament\">Debt in the New Testament<\/p>\n<p>The NT shows how various cultures handled the matter of loans and debts. There were Jewish people who adhered strictly to the Mosaic law and refused to charge their fellow Jews high interest. Hellenistic and Roman legal practices, however, penetrated parts of Jewish society.<\/p>\n<h5>Jesus’ Parables<\/h5>\n<p>Jesus alluded to non-Jewish economic practices in his parable of a servant who jailed a fellow slave for not repaying a loan (Mt 18:23-35). The parable illustrates the ordinary Hellenistic and Roman custom of jailing or restraining such a person as surety. That practice forced a debtor to sell his property, to ask family and friends to cover the loss, or to sell himself into slavery. The parable of the talents (25:14-28) and the parable of the pounds (Lk 19:12-24), speaking allegorically about the kingdom of God, mention earning interest on money invested with bankers.<\/p>\n<h5>Economic and Theological Instruction<\/h5>\n<p>The apostle Paul instructed Christians to “owe nothing to anyone” (Rom 13:8), which means at the very least that Christians should make good on loans promptly. On the other hand, a Christian’s economic activity should be characterized by kindness toward those in need, generosity, and willingness to help (Mt 5:42; Lk 6:35).<\/p>\n<p>The NT also presents a number of lessons in doctrine based on a figurative use of “debts” and “debtors.” Jesus once referred to sinners (Lk 13:2) with a word literally meaning “debtors” (v 4). In the Lord’s Prayer “debts” is paralleled with “sins” (Mt 6:12; Lk 11:4).<\/p>\n<p>Sin is seen as an enslavement (Jn 8:34), and all men and women as debtors to God. Redemption can be made only by God, who “gave his only Son” to set people free (3:16-18). The writer to the Hebrews showed that Jesus was made the surety of the new covenant (Heb 7:22).<\/p>\n<p>The apostle Paul felt indebted to all people because of his own salvation, a debt he could pay by preaching the gospel (Rom 1:14-15). The NT teaches that all who receive the gospel are likewise in debt and therefore should devote themselves to serving others as a way of serving God (cf. 15:26-27).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Banker, Banking; Money.<\/p>","summary_ro":"DEBT Something owed to another person, such as goods, property, or money. In the Bible, righteous conduct is something one “owes” to God; hence, in theology, sin is described figuratively as being “in debt.” In Hebrew culture, debt was usually connected with usury (the business of lending money on interest). The Hebrew verbs describing usury picture a painful situation. One word for usury means “to bite,” a vivid image for the way high interest “ate up” any kind of business transaction so tha...","summary_en":"DEBT Something owed to another person, such as goods, property, or money. In the Bible, righteous conduct is something one “owes” to God; hence, in theology, sin is described figuratively as being “in debt.” In Hebrew culture, debt was usually connected with usury (the business of lending money on interest). The Hebrew verbs describing usury picture a painful situation. One word for usury means “to bite,” a vivid image for the way high interest “ate up” any kind of business transaction so tha...","source":"Articles\/D.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":28624,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Orphan","title_en":"Orphan","content_ro":"<h3>ORPHAN<\/h3>\n<p>Word coming from a Hebrew root meaning “to be alone” or “bereaved,” often rendered as “fatherless.” The idea describes any person who is without legal standing in the covenant community of Israel, who is unprotected or needy, and who is especially exposed to oppression. It also speaks of one who is bereft of one or both earthly parents (cf. Lam 5:3).<\/p>\n<p>Since God has a special concern for the fatherless (Ex 22:22-24; Dt 10:18; Pss 10:14, 18; 27:10; 68:5; 146:9; Is 1:17; Hos 14:3), OT legislation made special provision for them by protecting their rights of inheritance (Nm 27:7-11; Dt 24:17; Prv 23:10), ensuring their freedom to glean the fields and vineyards (Dt 24:19-21), allowing their participation in the great annual feasts (16:11, 14), and allotting them a portion of the tithe crops collected every three years (14:29; 26:12). Strong condemnation awaits those who oppress them (Dt 24:17; 27:19; Mal 3:5).<\/p>\n<p>While the orphans of Israel were sometimes aided by friends and relatives (Jb 29:12; 31:17), there was general failure to meet the requirements of the law, as is witnessed by the accusations of the inspired writers (Jb 6:27; 22:9; 24:3, 9; Ps 94:6; Is 1:23; 10:2; Jer 5:28; Ez 22:7). Consequently, the prophets never tire of pleading the orphan’s cause (Jer 7:6; 22:3; Zec 7:10).<\/p>\n<p>The word is used only twice in the NT—once in a general sense to describe those who are “desolate” or “comfortless” (Jn 14:18), and once in the specific sense to describe the “fatherless” (Jas 1:27). In the spirit of an OT prophet, James declares that true religion involves the care of orphans.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>ORPHAN<\/h3>\n<p>Word coming from a Hebrew root meaning “to be alone” or “bereaved,” often rendered as “fatherless.” The idea describes any person who is without legal standing in the covenant community of Israel, who is unprotected or needy, and who is especially exposed to oppression. It also speaks of one who is bereft of one or both earthly parents (cf. Lam 5:3).<\/p>\n<p>Since God has a special concern for the fatherless (Ex 22:22-24; Dt 10:18; Pss 10:14, 18; 27:10; 68:5; 146:9; Is 1:17; Hos 14:3), OT legislation made special provision for them by protecting their rights of inheritance (Nm 27:7-11; Dt 24:17; Prv 23:10), ensuring their freedom to glean the fields and vineyards (Dt 24:19-21), allowing their participation in the great annual feasts (16:11, 14), and allotting them a portion of the tithe crops collected every three years (14:29; 26:12). Strong condemnation awaits those who oppress them (Dt 24:17; 27:19; Mal 3:5).<\/p>\n<p>While the orphans of Israel were sometimes aided by friends and relatives (Jb 29:12; 31:17), there was general failure to meet the requirements of the law, as is witnessed by the accusations of the inspired writers (Jb 6:27; 22:9; 24:3, 9; Ps 94:6; Is 1:23; 10:2; Jer 5:28; Ez 22:7). Consequently, the prophets never tire of pleading the orphan’s cause (Jer 7:6; 22:3; Zec 7:10).<\/p>\n<p>The word is used only twice in the NT—once in a general sense to describe those who are “desolate” or “comfortless” (Jn 14:18), and once in the specific sense to describe the “fatherless” (Jas 1:27). In the spirit of an OT prophet, James declares that true religion involves the care of orphans.<\/p>","summary_ro":"ORPHAN Word coming from a Hebrew root meaning “to be alone” or “bereaved,” often rendered as “fatherless.” The idea describes any person who is without legal standing in the covenant community of Israel, who is unprotected or needy, and who is especially exposed to oppression. It also speaks of one who is bereft of one or both earthly parents (cf. Lam 5:3). Since God has a special concern for the fatherless (Ex 22:22-24; Dt 10:18; Pss 10:14, 18; 27:10; 68:5; 146:9; Is 1:17; Hos 14:3), OT legi...","summary_en":"ORPHAN Word coming from a Hebrew root meaning “to be alone” or “bereaved,” often rendered as “fatherless.” The idea describes any person who is without legal standing in the covenant community of Israel, who is unprotected or needy, and who is especially exposed to oppression. It also speaks of one who is bereft of one or both earthly parents (cf. Lam 5:3). Since God has a special concern for the fatherless (Ex 22:22-24; Dt 10:18; Pss 10:14, 18; 27:10; 68:5; 146:9; Is 1:17; Hos 14:3), OT legi...","source":"Articles\/O.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":38364,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Widow","title_en":"Widow","content_ro":"<h3>WIDOW<\/h3>\n<p>A woman whose husband has died. In the Scriptures, widows are often listed with the fatherless and orphans (Dt 14:29; 16:11; 24:19-20; 26:12; Ps 94:6). Laws were passed to make special provision for this group and to protect them against the unscrupulous. The primary law had to do with levirate marriage—i.e., the closest kin would marry the widow (if she was without a son) to continue the family line (see discussion under Marriage).<\/p>\n<p>The plight of the widow was recognized in the number of laws designed for her protection and even survival. God was her legal protector (Ps 68:5) and saw that she was provided with the essentials of food and clothing (Dt 10:18). Those who denied her justice were cursed by God (27:19). At harvesttime the widow might glean the grain in the fields, as well as some grapes and olives (Dt 24:19; Ru 2:2, 7, 15-19), and she was also eligible for some assistance from the third-year tithe. Nevertheless, the poverty of widows and the cruel treatment extended to them was so widespread that frequent reference is made to it (Jb 24:21; Ps 94:6; Is 1:23; Mal 3:5). A special law provided that the widow’s garment could not be used as security for a loan (Dt 24:17).<\/p>\n<p>In the early Christian church there was a recognized group of widows eligible to receive charity. They were generally those over 60 years of age who had been faithful to their husband, were in poverty, had no relatives to support them, and had lived blameless lives filled with Christian good works (1 Tm 5:9-16).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Family Life and Relations; Marriage.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>WIDOW<\/h3>\n<p>A woman whose husband has died. In the Scriptures, widows are often listed with the fatherless and orphans (Dt 14:29; 16:11; 24:19-20; 26:12; Ps 94:6). Laws were passed to make special provision for this group and to protect them against the unscrupulous. The primary law had to do with levirate marriage—i.e., the closest kin would marry the widow (if she was without a son) to continue the family line (see discussion under Marriage).<\/p>\n<p>The plight of the widow was recognized in the number of laws designed for her protection and even survival. God was her legal protector (Ps 68:5) and saw that she was provided with the essentials of food and clothing (Dt 10:18). Those who denied her justice were cursed by God (27:19). At harvesttime the widow might glean the grain in the fields, as well as some grapes and olives (Dt 24:19; Ru 2:2, 7, 15-19), and she was also eligible for some assistance from the third-year tithe. Nevertheless, the poverty of widows and the cruel treatment extended to them was so widespread that frequent reference is made to it (Jb 24:21; Ps 94:6; Is 1:23; Mal 3:5). A special law provided that the widow’s garment could not be used as security for a loan (Dt 24:17).<\/p>\n<p>In the early Christian church there was a recognized group of widows eligible to receive charity. They were generally those over 60 years of age who had been faithful to their husband, were in poverty, had no relatives to support them, and had lived blameless lives filled with Christian good works (1 Tm 5:9-16).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Family Life and Relations; Marriage.<\/p>","summary_ro":"WIDOW A woman whose husband has died. In the Scriptures, widows are often listed with the fatherless and orphans (Dt 14:29; 16:11; 24:19-20; 26:12; Ps 94:6). Laws were passed to make special provision for this group and to protect them against the unscrupulous. The primary law had to do with levirate marriage—i.e., the closest kin would marry the widow (if she was without a son) to continue the family line (see discussion under Marriage). The plight of the widow was recognized in the number o...","summary_en":"WIDOW A woman whose husband has died. In the Scriptures, widows are often listed with the fatherless and orphans (Dt 14:29; 16:11; 24:19-20; 26:12; Ps 94:6). Laws were passed to make special provision for this group and to protect them against the unscrupulous. The primary law had to do with levirate marriage—i.e., the closest kin would marry the widow (if she was without a son) to continue the family line (see discussion under Marriage). The plight of the widow was recognized in the number o...","source":"Articles\/W.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":45145,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Deuteronomul 24:17","title_en":"Study Note: Deuteronomul 24:17","content_ro":"<p><strong>24:17<\/strong> <em>True justice must be given<\/em> (literally <em>do not deprive of justice<\/em>): The people of Israel were to vigorously resist discrimination against the weakest and most vulnerable people in society. Israel had been redeemed from such a status in Egypt, and their experience should help them realize how to treat others in similar circumstances (24:18).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>24:17<\/strong> <em>True justice must be given<\/em> (literally <em>do not deprive of justice<\/em>): The people of Israel were to vigorously resist discrimination against the weakest and most vulnerable people in society. Israel had been redeemed from such a status in Egypt, and their experience should help them realize how to treat others in similar circumstances (24:18).<\/p>","summary_ro":"24:17 True justice must be given (literally do not deprive of justice): The people of Israel were to vigorously resist discrimination against the weakest and most vulnerable people in society. Israel had been redeemed from such a status in Egypt, and their experience should help them realize how to treat others in similar circumstances (24:18).","summary_en":"24:17 True justice must be given (literally do not deprive of justice): The people of Israel were to vigorously resist discrimination against the weakest and most vulnerable people in society. Israel had been redeemed from such a status in Egypt, and their experience should help them realize how to treat others in similar circumstances (24:18).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":72771,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Deuteronomul 24:17","title_en":"Study Note: Deuteronomul 24:17","content_ro":"<p><strong>24:17<\/strong> <em>True justice must be given<\/em> (literally <em>do not deprive of justice<\/em>): The people of Israel were to vigorously resist discrimination against the weakest and most vulnerable people in society. Israel had been redeemed from such a status in Egypt, and their experience should help them realize how to treat others in similar circumstances (24:18).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>24:17<\/strong> <em>True justice must be given<\/em> (literally <em>do not deprive of justice<\/em>): The people of Israel were to vigorously resist discrimination against the weakest and most vulnerable people in society. Israel had been redeemed from such a status in Egypt, and their experience should help them realize how to treat others in similar circumstances (24:18).<\/p>","summary_ro":"24:17 True justice must be given (literally do not deprive of justice): The people of Israel were to vigorously resist discrimination against the weakest and most vulnerable people in society. Israel had been redeemed from such a status in Egypt, and their experience should help them realize how to treat others in similar circumstances (24:18).","summary_en":"24:17 True justice must be given (literally do not deprive of justice): The people of Israel were to vigorously resist discrimination against the weakest and most vulnerable people in society. Israel had been redeemed from such a status in Egypt, and their experience should help them realize how to treat others in similar circumstances (24:18).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":100397,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Deuteronomul 24:17","title_en":"Study Note: Deuteronomul 24:17","content_ro":"<p><strong>24:17<\/strong> <em>True justice must be given<\/em> (literally <em>do not deprive of justice<\/em>): The people of Israel were to vigorously resist discrimination against the weakest and most vulnerable people in society. Israel had been redeemed from such a status in Egypt, and their experience should help them realize how to treat others in similar circumstances (24:18).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>24:17<\/strong> <em>True justice must be given<\/em> (literally <em>do not deprive of justice<\/em>): The people of Israel were to vigorously resist discrimination against the weakest and most vulnerable people in society. Israel had been redeemed from such a status in Egypt, and their experience should help them realize how to treat others in similar circumstances (24:18).<\/p>","summary_ro":"24:17 True justice must be given (literally do not deprive of justice): The people of Israel were to vigorously resist discrimination against the weakest and most vulnerable people in society. Israel had been redeemed from such a status in Egypt, and their experience should help them realize how to treat others in similar circumstances (24:18).","summary_en":"24:17 True justice must be given (literally do not deprive of justice): The people of Israel were to vigorously resist discrimination against the weakest and most vulnerable people in society. Israel had been redeemed from such a status in Egypt, and their experience should help them realize how to treat others in similar circumstances (24:18).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":128023,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Deuteronomul 24:17","title_en":"Study Note: Deuteronomul 24:17","content_ro":"<p><strong>24:17<\/strong> <em>True justice must be given<\/em> (literally <em>do not deprive of justice<\/em>): The people of Israel were to vigorously resist discrimination against the weakest and most vulnerable people in society. Israel had been redeemed from such a status in Egypt, and their experience should help them realize how to treat others in similar circumstances (24:18).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>24:17<\/strong> <em>True justice must be given<\/em> (literally <em>do not deprive of justice<\/em>): The people of Israel were to vigorously resist discrimination against the weakest and most vulnerable people in society. Israel had been redeemed from such a status in Egypt, and their experience should help them realize how to treat others in similar circumstances (24:18).<\/p>","summary_ro":"24:17 True justice must be given (literally do not deprive of justice): The people of Israel were to vigorously resist discrimination against the weakest and most vulnerable people in society. Israel had been redeemed from such a status in Egypt, and their experience should help them realize how to treat others in similar circumstances (24:18).","summary_en":"24:17 True justice must be given (literally do not deprive of justice): The people of Israel were to vigorously resist discrimination against the weakest and most vulnerable people in society. Israel had been redeemed from such a status in Egypt, and their experience should help them realize how to treat others in similar circumstances (24:18).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"18":[{"id":32437,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Ransom","title_en":"Ransom","content_ro":"<h3>RANSOM<\/h3>\n<p>Price for redeeming or liberating slaves, captives, property, or life. Jesus described his entire ministry as one of service in giving his life as a ransom for many (Mt 20:28; Mk 10:45). Hence, “ransom” is closely linked to such terms as “redemption” and “salvation,” to the satisfaction Christ made in atonement for sin.<\/p>\n\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"IntheOldTestament\">In the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>In the OT God provided various regulations for his covenant people whereby life and property could be “redeemed,” “bought back,” or “set free” by payment of ransom (cf. Lv 25–27). Ransom involved a price paid as a substitute for that which was redeemed or set free.<\/p>\n<p>The OT uses three different Hebrew words for ransom or redemption. Only when there is a clear indication of the payment of a price are these terms translated by “ransom.” But even when another term, such as “redemption,” is used in English translation, a ransom price is usually implied.<\/p>\n<p>One of the Hebrew terms (<span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">kopher<\/span>) means a “cover” or a “covering.” It was a replacement payment made in exchange for punishment. A ransom could be paid to redeem the life of the owner of an ox that had gored a person to death (Ex 21:30). A half-shekel ransom price was required by God for each Israelite at census taking to prevent a plague (30:12), and this “atonement money” was an offering to the Lord for use in the tabernacle service. A murderer could not be ransomed, and anyone who found safety in a city of refuge could not be taken back by ransom (Nm 35:31-32). It was impossible to avoid death by paying a ransom (Ps 49:7-9). But in a few instances the term takes on the meaning of a “bribe” or “hush money” (1 Sm 12:3; Prv 6:35; Am 5:12).<\/p>\n<p>A second Hebrew word-family for “ransom” and “redemption” is related to <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">go’el<\/span><em>.<\/em> <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">Go’el<\/span><em>,<\/em> meaning a “reclaimant” or “redeemer,” derives from the root meaning of the Hebrew term “to restore, repair, deliver, rescue.” The term refers to God’s family-law regulations that place various obligations on a relative or kinsman (Lv 25:25-55). The kinsman had the right and duty of redeeming by ransom any family property that a person was compelled to sell (Lv 25:25-34; Ru 4:4-6); of ransoming a relative who was compelled by poverty to sell himself as a slave to a stranger or sojourner (Lv 25:47-55); and of acting as avenger of the blood of a dead relative, thus enforcing the claim for satisfaction for shedding his blood (Nm 35:19-27; Jos 20:3-5). The kinsman was also obligated to marry the wife of a dead brother who had died without leaving children so that the kinsman might raise up seed and the brother’s name not be forgotten in Israel (Ru 3:9-13; 4:1-12). In a general sense the <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">go’el<\/span> was a “vindicator” or “redeemer”; a familiar example is Job’s cry for God to vindicate him (Jb 19:25). In the highest sense, God is the kinsman and <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">go’el<\/span> of Israel, redeeming them from the bondage of Egypt (Ex 6:5-7), from captivity in Babylon, and from distress in general (<span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">go’el<\/span> occurs 13 times in Is 40–46). Thus Israel is called “the ransomed of the Lord” (Is 35:10), having been “redeemed without money” (52:3). In such contexts, however, the cost is indicated in terms of God’s might and power.<\/p>\n<p>The OT uses a third Hebrew word (<span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">pidyon<\/span>) from the area of commercial law for ransom or payment. Since God spared the firstborn in Israel at the time of Passover, the first offspring of every womb belonged to God, and the oldest male was redeemed by ransom (Ex 13:12-15; 34:20; Lv 27:27; Nm 18:15-17). Later the entire tribe of Levi was set aside as priestly substitutes for the firstborn. Since there were 273 more firstborn than Levites, a payment of five shekels was paid in ransom for each (Nm 3:40-46). This term was also used for the price paid to ransom a slave from slavery (Dt 15:15; 24:18); a slave concubine could also be ransomed (Ex 21:8-11; Lv 19:20). God motivates these provisions by his own ransoming of Israel as slaves in Egypt (Dt 15:15; 24:18). This Hebrew term is also applied to God’s deliverance of Israel from Egypt (Dt 7:8; 9:26; 13:5; 2 Sm 7:23; 1 Chr 17:21; Ps 78:42) and from Babylonian captivity (Is 35:10; 51:11). Sometimes God ransoms without reference to a specific occasion (Hos 7:13; cf. Dt 21:8; Neh 1:10; Is 1:27; Jer 31:11). God also ransoms from the grave (Hos 13:14), from iniquities (Ps 130:8), and from troubles (25:22). This deliverance always implies some sort of payment or cost, such as “the mighty power” or “strong hand” of God needed for the redemption.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"IntheNewTestament\">In the New Testament<\/p>\n<p>In the NT there is just one family of words used for ransom. The term basically means “to loose” or “to set free.” It denotes releasing, redeeming, or liberating on payment of the ransom price. The translation “ransom” is restricted to approximately eight instances where there is a clear reference to the payment of some sort of price. The translators of the Septuagint restricted their use of this Greek word to those instances where the three Hebrew terms clearly meant ransom payment.<\/p>\n<p>The most important occurrence in the NT is Jesus’ description of his death “as a ransom for many” (Mt 20:28; Mk 10:45). Three features stand out in Jesus’ words: his service is one of ransom; his self-sacrifice is the ransom price; and his ransom is substitutionary in character. “He gave his life to purchase freedom for everyone” (1 Tm 2:6). Jesus Christ “gave his life to free us from every kind of sin” (Ti 2:14). The ransom price was “the precious blood of Christ,” who was an unblemished lamb (1 Pt 1:18-19), thus linking Christ’s self-sacrifice to the sacrifices of the OT that pointed to him. The blood of goats and calves was not able to save, but an eternal redemption was obtained by Christ’s blood (Heb 9:12). In heaven the redeemed sing the new song to the Lamb whose blood ransomed them (Rv 5:9; cf. 14:3-4).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Atonement; Redeemer, Redemption.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>RANSOM<\/h3>\n<p>Price for redeeming or liberating slaves, captives, property, or life. Jesus described his entire ministry as one of service in giving his life as a ransom for many (Mt 20:28; Mk 10:45). Hence, “ransom” is closely linked to such terms as “redemption” and “salvation,” to the satisfaction Christ made in atonement for sin.<\/p>\n\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"IntheOldTestament\">In the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>In the OT God provided various regulations for his covenant people whereby life and property could be “redeemed,” “bought back,” or “set free” by payment of ransom (cf. Lv 25–27). Ransom involved a price paid as a substitute for that which was redeemed or set free.<\/p>\n<p>The OT uses three different Hebrew words for ransom or redemption. Only when there is a clear indication of the payment of a price are these terms translated by “ransom.” But even when another term, such as “redemption,” is used in English translation, a ransom price is usually implied.<\/p>\n<p>One of the Hebrew terms (<span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">kopher<\/span>) means a “cover” or a “covering.” It was a replacement payment made in exchange for punishment. A ransom could be paid to redeem the life of the owner of an ox that had gored a person to death (Ex 21:30). A half-shekel ransom price was required by God for each Israelite at census taking to prevent a plague (30:12), and this “atonement money” was an offering to the Lord for use in the tabernacle service. A murderer could not be ransomed, and anyone who found safety in a city of refuge could not be taken back by ransom (Nm 35:31-32). It was impossible to avoid death by paying a ransom (Ps 49:7-9). But in a few instances the term takes on the meaning of a “bribe” or “hush money” (1 Sm 12:3; Prv 6:35; Am 5:12).<\/p>\n<p>A second Hebrew word-family for “ransom” and “redemption” is related to <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">go’el<\/span><em>.<\/em> <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">Go’el<\/span><em>,<\/em> meaning a “reclaimant” or “redeemer,” derives from the root meaning of the Hebrew term “to restore, repair, deliver, rescue.” The term refers to God’s family-law regulations that place various obligations on a relative or kinsman (Lv 25:25-55). The kinsman had the right and duty of redeeming by ransom any family property that a person was compelled to sell (Lv 25:25-34; Ru 4:4-6); of ransoming a relative who was compelled by poverty to sell himself as a slave to a stranger or sojourner (Lv 25:47-55); and of acting as avenger of the blood of a dead relative, thus enforcing the claim for satisfaction for shedding his blood (Nm 35:19-27; Jos 20:3-5). The kinsman was also obligated to marry the wife of a dead brother who had died without leaving children so that the kinsman might raise up seed and the brother’s name not be forgotten in Israel (Ru 3:9-13; 4:1-12). In a general sense the <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">go’el<\/span> was a “vindicator” or “redeemer”; a familiar example is Job’s cry for God to vindicate him (Jb 19:25). In the highest sense, God is the kinsman and <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">go’el<\/span> of Israel, redeeming them from the bondage of Egypt (Ex 6:5-7), from captivity in Babylon, and from distress in general (<span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">go’el<\/span> occurs 13 times in Is 40–46). Thus Israel is called “the ransomed of the Lord” (Is 35:10), having been “redeemed without money” (52:3). In such contexts, however, the cost is indicated in terms of God’s might and power.<\/p>\n<p>The OT uses a third Hebrew word (<span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">pidyon<\/span>) from the area of commercial law for ransom or payment. Since God spared the firstborn in Israel at the time of Passover, the first offspring of every womb belonged to God, and the oldest male was redeemed by ransom (Ex 13:12-15; 34:20; Lv 27:27; Nm 18:15-17). Later the entire tribe of Levi was set aside as priestly substitutes for the firstborn. Since there were 273 more firstborn than Levites, a payment of five shekels was paid in ransom for each (Nm 3:40-46). This term was also used for the price paid to ransom a slave from slavery (Dt 15:15; 24:18); a slave concubine could also be ransomed (Ex 21:8-11; Lv 19:20). God motivates these provisions by his own ransoming of Israel as slaves in Egypt (Dt 15:15; 24:18). This Hebrew term is also applied to God’s deliverance of Israel from Egypt (Dt 7:8; 9:26; 13:5; 2 Sm 7:23; 1 Chr 17:21; Ps 78:42) and from Babylonian captivity (Is 35:10; 51:11). Sometimes God ransoms without reference to a specific occasion (Hos 7:13; cf. Dt 21:8; Neh 1:10; Is 1:27; Jer 31:11). God also ransoms from the grave (Hos 13:14), from iniquities (Ps 130:8), and from troubles (25:22). This deliverance always implies some sort of payment or cost, such as “the mighty power” or “strong hand” of God needed for the redemption.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"IntheNewTestament\">In the New Testament<\/p>\n<p>In the NT there is just one family of words used for ransom. The term basically means “to loose” or “to set free.” It denotes releasing, redeeming, or liberating on payment of the ransom price. The translation “ransom” is restricted to approximately eight instances where there is a clear reference to the payment of some sort of price. The translators of the Septuagint restricted their use of this Greek word to those instances where the three Hebrew terms clearly meant ransom payment.<\/p>\n<p>The most important occurrence in the NT is Jesus’ description of his death “as a ransom for many” (Mt 20:28; Mk 10:45). Three features stand out in Jesus’ words: his service is one of ransom; his self-sacrifice is the ransom price; and his ransom is substitutionary in character. “He gave his life to purchase freedom for everyone” (1 Tm 2:6). Jesus Christ “gave his life to free us from every kind of sin” (Ti 2:14). The ransom price was “the precious blood of Christ,” who was an unblemished lamb (1 Pt 1:18-19), thus linking Christ’s self-sacrifice to the sacrifices of the OT that pointed to him. The blood of goats and calves was not able to save, but an eternal redemption was obtained by Christ’s blood (Heb 9:12). In heaven the redeemed sing the new song to the Lamb whose blood ransomed them (Rv 5:9; cf. 14:3-4).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Atonement; Redeemer, Redemption.<\/p>","summary_ro":"RANSOM Price for redeeming or liberating slaves, captives, property, or life. Jesus described his entire ministry as one of service in giving his life as a ransom for many (Mt 20:28; Mk 10:45). Hence, “ransom” is closely linked to such terms as “redemption” and “salvation,” to the satisfaction Christ made in atonement for sin. In the Old Testament In the OT God provided various regulations for his covenant people whereby life and property could be “redeemed,” “bought back,” or “set free” by p...","summary_en":"RANSOM Price for redeeming or liberating slaves, captives, property, or life. Jesus described his entire ministry as one of service in giving his life as a ransom for many (Mt 20:28; Mk 10:45). Hence, “ransom” is closely linked to such terms as “redemption” and “salvation,” to the satisfaction Christ made in atonement for sin. In the Old Testament In the OT God provided various regulations for his covenant people whereby life and property could be “redeemed,” “bought back,” or “set free” by p...","source":"Articles\/R.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":60831,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"True Justice","title_en":"True Justice","content_ro":"<h3>True Justice<\/h3>\n<p>The community of God’s people in Old Testament Israel was to be responsible for the well-being of widows, orphans, and foreigners (Deut 27:19). The Israelites were to represent the just God whom they served (see 10:17-19) and always remember that they had been an enslaved and defenseless people in Egypt (see 10:19; 24:18-22). How could they, the beneficiaries of God’s unfailing love and faithfulness, ignore the rights and needs of the most vulnerable who lived among them?<\/p>\n<p>Every society has social structures that separate the powerful from the weak and the privileged from the ill-favored. This was true of Old Testament Israel despite its unique constitution and commission as a “holy nation” (Exod 19:6). Judges and other officials charged with upholding the law might tend to favor individuals with financial means, high social standing, or community influence, especially when these individuals offer bribes (Deut 16:19). However, God cannot be bribed, nor does he show partiality (10:17). The rich and the poor, the powerful and the weak, the exalted and the downtrodden are all alike to him.<\/p>\n<p>The prophets of Israel understood the need for equity and justice and often called for the application of these principles to community and national life (Isa 1:17; 10:1-4; 59:14-19; Ezek 22:23-29; Amos 2:6-8; Hab 1:4). The New Testament also appeals for proper treatment of the poor and disadvantaged and speaks of God’s displeasure when they are neglected (Matt 23:23; 2 Cor 9:6-10; Jas 2:1-7).<\/p>\n<p>Justice that falls short of God’s standard is not true justice, and those responsible for corrupting justice can expect full retribution from the Judge of all the earth (see Deut 25:13-16).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Exod 23:3; Lev 19:15; Deut 10:17-19; 16:19; 24:12-22; 25:13-16; 27:19; Ps 82:1-5; Prov 11:1; Isa 1:17; 10:1-4; 11:3-4; 59:14-19; Jer 22:13-17; Ezek 22:23-29; 45:9-10; Amos 2:6-8; 8:5-6; Hab 1:4; Matt 23:23; Luke 18:6-8; Jas 2:1-7<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>True Justice<\/h3>\n<p>The community of God’s people in Old Testament Israel was to be responsible for the well-being of widows, orphans, and foreigners (Deut 27:19). The Israelites were to represent the just God whom they served (see 10:17-19) and always remember that they had been an enslaved and defenseless people in Egypt (see 10:19; 24:18-22). How could they, the beneficiaries of God’s unfailing love and faithfulness, ignore the rights and needs of the most vulnerable who lived among them?<\/p>\n<p>Every society has social structures that separate the powerful from the weak and the privileged from the ill-favored. This was true of Old Testament Israel despite its unique constitution and commission as a “holy nation” (Exod 19:6). Judges and other officials charged with upholding the law might tend to favor individuals with financial means, high social standing, or community influence, especially when these individuals offer bribes (Deut 16:19). However, God cannot be bribed, nor does he show partiality (10:17). The rich and the poor, the powerful and the weak, the exalted and the downtrodden are all alike to him.<\/p>\n<p>The prophets of Israel understood the need for equity and justice and often called for the application of these principles to community and national life (Isa 1:17; 10:1-4; 59:14-19; Ezek 22:23-29; Amos 2:6-8; Hab 1:4). The New Testament also appeals for proper treatment of the poor and disadvantaged and speaks of God’s displeasure when they are neglected (Matt 23:23; 2 Cor 9:6-10; Jas 2:1-7).<\/p>\n<p>Justice that falls short of God’s standard is not true justice, and those responsible for corrupting justice can expect full retribution from the Judge of all the earth (see Deut 25:13-16).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Exod 23:3; Lev 19:15; Deut 10:17-19; 16:19; 24:12-22; 25:13-16; 27:19; Ps 82:1-5; Prov 11:1; Isa 1:17; 10:1-4; 11:3-4; 59:14-19; Jer 22:13-17; Ezek 22:23-29; 45:9-10; Amos 2:6-8; 8:5-6; Hab 1:4; Matt 23:23; Luke 18:6-8; Jas 2:1-7<\/p>","summary_ro":"True Justice The community of God’s people in Old Testament Israel was to be responsible for the well-being of widows, orphans, and foreigners (Deut 27:19). The Israelites were to represent the just God whom they served (see 10:17-19) and always remember that they had been an enslaved and defenseless people in Egypt (see 10:19; 24:18-22). How could they, the beneficiaries of God’s unfailing love and faithfulness, ignore the rights and needs of the most vulnerable who lived among them? Every s...","summary_en":"True Justice The community of God’s people in Old Testament Israel was to be responsible for the well-being of widows, orphans, and foreigners (Deut 27:19). The Israelites were to represent the just God whom they served (see 10:17-19) and always remember that they had been an enslaved and defenseless people in Egypt (see 10:19; 24:18-22). How could they, the beneficiaries of God’s unfailing love and faithfulness, ignore the rights and needs of the most vulnerable who lived among them? Every s...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":88457,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"True Justice","title_en":"True Justice","content_ro":"<h3>True Justice<\/h3>\n<p>The community of God’s people in Old Testament Israel was to be responsible for the well-being of widows, orphans, and foreigners (Deut 27:19). The Israelites were to represent the just God whom they served (see 10:17-19) and always remember that they had been an enslaved and defenseless people in Egypt (see 10:19; 24:18-22). How could they, the beneficiaries of God’s unfailing love and faithfulness, ignore the rights and needs of the most vulnerable who lived among them?<\/p>\n<p>Every society has social structures that separate the powerful from the weak and the privileged from the ill-favored. This was true of Old Testament Israel despite its unique constitution and commission as a “holy nation” (Exod 19:6). Judges and other officials charged with upholding the law might tend to favor individuals with financial means, high social standing, or community influence, especially when these individuals offer bribes (Deut 16:19). However, God cannot be bribed, nor does he show partiality (10:17). The rich and the poor, the powerful and the weak, the exalted and the downtrodden are all alike to him.<\/p>\n<p>The prophets of Israel understood the need for equity and justice and often called for the application of these principles to community and national life (Isa 1:17; 10:1-4; 59:14-19; Ezek 22:23-29; Amos 2:6-8; Hab 1:4). The New Testament also appeals for proper treatment of the poor and disadvantaged and speaks of God’s displeasure when they are neglected (Matt 23:23; 2 Cor 9:6-10; Jas 2:1-7).<\/p>\n<p>Justice that falls short of God’s standard is not true justice, and those responsible for corrupting justice can expect full retribution from the Judge of all the earth (see Deut 25:13-16).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Exod 23:3; Lev 19:15; Deut 10:17-19; 16:19; 24:12-22; 25:13-16; 27:19; Ps 82:1-5; Prov 11:1; Isa 1:17; 10:1-4; 11:3-4; 59:14-19; Jer 22:13-17; Ezek 22:23-29; 45:9-10; Amos 2:6-8; 8:5-6; Hab 1:4; Matt 23:23; Luke 18:6-8; Jas 2:1-7<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>True Justice<\/h3>\n<p>The community of God’s people in Old Testament Israel was to be responsible for the well-being of widows, orphans, and foreigners (Deut 27:19). The Israelites were to represent the just God whom they served (see 10:17-19) and always remember that they had been an enslaved and defenseless people in Egypt (see 10:19; 24:18-22). How could they, the beneficiaries of God’s unfailing love and faithfulness, ignore the rights and needs of the most vulnerable who lived among them?<\/p>\n<p>Every society has social structures that separate the powerful from the weak and the privileged from the ill-favored. This was true of Old Testament Israel despite its unique constitution and commission as a “holy nation” (Exod 19:6). Judges and other officials charged with upholding the law might tend to favor individuals with financial means, high social standing, or community influence, especially when these individuals offer bribes (Deut 16:19). However, God cannot be bribed, nor does he show partiality (10:17). The rich and the poor, the powerful and the weak, the exalted and the downtrodden are all alike to him.<\/p>\n<p>The prophets of Israel understood the need for equity and justice and often called for the application of these principles to community and national life (Isa 1:17; 10:1-4; 59:14-19; Ezek 22:23-29; Amos 2:6-8; Hab 1:4). The New Testament also appeals for proper treatment of the poor and disadvantaged and speaks of God’s displeasure when they are neglected (Matt 23:23; 2 Cor 9:6-10; Jas 2:1-7).<\/p>\n<p>Justice that falls short of God’s standard is not true justice, and those responsible for corrupting justice can expect full retribution from the Judge of all the earth (see Deut 25:13-16).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Exod 23:3; Lev 19:15; Deut 10:17-19; 16:19; 24:12-22; 25:13-16; 27:19; Ps 82:1-5; Prov 11:1; Isa 1:17; 10:1-4; 11:3-4; 59:14-19; Jer 22:13-17; Ezek 22:23-29; 45:9-10; Amos 2:6-8; 8:5-6; Hab 1:4; Matt 23:23; Luke 18:6-8; Jas 2:1-7<\/p>","summary_ro":"True Justice The community of God’s people in Old Testament Israel was to be responsible for the well-being of widows, orphans, and foreigners (Deut 27:19). The Israelites were to represent the just God whom they served (see 10:17-19) and always remember that they had been an enslaved and defenseless people in Egypt (see 10:19; 24:18-22). How could they, the beneficiaries of God’s unfailing love and faithfulness, ignore the rights and needs of the most vulnerable who lived among them? Every s...","summary_en":"True Justice The community of God’s people in Old Testament Israel was to be responsible for the well-being of widows, orphans, and foreigners (Deut 27:19). The Israelites were to represent the just God whom they served (see 10:17-19) and always remember that they had been an enslaved and defenseless people in Egypt (see 10:19; 24:18-22). How could they, the beneficiaries of God’s unfailing love and faithfulness, ignore the rights and needs of the most vulnerable who lived among them? Every s...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":116083,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"True Justice","title_en":"True Justice","content_ro":"<h3>True Justice<\/h3>\n<p>The community of God’s people in Old Testament Israel was to be responsible for the well-being of widows, orphans, and foreigners (Deut 27:19). The Israelites were to represent the just God whom they served (see 10:17-19) and always remember that they had been an enslaved and defenseless people in Egypt (see 10:19; 24:18-22). How could they, the beneficiaries of God’s unfailing love and faithfulness, ignore the rights and needs of the most vulnerable who lived among them?<\/p>\n<p>Every society has social structures that separate the powerful from the weak and the privileged from the ill-favored. This was true of Old Testament Israel despite its unique constitution and commission as a “holy nation” (Exod 19:6). Judges and other officials charged with upholding the law might tend to favor individuals with financial means, high social standing, or community influence, especially when these individuals offer bribes (Deut 16:19). However, God cannot be bribed, nor does he show partiality (10:17). The rich and the poor, the powerful and the weak, the exalted and the downtrodden are all alike to him.<\/p>\n<p>The prophets of Israel understood the need for equity and justice and often called for the application of these principles to community and national life (Isa 1:17; 10:1-4; 59:14-19; Ezek 22:23-29; Amos 2:6-8; Hab 1:4). The New Testament also appeals for proper treatment of the poor and disadvantaged and speaks of God’s displeasure when they are neglected (Matt 23:23; 2 Cor 9:6-10; Jas 2:1-7).<\/p>\n<p>Justice that falls short of God’s standard is not true justice, and those responsible for corrupting justice can expect full retribution from the Judge of all the earth (see Deut 25:13-16).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Exod 23:3; Lev 19:15; Deut 10:17-19; 16:19; 24:12-22; 25:13-16; 27:19; Ps 82:1-5; Prov 11:1; Isa 1:17; 10:1-4; 11:3-4; 59:14-19; Jer 22:13-17; Ezek 22:23-29; 45:9-10; Amos 2:6-8; 8:5-6; Hab 1:4; Matt 23:23; Luke 18:6-8; Jas 2:1-7<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>True Justice<\/h3>\n<p>The community of God’s people in Old Testament Israel was to be responsible for the well-being of widows, orphans, and foreigners (Deut 27:19). The Israelites were to represent the just God whom they served (see 10:17-19) and always remember that they had been an enslaved and defenseless people in Egypt (see 10:19; 24:18-22). How could they, the beneficiaries of God’s unfailing love and faithfulness, ignore the rights and needs of the most vulnerable who lived among them?<\/p>\n<p>Every society has social structures that separate the powerful from the weak and the privileged from the ill-favored. This was true of Old Testament Israel despite its unique constitution and commission as a “holy nation” (Exod 19:6). Judges and other officials charged with upholding the law might tend to favor individuals with financial means, high social standing, or community influence, especially when these individuals offer bribes (Deut 16:19). However, God cannot be bribed, nor does he show partiality (10:17). The rich and the poor, the powerful and the weak, the exalted and the downtrodden are all alike to him.<\/p>\n<p>The prophets of Israel understood the need for equity and justice and often called for the application of these principles to community and national life (Isa 1:17; 10:1-4; 59:14-19; Ezek 22:23-29; Amos 2:6-8; Hab 1:4). The New Testament also appeals for proper treatment of the poor and disadvantaged and speaks of God’s displeasure when they are neglected (Matt 23:23; 2 Cor 9:6-10; Jas 2:1-7).<\/p>\n<p>Justice that falls short of God’s standard is not true justice, and those responsible for corrupting justice can expect full retribution from the Judge of all the earth (see Deut 25:13-16).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Exod 23:3; Lev 19:15; Deut 10:17-19; 16:19; 24:12-22; 25:13-16; 27:19; Ps 82:1-5; Prov 11:1; Isa 1:17; 10:1-4; 11:3-4; 59:14-19; Jer 22:13-17; Ezek 22:23-29; 45:9-10; Amos 2:6-8; 8:5-6; Hab 1:4; Matt 23:23; Luke 18:6-8; Jas 2:1-7<\/p>","summary_ro":"True Justice The community of God’s people in Old Testament Israel was to be responsible for the well-being of widows, orphans, and foreigners (Deut 27:19). The Israelites were to represent the just God whom they served (see 10:17-19) and always remember that they had been an enslaved and defenseless people in Egypt (see 10:19; 24:18-22). How could they, the beneficiaries of God’s unfailing love and faithfulness, ignore the rights and needs of the most vulnerable who lived among them? Every s...","summary_en":"True Justice The community of God’s people in Old Testament Israel was to be responsible for the well-being of widows, orphans, and foreigners (Deut 27:19). The Israelites were to represent the just God whom they served (see 10:17-19) and always remember that they had been an enslaved and defenseless people in Egypt (see 10:19; 24:18-22). How could they, the beneficiaries of God’s unfailing love and faithfulness, ignore the rights and needs of the most vulnerable who lived among them? Every s...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":143709,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"True Justice","title_en":"True Justice","content_ro":"<h3>True Justice<\/h3>\n<p>The community of God’s people in Old Testament Israel was to be responsible for the well-being of widows, orphans, and foreigners (Deut 27:19). The Israelites were to represent the just God whom they served (see 10:17-19) and always remember that they had been an enslaved and defenseless people in Egypt (see 10:19; 24:18-22). How could they, the beneficiaries of God’s unfailing love and faithfulness, ignore the rights and needs of the most vulnerable who lived among them?<\/p>\n<p>Every society has social structures that separate the powerful from the weak and the privileged from the ill-favored. This was true of Old Testament Israel despite its unique constitution and commission as a “holy nation” (Exod 19:6). Judges and other officials charged with upholding the law might tend to favor individuals with financial means, high social standing, or community influence, especially when these individuals offer bribes (Deut 16:19). However, God cannot be bribed, nor does he show partiality (10:17). The rich and the poor, the powerful and the weak, the exalted and the downtrodden are all alike to him.<\/p>\n<p>The prophets of Israel understood the need for equity and justice and often called for the application of these principles to community and national life (Isa 1:17; 10:1-4; 59:14-19; Ezek 22:23-29; Amos 2:6-8; Hab 1:4). The New Testament also appeals for proper treatment of the poor and disadvantaged and speaks of God’s displeasure when they are neglected (Matt 23:23; 2 Cor 9:6-10; Jas 2:1-7).<\/p>\n<p>Justice that falls short of God’s standard is not true justice, and those responsible for corrupting justice can expect full retribution from the Judge of all the earth (see Deut 25:13-16).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Exod 23:3; Lev 19:15; Deut 10:17-19; 16:19; 24:12-22; 25:13-16; 27:19; Ps 82:1-5; Prov 11:1; Isa 1:17; 10:1-4; 11:3-4; 59:14-19; Jer 22:13-17; Ezek 22:23-29; 45:9-10; Amos 2:6-8; 8:5-6; Hab 1:4; Matt 23:23; Luke 18:6-8; Jas 2:1-7<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>True Justice<\/h3>\n<p>The community of God’s people in Old Testament Israel was to be responsible for the well-being of widows, orphans, and foreigners (Deut 27:19). The Israelites were to represent the just God whom they served (see 10:17-19) and always remember that they had been an enslaved and defenseless people in Egypt (see 10:19; 24:18-22). How could they, the beneficiaries of God’s unfailing love and faithfulness, ignore the rights and needs of the most vulnerable who lived among them?<\/p>\n<p>Every society has social structures that separate the powerful from the weak and the privileged from the ill-favored. This was true of Old Testament Israel despite its unique constitution and commission as a “holy nation” (Exod 19:6). Judges and other officials charged with upholding the law might tend to favor individuals with financial means, high social standing, or community influence, especially when these individuals offer bribes (Deut 16:19). However, God cannot be bribed, nor does he show partiality (10:17). The rich and the poor, the powerful and the weak, the exalted and the downtrodden are all alike to him.<\/p>\n<p>The prophets of Israel understood the need for equity and justice and often called for the application of these principles to community and national life (Isa 1:17; 10:1-4; 59:14-19; Ezek 22:23-29; Amos 2:6-8; Hab 1:4). The New Testament also appeals for proper treatment of the poor and disadvantaged and speaks of God’s displeasure when they are neglected (Matt 23:23; 2 Cor 9:6-10; Jas 2:1-7).<\/p>\n<p>Justice that falls short of God’s standard is not true justice, and those responsible for corrupting justice can expect full retribution from the Judge of all the earth (see Deut 25:13-16).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Exod 23:3; Lev 19:15; Deut 10:17-19; 16:19; 24:12-22; 25:13-16; 27:19; Ps 82:1-5; Prov 11:1; Isa 1:17; 10:1-4; 11:3-4; 59:14-19; Jer 22:13-17; Ezek 22:23-29; 45:9-10; Amos 2:6-8; 8:5-6; Hab 1:4; Matt 23:23; Luke 18:6-8; Jas 2:1-7<\/p>","summary_ro":"True Justice The community of God’s people in Old Testament Israel was to be responsible for the well-being of widows, orphans, and foreigners (Deut 27:19). The Israelites were to represent the just God whom they served (see 10:17-19) and always remember that they had been an enslaved and defenseless people in Egypt (see 10:19; 24:18-22). How could they, the beneficiaries of God’s unfailing love and faithfulness, ignore the rights and needs of the most vulnerable who lived among them? Every s...","summary_en":"True Justice The community of God’s people in Old Testament Israel was to be responsible for the well-being of widows, orphans, and foreigners (Deut 27:19). The Israelites were to represent the just God whom they served (see 10:17-19) and always remember that they had been an enslaved and defenseless people in Egypt (see 10:19; 24:18-22). How could they, the beneficiaries of God’s unfailing love and faithfulness, ignore the rights and needs of the most vulnerable who lived among them? Every s...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"19":[{"id":12635,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Foreigner","title_en":"Foreigner","content_ro":"<h3>FOREIGNER<\/h3>\n<p>Noncitizen or alien, temporary guest, sojourner, or stranger.<\/p>\n<p>The Hebrew word meaning “foreigner” is rendered correctly on all occasions in the <span>rsv<\/span>, but the <span>kjv<\/span> uses it in its truest sense on only two occasions (Dt 15:3; Ob 1:11). In most cases the <span>kjv<\/span> translates the word as “alien” (Dt 14:21; Jb 19:15; Ps 69:8; Lam 5:2) or “stranger” (Gn 15:13; Ex 2:22; Lv 25:35). Another Hebrew word means “dweller” (Lv 25:35; 1 Chr 29:15; Ps 39:12) or “settler.” For the most part, however, it is rendered “foreigner.”<\/p>\n<p>A temporary guest or sojourner was usually someone who wanted to take up temporary residence or had moved from one tribe of people to another, and then attempted to obtain certain privileges or rights belonging to the natives. A whole tribe might be sojourners in Israel. This was the case with the Gibeonites (Jos 9) and the Beerothites (2 Sm 4:3; cf. 2 Chr 2:17). The Israelites themselves were sojourners in the land of Egypt (Gn 15:13; 23:4; 26:3; 47:4; Ex 2:22; 23:9) and in other lands (Ru 1:1).<\/p>\n<p>Foreigners or sojourners had certain rights but also certain limitations while in Israel. They could offer sacrifices (Lv 17:8; 22:18) but could not enter the sanctuary unless circumcised (Ez 44:9). They were allowed to participate in the three great Jewish festivals (Dt 16:11, 14) but could not eat the Passover meal unless circumcised (Ex 12:43, 48). Foreigners were not obliged to follow the Israelite religion, but they shared in some of its benefits (Dt 14:29). They were not to work on the Sabbath or the Day of Atonement (Ex 20:10; 23:12; Lv 16:29; Dt 5:14) and could be stoned for reviling or blaspheming God’s name (Lv 24:16; Nm 15:30). Foreigners were forbidden to eat blood (Lv 17:10-12) but could eat animals that had died a natural death (Dt 14:21). Israel’s code of sexual morality also applied to the foreigner (Lv 18:26). There were prohibitions against Israelites intermarrying with foreigners, but it was nevertheless a common occurrence (Gn 34:14; Ex 34:12, 16; Dt 7:3-4; Jos 23:12).<\/p>\n<p>Civil rights were provided for foreigners by the law of Moses (Ex 12:49; Lv 24:22), and they came under the same legal processes and penalties (Lv 20:2; 24:16, 22; Dt 1:16). They were to be treated politely (Ex 22:21; 23:9), loved as those under the love of God (Lv 19:34; Dt 10:18-19), and treated generously (Lv 19:10; 23:22; Dt 24:19-22). They could receive asylum in times of trouble (Nm 35:15; Jos 20:9). Foreign servants were to receive treatment equal to Hebrew servants (Dt 24:14). A foreigner could not take part in tribal deliberations or become a king (17:15). The prophet Ezekiel looked forward to the messianic age when the foreigner would share all the blessings of the land with God’s own people (Ez 47:22-23).<\/p>\n<p>In the NT, “foreigner” is often used metaphorically. On the one hand, the work of Christ allowed all foreigners (i.e., those alienated from Christ) to become members of God’s household (Eph 2:11-19). On the other hand, Christians should consider themselves foreigners in this world (Heb 11:13; 1 Pt 2:11).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Barbarian; Neighbor.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>FOREIGNER<\/h3>\n<p>Noncitizen or alien, temporary guest, sojourner, or stranger.<\/p>\n<p>The Hebrew word meaning “foreigner” is rendered correctly on all occasions in the <span>rsv<\/span>, but the <span>kjv<\/span> uses it in its truest sense on only two occasions (Dt 15:3; Ob 1:11). In most cases the <span>kjv<\/span> translates the word as “alien” (Dt 14:21; Jb 19:15; Ps 69:8; Lam 5:2) or “stranger” (Gn 15:13; Ex 2:22; Lv 25:35). Another Hebrew word means “dweller” (Lv 25:35; 1 Chr 29:15; Ps 39:12) or “settler.” For the most part, however, it is rendered “foreigner.”<\/p>\n<p>A temporary guest or sojourner was usually someone who wanted to take up temporary residence or had moved from one tribe of people to another, and then attempted to obtain certain privileges or rights belonging to the natives. A whole tribe might be sojourners in Israel. This was the case with the Gibeonites (Jos 9) and the Beerothites (2 Sm 4:3; cf. 2 Chr 2:17). The Israelites themselves were sojourners in the land of Egypt (Gn 15:13; 23:4; 26:3; 47:4; Ex 2:22; 23:9) and in other lands (Ru 1:1).<\/p>\n<p>Foreigners or sojourners had certain rights but also certain limitations while in Israel. They could offer sacrifices (Lv 17:8; 22:18) but could not enter the sanctuary unless circumcised (Ez 44:9). They were allowed to participate in the three great Jewish festivals (Dt 16:11, 14) but could not eat the Passover meal unless circumcised (Ex 12:43, 48). Foreigners were not obliged to follow the Israelite religion, but they shared in some of its benefits (Dt 14:29). They were not to work on the Sabbath or the Day of Atonement (Ex 20:10; 23:12; Lv 16:29; Dt 5:14) and could be stoned for reviling or blaspheming God’s name (Lv 24:16; Nm 15:30). Foreigners were forbidden to eat blood (Lv 17:10-12) but could eat animals that had died a natural death (Dt 14:21). Israel’s code of sexual morality also applied to the foreigner (Lv 18:26). There were prohibitions against Israelites intermarrying with foreigners, but it was nevertheless a common occurrence (Gn 34:14; Ex 34:12, 16; Dt 7:3-4; Jos 23:12).<\/p>\n<p>Civil rights were provided for foreigners by the law of Moses (Ex 12:49; Lv 24:22), and they came under the same legal processes and penalties (Lv 20:2; 24:16, 22; Dt 1:16). They were to be treated politely (Ex 22:21; 23:9), loved as those under the love of God (Lv 19:34; Dt 10:18-19), and treated generously (Lv 19:10; 23:22; Dt 24:19-22). They could receive asylum in times of trouble (Nm 35:15; Jos 20:9). Foreign servants were to receive treatment equal to Hebrew servants (Dt 24:14). A foreigner could not take part in tribal deliberations or become a king (17:15). The prophet Ezekiel looked forward to the messianic age when the foreigner would share all the blessings of the land with God’s own people (Ez 47:22-23).<\/p>\n<p>In the NT, “foreigner” is often used metaphorically. On the one hand, the work of Christ allowed all foreigners (i.e., those alienated from Christ) to become members of God’s household (Eph 2:11-19). On the other hand, Christians should consider themselves foreigners in this world (Heb 11:13; 1 Pt 2:11).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Barbarian; Neighbor.<\/p>","summary_ro":"FOREIGNER Noncitizen or alien, temporary guest, sojourner, or stranger. The Hebrew word meaning “foreigner” is rendered correctly on all occasions in the rsv, but the kjv uses it in its truest sense on only two occasions (Dt 15:3; Ob 1:11). In most cases the kjv translates the word as “alien” (Dt 14:21; Jb 19:15; Ps 69:8; Lam 5:2) or “stranger” (Gn 15:13; Ex 2:22; Lv 25:35). Another Hebrew word means “dweller” (Lv 25:35; 1 Chr 29:15; Ps 39:12) or “settler.” For the most part, however, it is r...","summary_en":"FOREIGNER Noncitizen or alien, temporary guest, sojourner, or stranger. The Hebrew word meaning “foreigner” is rendered correctly on all occasions in the rsv, but the kjv uses it in its truest sense on only two occasions (Dt 15:3; Ob 1:11). In most cases the kjv translates the word as “alien” (Dt 14:21; Jb 19:15; Ps 69:8; Lam 5:2) or “stranger” (Gn 15:13; Ex 2:22; Lv 25:35). Another Hebrew word means “dweller” (Lv 25:35; 1 Chr 29:15; Ps 39:12) or “settler.” For the most part, however, it is r...","source":"Articles\/F.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":13946,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Gleaning Glean","title_en":"Gleaning Glean","content_ro":"<h3>GLEAN, GLEANING<\/h3>\n<p>Practice of allowing the poor to follow reapers in a field to pick up missed spears of grain (cf. Lv 19:9; 23:22; Dt 24:19; Ru 2:2-23). Vineyards, as well as fields of grain, were to be available for gleaning (Lv 19:10; Dt 24:20-21). Olive trees, however, were not to be gone over a second time (cf. Jgs 8:2; Is 17:6; 24:13; Jer 6:9; Mi 7:1). The word “gleaned” is also used to describe the killing of men who fled from a battle (Jgs 20:45, <span>kjv<\/span>).<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>GLEAN, GLEANING<\/h3>\n<p>Practice of allowing the poor to follow reapers in a field to pick up missed spears of grain (cf. Lv 19:9; 23:22; Dt 24:19; Ru 2:2-23). Vineyards, as well as fields of grain, were to be available for gleaning (Lv 19:10; Dt 24:20-21). Olive trees, however, were not to be gone over a second time (cf. Jgs 8:2; Is 17:6; 24:13; Jer 6:9; Mi 7:1). The word “gleaned” is also used to describe the killing of men who fled from a battle (Jgs 20:45, <span>kjv<\/span>).<\/p>","summary_ro":"GLEAN, GLEANING Practice of allowing the poor to follow reapers in a field to pick up missed spears of grain (cf. Lv 19:9; 23:22; Dt 24:19; Ru 2:2-23). Vineyards, as well as fields of grain, were to be available for gleaning (Lv 19:10; Dt 24:20-21). Olive trees, however, were not to be gone over a second time (cf. Jgs 8:2; Is 17:6; 24:13; Jer 6:9; Mi 7:1). The word “gleaned” is also used to describe the killing of men who fled from a battle (Jgs 20:45, kjv).","summary_en":"GLEAN, GLEANING Practice of allowing the poor to follow reapers in a field to pick up missed spears of grain (cf. Lv 19:9; 23:22; Dt 24:19; Ru 2:2-23). Vineyards, as well as fields of grain, were to be available for gleaning (Lv 19:10; Dt 24:20-21). Olive trees, however, were not to be gone over a second time (cf. Jgs 8:2; Is 17:6; 24:13; Jer 6:9; Mi 7:1). The word “gleaned” is also used to describe the killing of men who fled from a battle (Jgs 20:45, kjv).","source":"Articles\/G.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":28626,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Orphan","title_en":"Orphan","content_ro":"<h3>ORPHAN<\/h3>\n<p>Word coming from a Hebrew root meaning “to be alone” or “bereaved,” often rendered as “fatherless.” The idea describes any person who is without legal standing in the covenant community of Israel, who is unprotected or needy, and who is especially exposed to oppression. It also speaks of one who is bereft of one or both earthly parents (cf. Lam 5:3).<\/p>\n<p>Since God has a special concern for the fatherless (Ex 22:22-24; Dt 10:18; Pss 10:14, 18; 27:10; 68:5; 146:9; Is 1:17; Hos 14:3), OT legislation made special provision for them by protecting their rights of inheritance (Nm 27:7-11; Dt 24:17; Prv 23:10), ensuring their freedom to glean the fields and vineyards (Dt 24:19-21), allowing their participation in the great annual feasts (16:11, 14), and allotting them a portion of the tithe crops collected every three years (14:29; 26:12). Strong condemnation awaits those who oppress them (Dt 24:17; 27:19; Mal 3:5).<\/p>\n<p>While the orphans of Israel were sometimes aided by friends and relatives (Jb 29:12; 31:17), there was general failure to meet the requirements of the law, as is witnessed by the accusations of the inspired writers (Jb 6:27; 22:9; 24:3, 9; Ps 94:6; Is 1:23; 10:2; Jer 5:28; Ez 22:7). Consequently, the prophets never tire of pleading the orphan’s cause (Jer 7:6; 22:3; Zec 7:10).<\/p>\n<p>The word is used only twice in the NT—once in a general sense to describe those who are “desolate” or “comfortless” (Jn 14:18), and once in the specific sense to describe the “fatherless” (Jas 1:27). In the spirit of an OT prophet, James declares that true religion involves the care of orphans.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>ORPHAN<\/h3>\n<p>Word coming from a Hebrew root meaning “to be alone” or “bereaved,” often rendered as “fatherless.” The idea describes any person who is without legal standing in the covenant community of Israel, who is unprotected or needy, and who is especially exposed to oppression. It also speaks of one who is bereft of one or both earthly parents (cf. Lam 5:3).<\/p>\n<p>Since God has a special concern for the fatherless (Ex 22:22-24; Dt 10:18; Pss 10:14, 18; 27:10; 68:5; 146:9; Is 1:17; Hos 14:3), OT legislation made special provision for them by protecting their rights of inheritance (Nm 27:7-11; Dt 24:17; Prv 23:10), ensuring their freedom to glean the fields and vineyards (Dt 24:19-21), allowing their participation in the great annual feasts (16:11, 14), and allotting them a portion of the tithe crops collected every three years (14:29; 26:12). Strong condemnation awaits those who oppress them (Dt 24:17; 27:19; Mal 3:5).<\/p>\n<p>While the orphans of Israel were sometimes aided by friends and relatives (Jb 29:12; 31:17), there was general failure to meet the requirements of the law, as is witnessed by the accusations of the inspired writers (Jb 6:27; 22:9; 24:3, 9; Ps 94:6; Is 1:23; 10:2; Jer 5:28; Ez 22:7). Consequently, the prophets never tire of pleading the orphan’s cause (Jer 7:6; 22:3; Zec 7:10).<\/p>\n<p>The word is used only twice in the NT—once in a general sense to describe those who are “desolate” or “comfortless” (Jn 14:18), and once in the specific sense to describe the “fatherless” (Jas 1:27). In the spirit of an OT prophet, James declares that true religion involves the care of orphans.<\/p>","summary_ro":"ORPHAN Word coming from a Hebrew root meaning “to be alone” or “bereaved,” often rendered as “fatherless.” The idea describes any person who is without legal standing in the covenant community of Israel, who is unprotected or needy, and who is especially exposed to oppression. It also speaks of one who is bereft of one or both earthly parents (cf. Lam 5:3). Since God has a special concern for the fatherless (Ex 22:22-24; Dt 10:18; Pss 10:14, 18; 27:10; 68:5; 146:9; Is 1:17; Hos 14:3), OT legi...","summary_en":"ORPHAN Word coming from a Hebrew root meaning “to be alone” or “bereaved,” often rendered as “fatherless.” The idea describes any person who is without legal standing in the covenant community of Israel, who is unprotected or needy, and who is especially exposed to oppression. It also speaks of one who is bereft of one or both earthly parents (cf. Lam 5:3). Since God has a special concern for the fatherless (Ex 22:22-24; Dt 10:18; Pss 10:14, 18; 27:10; 68:5; 146:9; Is 1:17; Hos 14:3), OT legi...","source":"Articles\/O.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":38354,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Widow","title_en":"Widow","content_ro":"<h3>WIDOW<\/h3>\n<p>A woman whose husband has died. In the Scriptures, widows are often listed with the fatherless and orphans (Dt 14:29; 16:11; 24:19-20; 26:12; Ps 94:6). Laws were passed to make special provision for this group and to protect them against the unscrupulous. The primary law had to do with levirate marriage—i.e., the closest kin would marry the widow (if she was without a son) to continue the family line (see discussion under Marriage).<\/p>\n<p>The plight of the widow was recognized in the number of laws designed for her protection and even survival. God was her legal protector (Ps 68:5) and saw that she was provided with the essentials of food and clothing (Dt 10:18). Those who denied her justice were cursed by God (27:19). At harvesttime the widow might glean the grain in the fields, as well as some grapes and olives (Dt 24:19; Ru 2:2, 7, 15-19), and she was also eligible for some assistance from the third-year tithe. Nevertheless, the poverty of widows and the cruel treatment extended to them was so widespread that frequent reference is made to it (Jb 24:21; Ps 94:6; Is 1:23; Mal 3:5). A special law provided that the widow’s garment could not be used as security for a loan (Dt 24:17).<\/p>\n<p>In the early Christian church there was a recognized group of widows eligible to receive charity. They were generally those over 60 years of age who had been faithful to their husband, were in poverty, had no relatives to support them, and had lived blameless lives filled with Christian good works (1 Tm 5:9-16).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Family Life and Relations; Marriage.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>WIDOW<\/h3>\n<p>A woman whose husband has died. In the Scriptures, widows are often listed with the fatherless and orphans (Dt 14:29; 16:11; 24:19-20; 26:12; Ps 94:6). Laws were passed to make special provision for this group and to protect them against the unscrupulous. The primary law had to do with levirate marriage—i.e., the closest kin would marry the widow (if she was without a son) to continue the family line (see discussion under Marriage).<\/p>\n<p>The plight of the widow was recognized in the number of laws designed for her protection and even survival. God was her legal protector (Ps 68:5) and saw that she was provided with the essentials of food and clothing (Dt 10:18). Those who denied her justice were cursed by God (27:19). At harvesttime the widow might glean the grain in the fields, as well as some grapes and olives (Dt 24:19; Ru 2:2, 7, 15-19), and she was also eligible for some assistance from the third-year tithe. Nevertheless, the poverty of widows and the cruel treatment extended to them was so widespread that frequent reference is made to it (Jb 24:21; Ps 94:6; Is 1:23; Mal 3:5). A special law provided that the widow’s garment could not be used as security for a loan (Dt 24:17).<\/p>\n<p>In the early Christian church there was a recognized group of widows eligible to receive charity. They were generally those over 60 years of age who had been faithful to their husband, were in poverty, had no relatives to support them, and had lived blameless lives filled with Christian good works (1 Tm 5:9-16).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Family Life and Relations; Marriage.<\/p>","summary_ro":"WIDOW A woman whose husband has died. In the Scriptures, widows are often listed with the fatherless and orphans (Dt 14:29; 16:11; 24:19-20; 26:12; Ps 94:6). Laws were passed to make special provision for this group and to protect them against the unscrupulous. The primary law had to do with levirate marriage—i.e., the closest kin would marry the widow (if she was without a son) to continue the family line (see discussion under Marriage). The plight of the widow was recognized in the number o...","summary_en":"WIDOW A woman whose husband has died. In the Scriptures, widows are often listed with the fatherless and orphans (Dt 14:29; 16:11; 24:19-20; 26:12; Ps 94:6). Laws were passed to make special provision for this group and to protect them against the unscrupulous. The primary law had to do with levirate marriage—i.e., the closest kin would marry the widow (if she was without a son) to continue the family line (see discussion under Marriage). The plight of the widow was recognized in the number o...","source":"Articles\/W.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"20":[{"id":1113,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Alms","title_en":"Alms","content_ro":"<h3>ALMS<\/h3>\n<p>Charitable gifts. The practice of giving alms to the poor. The English word “alms” comes from a longer Greek word used in the Septuagint (ancient Greek translation of the OT) to translate a Hebrew word for “righteousness.” The Hebrew term, in general, is unrelated to almsgiving; consequently the OT has no literal reference to almsgiving. Nevertheless, the Israelites were expected to care for the unfortunate in their midst. The Mosaic law contains many admonitions to treat the poor justly and humanely. Important among them is Deuteronomy 15:7-11, which, while recognizing the inevitable existence of poverty, commands Israel to take alleviating action. Thus, every seventh year all fields and gardens were to remain unharvested for the benefit of the poor and disadvantaged (Ex 23:10-11). Every third year one-tenth of all produce had to be given to the Levites (a Hebrew tribe that had no property), the sojourner, the fatherless, and the widow (Dt 14:28-29). Forgotten sheaves and the gleanings from grain fields at each harvest were left for the needy and the stranger (Lv 19:9; 23:22); from every vineyard and olive grove, any fallen fruit and the imperfect and topmost clusters were reserved for them (Lv 19:10; Dt 24:20-21). Likewise, festival pilgrims were expected to share food with those in need (Dt 16:11-14).<\/p>\n\n<p>The OT prophets continued to champion the theme of benevolent treatment for the poor. The strongest expressions of the social justice theme are found in Isaiah (1:23; 3:15; 10:1-2; 11:4-5; 58:5-10) and Amos (2:6-8; 4:1; 5:11; 8:4). Similarly, the Psalms and “Wisdom Literature” (Jb; Prv; Eccl) depict the plight of the poor, holding out hope to the afflicted and appealing to others to take up their cause or to improve their condition. The appeals were based on the conviction that all human beings are created by the one God, who had commanded Israel to deal with the unfortunate in their midst with a compassion that went beyond charity to justice.<\/p>\n<p>During the intertestamental period the giving of alms acquired more importance. The general command to show loving-kindness (cf. Lv 19:18) became defined as specific individual acts believed to contribute to personal merit and security. Thus, “almsgiving atones for sin” (Ecclus 3:30) and “delivers from death” (Tb 4:10). Along with prayer and fasting, almsgiving was elevated as one of the most important expressions of Jewish piety (Tb 12:8-9).<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>ALMS<\/h3>\n<p>Charitable gifts. The practice of giving alms to the poor. The English word “alms” comes from a longer Greek word used in the Septuagint (ancient Greek translation of the OT) to translate a Hebrew word for “righteousness.” The Hebrew term, in general, is unrelated to almsgiving; consequently the OT has no literal reference to almsgiving. Nevertheless, the Israelites were expected to care for the unfortunate in their midst. The Mosaic law contains many admonitions to treat the poor justly and humanely. Important among them is Deuteronomy 15:7-11, which, while recognizing the inevitable existence of poverty, commands Israel to take alleviating action. Thus, every seventh year all fields and gardens were to remain unharvested for the benefit of the poor and disadvantaged (Ex 23:10-11). Every third year one-tenth of all produce had to be given to the Levites (a Hebrew tribe that had no property), the sojourner, the fatherless, and the widow (Dt 14:28-29). Forgotten sheaves and the gleanings from grain fields at each harvest were left for the needy and the stranger (Lv 19:9; 23:22); from every vineyard and olive grove, any fallen fruit and the imperfect and topmost clusters were reserved for them (Lv 19:10; Dt 24:20-21). Likewise, festival pilgrims were expected to share food with those in need (Dt 16:11-14).<\/p>\n\n<p>The OT prophets continued to champion the theme of benevolent treatment for the poor. The strongest expressions of the social justice theme are found in Isaiah (1:23; 3:15; 10:1-2; 11:4-5; 58:5-10) and Amos (2:6-8; 4:1; 5:11; 8:4). Similarly, the Psalms and “Wisdom Literature” (Jb; Prv; Eccl) depict the plight of the poor, holding out hope to the afflicted and appealing to others to take up their cause or to improve their condition. The appeals were based on the conviction that all human beings are created by the one God, who had commanded Israel to deal with the unfortunate in their midst with a compassion that went beyond charity to justice.<\/p>\n<p>During the intertestamental period the giving of alms acquired more importance. The general command to show loving-kindness (cf. Lv 19:18) became defined as specific individual acts believed to contribute to personal merit and security. Thus, “almsgiving atones for sin” (Ecclus 3:30) and “delivers from death” (Tb 4:10). Along with prayer and fasting, almsgiving was elevated as one of the most important expressions of Jewish piety (Tb 12:8-9).<\/p>","summary_ro":"ALMS Charitable gifts. The practice of giving alms to the poor. The English word “alms” comes from a longer Greek word used in the Septuagint (ancient Greek translation of the OT) to translate a Hebrew word for “righteousness.” The Hebrew term, in general, is unrelated to almsgiving; consequently the OT has no literal reference to almsgiving. Nevertheless, the Israelites were expected to care for the unfortunate in their midst. The Mosaic law contains many admonitions to treat the poor justly...","summary_en":"ALMS Charitable gifts. The practice of giving alms to the poor. The English word “alms” comes from a longer Greek word used in the Septuagint (ancient Greek translation of the OT) to translate a Hebrew word for “righteousness.” The Hebrew term, in general, is unrelated to almsgiving; consequently the OT has no literal reference to almsgiving. Nevertheless, the Israelites were expected to care for the unfortunate in their midst. The Mosaic law contains many admonitions to treat the poor justly...","source":"Articles\/A.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":13949,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Gleaning Glean","title_en":"Gleaning Glean","content_ro":"<h3>GLEAN, GLEANING<\/h3>\n<p>Practice of allowing the poor to follow reapers in a field to pick up missed spears of grain (cf. Lv 19:9; 23:22; Dt 24:19; Ru 2:2-23). Vineyards, as well as fields of grain, were to be available for gleaning (Lv 19:10; Dt 24:20-21). Olive trees, however, were not to be gone over a second time (cf. Jgs 8:2; Is 17:6; 24:13; Jer 6:9; Mi 7:1). The word “gleaned” is also used to describe the killing of men who fled from a battle (Jgs 20:45, <span>kjv<\/span>).<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>GLEAN, GLEANING<\/h3>\n<p>Practice of allowing the poor to follow reapers in a field to pick up missed spears of grain (cf. Lv 19:9; 23:22; Dt 24:19; Ru 2:2-23). Vineyards, as well as fields of grain, were to be available for gleaning (Lv 19:10; Dt 24:20-21). Olive trees, however, were not to be gone over a second time (cf. Jgs 8:2; Is 17:6; 24:13; Jer 6:9; Mi 7:1). The word “gleaned” is also used to describe the killing of men who fled from a battle (Jgs 20:45, <span>kjv<\/span>).<\/p>","summary_ro":"GLEAN, GLEANING Practice of allowing the poor to follow reapers in a field to pick up missed spears of grain (cf. Lv 19:9; 23:22; Dt 24:19; Ru 2:2-23). Vineyards, as well as fields of grain, were to be available for gleaning (Lv 19:10; Dt 24:20-21). Olive trees, however, were not to be gone over a second time (cf. Jgs 8:2; Is 17:6; 24:13; Jer 6:9; Mi 7:1). The word “gleaned” is also used to describe the killing of men who fled from a battle (Jgs 20:45, kjv).","summary_en":"GLEAN, GLEANING Practice of allowing the poor to follow reapers in a field to pick up missed spears of grain (cf. Lv 19:9; 23:22; Dt 24:19; Ru 2:2-23). Vineyards, as well as fields of grain, were to be available for gleaning (Lv 19:10; Dt 24:20-21). Olive trees, however, were not to be gone over a second time (cf. Jgs 8:2; Is 17:6; 24:13; Jer 6:9; Mi 7:1). The word “gleaned” is also used to describe the killing of men who fled from a battle (Jgs 20:45, kjv).","source":"Articles\/G.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 24
— 22 versete
Deuteronom 24
📘 Info carte
Se încarcă...
📖 Resurse