1
A făcut altarul pentru arderile de tot din lemn de salcâm; lungimea lui era de cinci coţi, şi lăţimea de cinci coţi; era în patru muchi, şi înălţimea lui era de trei coţi.
2
La cele patru colţuri i-a făcut nişte coarne dintr-o bucată cu el, şi l-a poleit cu aramă.
3
A făcut toate uneltele altarului: oalele pentru cenuşă, lopeţile, ligheanele, furculiţele şi tigăile pentru cărbuni; toate uneltele acestea le-a făcut de aramă.
4
A făcut pentru altar un grătar de aramă, ca o reţea, pe care a pus-o subt pervazul altarului, începând de jos, aşa că venea până la jumătatea altarului.
5
A turnat apoi patru verigi, pe cari le-a pus în cele patru colţuri ale grătarului de aramă, ca să vâre drugii în ele.
6
A făcut drugii din lemn de salcâm, şi i-a poleit cu aramă.
7
A vârât drugii în verigile de pe laturile altarului ca să-l ducă. L-a făcut din scânduri, gol pe dinlăuntru.
8
A făcut ligheanul de aramă, cu piciorul lui de aramă, din oglinzile femeilor, cari slujeau la uşa cortului întâlnirii.
9
Apoi a făcut curtea. Înspre partea de miazăzi, pentru curte, erau nişte pânze de in subţire răsucit, pe o lungime de o sută de coţi,
10
cu douăzeci de stâlpi aşezaţi pe douăzeci de picioare de aramă; cârligele stâlpilor şi beţele lor de legătură erau de argint.
11
În spre partea de miazănoapte, erau o sută de coţi de pânză, cu douăzeci de stâlpi şi cu cele douăzeci de picioare de aramă ale lor; cârligele stâlpilor şi beţele lor de legătură erau de argint.
12
Înspre partea de sus, erau cinci zeci de coţi de pânză, cu zece stâlpi şi cele zece picioare ale lor; cârligele stâlpilor şi beţele lor de legătură erau de argint.
13
Înspre partea de răsărit, pe cei cincizeci de coţi lăţime, erau:
14
pentru o aripă, cincisprezece coţi de pânză, cu trei stâlpi şi cele trei picioare ale lor,
15
şi pentru a doua aripă, care era în faţa ei, de cealaltă parte a porţii curţii, cincisprezece coţi de pânză cu trei stâlpi şi cele trei picioare ale lor.
16
Toate pânzele de jur împrejurul curţii erau de in subţire răsucit.
17
Picioarele stâlpilor erau de aramă, cârligele stâlpilor şi beţele lor de legătură erau de argint, şi căpătâiele lor erau poleite cu argint. Toţi stâlpii curţii erau legaţi între ei cu beţe de argint.
18
Perdeaua dela poarta curţii cortului era o lucrătură făcută la gherghef din fir albastru, purpuriu, cărmiziu, şi din in subţire răsucit; avea o lungime de douăzeci de coţi, şi înălţimea era de cinci coţi, ca lăţimea pânzelor curţii;
19
cei patru stâlpi ai ei şi cele patru picioare ale lor erau de aramă; cârligele şi beţele lor de legătură erau de argint; iar căpătâiele erau poleite cu argint.
20
Toţi ţăruşii din jurul cortului şi curţii erau de aramă.
21
Iată socoteala locaşului cortului întâlnirii, făcută după porunca lui Moise, prin îngrijirea Leviţilor, subt cârmuirea lui Itamar, fiul preotului Aaron.
22
Beţaleel, fiul lui Uri, fiul lui Hur, din seminţia lui Iuda, a făcut tot ce poruncise lui Moise Domnul.
23
El a avut ca ajutor pe Oholiab, fiul lui Ahisamac, din seminţia lui Dan, meşter la săpat în pietre, la cioplit cu meşteşug, şi la lucrat pe gherghef în materiile văpsite în albastru, în purpuriu, în cărmiziu, şi în in subţire.
24
Tot aurul întrebuinţat la lucru pentru toate lucrările sfântului locaş, aur ieşit din daruri, se suia la douăzeci şi nouă de talanţi şi şapte sute treizeci de sicli, după siclul cortului.
25
Argintul celor ieşiţi la numărătoare, din adunare, se suia la o sută de talanţi şi o mie şapte sute şaptezeci şi cinci de sicli, după siclul sfântului locaş:
26
Câte o jumătate de siclu de cap, o jumătate de siclu, după siclul sfântului locaş, pentru fiecare om cuprins în numărătoare, dela vârsta de douăzeci de ani în sus, adică pentru şase sute trei mii cinci sute cincizeci de oameni.
27
Din cei o sută de talanţi de argint s-au turnat picioarele sfântului locaş şi picioarele perdelei din lăuntru, adică o sută de picioare la cei o sută de talanţi, câte un talant de picior.
28
Şi cu cei o mie şapte sute şaptezeci şi cinci de sicli s-au făcut cârligele şi beţele de legătură dintre stâlpi, şi le-au poleit căpătâiele.
29
Arama dăruită se suia la şaptezeci de talanţi şi două mii patru sute de sicli.
30
Din ea au făcut picioarele dela uşa cortului întâlnirii; altarul de aramă cu grătarul lui, şi toate uneltele altarului;
31
picioarele stâlpilor curţii, de jur împrejur, şi picioarele stâlpilor dela poarta curţii; şi toţi ţăruşii din jurul cortului şi ai curţii.
{"verseMap":{"1":[{"id":1156,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Altar","title_en":"Altar","content_ro":"<h3>ALTAR<\/h3>\n<p>The platform upon which offerings are made to the deity. This may include a ritual sacrifice of animals or a burning of incense before God (Ex 30:1-10). The Hebrew word for altar and the verb “to slaughter” both derive from the same root word; they are terms used in connection with the ritual of sacrificing animals to God as a covering for sin. The Greek terms also point to sacrificing animals. The practice was not peculiar to Israel but was widely known in the ancient Middle East. Israel’s immediate neighbors, the Canaanites, had their own altars and rituals. The altar was always a raised-up place.<\/p>\n<p>The Bible refers to several altars built by the patriarchs. Noah offered burnt offerings (Gn 8:20). Abraham built an altar at Shechem (Gn 12:7), another at Bethel (Gn 12:8), and one on Mt Moriah (Gn 22:9). Isaac built an altar at Beersheba (Gn 26:25), and Jacob at Shechem (Gn 33:20) and Bethel (Gn 35:7). Moses built one at Rephidim (Ex 17:15) and another at Horeb (Ex 24:4). In each case the altar was erected to commemorate an event in which God had helped the offerer.<\/p>\n<p>Two altars were used in the tabernacle. One, measuring 5 by 5 by 3 cubits (7.5 by 7.5 by 4.5 feet; 2.3 by 2.3 by 1.4 meters), was made of acacia wood overlaid with bronze and used for burnt offerings (Ex 27:1-8; 38:1-7). The other, smaller one, the golden altar, was about 18 inches (45 centimeters) square and 3 feet (90 centimeters) high, and was used to burn incense before the veil (Ex 30:1-10; 40:5).<\/p>\n<p>In Exodus 20:24-26, instructions were given to Israel to make an altar of earth or of unhewn stones, upon which burnt offerings and peace offerings were to be made in every place where God caused his name to dwell. This very general prescription seems to have allowed various individuals to erect an altar from time to time. Joshua built an altar on Mt Ebal (Jos 8:30-31); the Reubenites, Gadites, and the half-tribe of Manasseh built one in Transjordan (Jos 22:10-16); Gideon built one in Ophrah (Jgs 6:24); the family of David in Bethlehem (1 Sm 20:6, 29); David at the threshing floor of Araunah (2 Sm 24:25); and Elijah on Mt Carmel (1 Kgs 18:30). Apart from Elijah’s altar these all predated Solomon’s temple.<\/p>\n<p>There were two altars in Solomon’s temple. One was 20 cubits square (about 25 feet; 7.6 meters) and 10 cubits high (about 12.5 feet; 3.8 meters). It was made of bronze and used for burnt offerings. It remained the center of temple worship until the temple was destroyed, although in the days of King Ahaz it was removed from its place to the northern side of the temple at the command of the Assyrian ruler Tiglath-pileser (2 Kgs 16:14). It was later restored to its proper place by Hezekiah (2 Chr 29:18). The second, the incense altar, stood in front of the veil. It was made of cedar and overlaid with gold (1 Kgs 6:20-22).<\/p>\n<p>During the exile, when the temple lay in ruins, Ezekiel had a vision of the restored temple in Jerusalem. There was an elaborate altar of burnt offering, rising in three terraces to a height of 10 cubits (17.5 feet; 5.3 meters) and resting on a base about 20 cubits (35 feet; 10.6 meters) square. Although the altar was visionary, it emphasized the need for atonement in Israel (Ez 43:13-17). No reference is made to an incense altar.<\/p>\n<p>Zerubbabel built an altar of burnt offerings (Ezr 3:2) that Antiochus Epiphanes desecrated with a “desolating sacrilege,” probably an image of Zeus (1 Macc 1:54). There was also an altar of incense. Antiochus Epiphanes carried off the golden altar (1 Macc 1:21) in 169 <span>BC<\/span>. Both were later restored by Judas Maccabeus (1 Macc 4:44-49).<\/p>\n\n<p>In Christian worship no altar was required, since in the death of Jesus Christ the final sacrifice for sin had been made. There are numerous references to both the altar of burnt offering in the temple (Mt 5:23-24; 23:18-20, 35; Lk 11:51; 1 Cor 9:13; 10:18; Heb 7:13; Rv 11:1) and the altar of incense, both in the earthly temple (Lk 1:11) and in the heavenly temple (Rv 6:9; 8:5; 9:13).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Tabernacle; Temple.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>ALTAR<\/h3>\n<p>The platform upon which offerings are made to the deity. This may include a ritual sacrifice of animals or a burning of incense before God (Ex 30:1-10). The Hebrew word for altar and the verb “to slaughter” both derive from the same root word; they are terms used in connection with the ritual of sacrificing animals to God as a covering for sin. The Greek terms also point to sacrificing animals. The practice was not peculiar to Israel but was widely known in the ancient Middle East. Israel’s immediate neighbors, the Canaanites, had their own altars and rituals. The altar was always a raised-up place.<\/p>\n<p>The Bible refers to several altars built by the patriarchs. Noah offered burnt offerings (Gn 8:20). Abraham built an altar at Shechem (Gn 12:7), another at Bethel (Gn 12:8), and one on Mt Moriah (Gn 22:9). Isaac built an altar at Beersheba (Gn 26:25), and Jacob at Shechem (Gn 33:20) and Bethel (Gn 35:7). Moses built one at Rephidim (Ex 17:15) and another at Horeb (Ex 24:4). In each case the altar was erected to commemorate an event in which God had helped the offerer.<\/p>\n<p>Two altars were used in the tabernacle. One, measuring 5 by 5 by 3 cubits (7.5 by 7.5 by 4.5 feet; 2.3 by 2.3 by 1.4 meters), was made of acacia wood overlaid with bronze and used for burnt offerings (Ex 27:1-8; 38:1-7). The other, smaller one, the golden altar, was about 18 inches (45 centimeters) square and 3 feet (90 centimeters) high, and was used to burn incense before the veil (Ex 30:1-10; 40:5).<\/p>\n<p>In Exodus 20:24-26, instructions were given to Israel to make an altar of earth or of unhewn stones, upon which burnt offerings and peace offerings were to be made in every place where God caused his name to dwell. This very general prescription seems to have allowed various individuals to erect an altar from time to time. Joshua built an altar on Mt Ebal (Jos 8:30-31); the Reubenites, Gadites, and the half-tribe of Manasseh built one in Transjordan (Jos 22:10-16); Gideon built one in Ophrah (Jgs 6:24); the family of David in Bethlehem (1 Sm 20:6, 29); David at the threshing floor of Araunah (2 Sm 24:25); and Elijah on Mt Carmel (1 Kgs 18:30). Apart from Elijah’s altar these all predated Solomon’s temple.<\/p>\n<p>There were two altars in Solomon’s temple. One was 20 cubits square (about 25 feet; 7.6 meters) and 10 cubits high (about 12.5 feet; 3.8 meters). It was made of bronze and used for burnt offerings. It remained the center of temple worship until the temple was destroyed, although in the days of King Ahaz it was removed from its place to the northern side of the temple at the command of the Assyrian ruler Tiglath-pileser (2 Kgs 16:14). It was later restored to its proper place by Hezekiah (2 Chr 29:18). The second, the incense altar, stood in front of the veil. It was made of cedar and overlaid with gold (1 Kgs 6:20-22).<\/p>\n<p>During the exile, when the temple lay in ruins, Ezekiel had a vision of the restored temple in Jerusalem. There was an elaborate altar of burnt offering, rising in three terraces to a height of 10 cubits (17.5 feet; 5.3 meters) and resting on a base about 20 cubits (35 feet; 10.6 meters) square. Although the altar was visionary, it emphasized the need for atonement in Israel (Ez 43:13-17). No reference is made to an incense altar.<\/p>\n<p>Zerubbabel built an altar of burnt offerings (Ezr 3:2) that Antiochus Epiphanes desecrated with a “desolating sacrilege,” probably an image of Zeus (1 Macc 1:54). There was also an altar of incense. Antiochus Epiphanes carried off the golden altar (1 Macc 1:21) in 169 <span>BC<\/span>. Both were later restored by Judas Maccabeus (1 Macc 4:44-49).<\/p>\n\n<p>In Christian worship no altar was required, since in the death of Jesus Christ the final sacrifice for sin had been made. There are numerous references to both the altar of burnt offering in the temple (Mt 5:23-24; 23:18-20, 35; Lk 11:51; 1 Cor 9:13; 10:18; Heb 7:13; Rv 11:1) and the altar of incense, both in the earthly temple (Lk 1:11) and in the heavenly temple (Rv 6:9; 8:5; 9:13).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Tabernacle; Temple.<\/p>","summary_ro":"ALTAR The platform upon which offerings are made to the deity. This may include a ritual sacrifice of animals or a burning of incense before God (Ex 30:1-10). The Hebrew word for altar and the verb “to slaughter” both derive from the same root word; they are terms used in connection with the ritual of sacrificing animals to God as a covering for sin. The Greek terms also point to sacrificing animals. The practice was not peculiar to Israel but was widely known in the ancient Middle East. Isra...","summary_en":"ALTAR The platform upon which offerings are made to the deity. This may include a ritual sacrifice of animals or a burning of incense before God (Ex 30:1-10). The Hebrew word for altar and the verb “to slaughter” both derive from the same root word; they are terms used in connection with the ritual of sacrificing animals to God as a covering for sin. The Greek terms also point to sacrificing animals. The practice was not peculiar to Israel but was widely known in the ancient Middle East. Isra...","source":"Articles\/A.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":36647,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Tabernacle","title_en":"Tabernacle","content_ro":"<h3>TABERNACLE<\/h3>\n<p>Place of worship during the earliest years of the history of Israel.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Introduction<\/p>\n<p>• Names for the Tabernacle<\/p>\n<p>• Background<\/p>\n<p>• The Tabernacle and Its Furniture<\/p>\n<p>• The Tabernacle Proper<\/p>\n<p>• The Outer Court and Its Furnishings<\/p>\n<p>• The Construction and Consecration of the Tabernacle<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Introduction\">Introduction<\/p>\n<p>The tabernacle was the precursor of the temple during most of the period between the formation of Israel at Sinai and its final establishment in the Promised Land in the early period of the monarchy. A portable sanctuary in keeping with the demand for easy mobility, it was the symbol of God’s presence with his people and, therefore, of his availability, as well as a place where his will was communicated. At an early period it was anticipated that, when peace and security had been secured, a permanent national shrine would be established (Dt 12:10-11). This was not realized until the time of Solomon, when the temple was erected (2 Sm 7:10-13; 1 Kgs 5:1-5). Historical events, as well as the similarities in construction and underlying theology, illustrate the close connection between the tabernacle and temple.<\/p>\n\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"NamesfortheTabernacle\">Names for the Tabernacle<\/p>\n<p>Several words and descriptive phrases are used:<\/p>\n<p>1. “Sacred residence,” “sanctuary,“ or “holy place” (Ex 25:8; Lv 10:17-18) derive from the verb “to be holy.”<\/p>\n<li>2. “The tent” occurs 19 times and is also found in expressions such as “the tent of the testimony” (Nm 9:15), “the tent of the Lord” (1 Kgs 2:28-30), “the house of the tent” (1 Chr 9:23), and “the tent of meeting” (e.g., Ex 33:7). The last name appears approximately 130 times. The word involves the concept of meeting by appointment and designates the tabernacle as the place where God met with Moses and his people to make known his will.<\/li>\n<li>3. “Dwelling place” is the literal meaning of “tabernacle.” In Exodus 25:9 the word indicates the whole tabernacle (including the outer court), but in Exodus 26:1 it refers to the tabernacle proper (that included the Holy Place and the Holy of Holies). A variant of this is “the tabernacle of the testimony” (Ex 38:21; <span>nlt<\/span> “Tabernacle of the Covenant”), which, with other expressions like “the tent of the testimony,” stresses the presence of the two tablets of the law.<\/li>\n<li>4. “The house of the <span>Lord<\/span>” (Ex 23:19).<\/li>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Background\">Background<\/p>\n<p>The three-part construction of the tabernacle, composed of a general area and two restricted areas, was not unique. In other developed religions that included an organized priesthood there were three main levels of approach: one for all members of the community; one for the priests generally; and one for the chief religious leaders, which was an inner sanctuary, conceived as the dwelling place of the deity. Excavations of heathen sanctuaries in Palestine and Syria in the pre-Israelite period have revealed this type of divided sanctuary.<\/p>\n<p>There is also widespread evidence of the use of portable, often complex, prefabricated structures during the second millennium <span>BC<\/span>, usually as either staterooms for kings and other high dignitaries, or as sanctuaries. Rulers of settled communities used these structures when traveling to other areas within their kingdoms (e.g., Egypt and, to a lesser extent, Canaan). Also, nomadic or seminomadic peoples, such as the Midianites, used portable sanctuaries. In pre-Mosaic Egypt, craftsmen used techniques similar to those used in the construction of the tabernacle.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheTabernacleandItsFurniture\">The Tabernacle and Its Furniture<\/p>\n<p>The book of Exodus (Ex 25–40) describes the tabernacle and its furnishings in detail. The materials used included items ranging from precious to common materials. Three metals are mentioned in descending order of importance: gold, copper, and silver. Gold alone was employed in the principal sanctuary furnishings. The total amount of metals used was approximately one ton (.9 metric ton) of gold, three of copper, and four of silver (38:24-31). The relatively large amount of silver came from an offering (30:11-16), which augmented the silver and gold already given by the Egyptians (12:35).<\/p>\n<p>Significantly, in God’s building specifications, the starting point was the furniture of the inner sanctuary (the Holy Place and the Holy of Holies). In the actual construction, this furniture was made after the tabernacle itself, presumably so that it could be immediately and adequately housed (Ex 25:9–27:19; cf. 36:8–37:28).<\/p>\n<p>The first item listed was the ark, the only furniture in the Holy of Holies. It was a wooden box sheathed in gold, approximately three and three-quarters feet (1.1 meters) long, with a width and height of two and a quarter feet (.7 meter). The supreme symbol of the covenant relationship between God and Israel, it was often called “the ark of the covenant of the <span>Lord<\/span>” (Dt 10:8). Unlike contemporary arks in some neighboring countries, it contained no representation of the deity, only the Ten Commandments (Ex 25:16), a jar of manna (16:33), and Aaron’s rod (Nm 17:10)—all symbolic of various aspects of God’s provision (see Heb 9:4).<\/p>\n<p>The ark was transported by two poles that passed through rings attached to each lower corner (Ex 25:13-15). These poles, left in place, projected underneath the veil into the Holy Place, serving as a reminder of the presence of the unseen ark.<\/p>\n<p>Resting upon the ark was the mercy seat (<span>nlt<\/span> “atonement cover”), a rectangular slab of solid gold, to which were attached two cherubim. The inward-looking cherubim and the mercy seat formed a throne for the invisible God (Ex 25:22), who is frequently described as enthroned above or upon the cherubim (Pss 80:1; 99:1). The noun “mercy seat” comes from a verb meaning “to make atonement.” The mercy seat was sprinkled with blood at the climax of the annual Day of Atonement (Lv 16:14). The fact that the ark was placed <em>under<\/em> the mercy seat (Ex 25:21) signifies that the law was under God’s protection and explains the references to the ark as his footstool (e.g., Ps 132:7). Like the cherubim in the Garden of Eden (Gn 3:24), those in the Holy of Holies probably had a similar protective function. In the ancient world, symbolic winged creatures like the cherubim were frequently placed as guardians of thrones and important buildings.<\/p>\n<p>Like the ark, the portable table of the bread of the Presence (Ex 25:30) was made of acacia wood overlaid with gold. It was marginally smaller, with a length of three feet (.9 meter), a width of one and a half feet (.5 meter) and a height of two and a quarter feet (.7 meter). The various auxiliary vessels and implements are detailed (v 29); presumably the dishes would be used for carrying the bread. On each Sabbath day, 12 loaves, symbolizing God’s provision for the 12 tribes of Israel, were placed in two rows on the table (Lv 24:5-9). The table was located in the Holy Place, on the north side.<\/p>\n<p>On the south side was the seven-branched golden lampstand (Ex 25:31-39; 37:17-24; 40:24). It was the most impressive item of furniture in the Holy Place; like the cherubim and the mercy seat, it was made of pure gold. Six golden branches, three on either side, extended from a central shaft, and the whole lampstand was ornamented with almond flowers. From the biblical evidence, it is not clear whether the lampstand gave continuous illumination (Ex 27:20; Lv 24:2) or night light only (1 Sm 3:3 in most versions). Leviticus 24:4 strongly supports the former, and the reference in 1 Samuel probably reflects the laxity that had crept in during the period of the judges. In Scripture, the golden lampstand symbolizes the continuing witness of the covenant community (Zec 4:1-7; Rv 2:1). The precise attention to the smallest detail is well illustrated in the listing of the supplementary items, all made of pure gold, required for the servicing of the lamps. Without this precise attention, the light would soon grow dim, and the sanctuary itself be defiled by carbon deposits (Ex 25:38). Moreover, only the best-quality olive oil was used, thus ensuring the brightest possible light (27:20).<\/p>\n<p>The altar of incense (Ex 30:1-10) may have been deliberately played down to give greater prominence to the sacrificial altar in the outer court, which is frequently referred to as <em>“the<\/em> altar.” In order to distinguish the altar of incense from the bronze altar of sacrifice, the former was called “the golden altar” (40:5). The altar of incense was located in the Holy Place, immediately opposite the ark in the Holy of Holies but just outside the veil, between the table of the bread of the Presence and the lampstand. Made of acacia wood overlaid with gold, it was 18 inches (45.7 centimeters) square and 3 feet (.9 meter) high, with horns and a golden molding around the four sides. Like the ark, it was made readily portable by the provision of rings and carrying poles. The altar was used for the offering of incense every morning and evening and for anointing the horns for the yearly atonement (30:7-10). The incense from a special recipe was forbidden for secular use. Originally, incense indicated something that ascended from a sacrifice, a pleasing aroma to God. Incense acknowledged God in worship (Mal 1:11) and at an early date signified the prayers of the godly (Ps 141:2). It also concealed God from human eyes (Lv 16:13).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheTabernacleProper\">The Tabernacle Proper<\/p>\n<p>The tabernacle was fundamentally a tent structure supported on a rigid framework. As with most of the other items, a triplication of detail underlines the importance of the tabernacle proper. The specifications are given in Exodus 26, the construction in Exodus 36:8-38, and the final erection in Exodus 40:16-19. The overall dimensions were approximately 45 feet (13.7 meters) long, 15 feet (4.6 meters) wide, and 15 feet high.<\/p>\n<p>The basic framework was a series of upright supports, each 15 feet (4.6 meters) high and 2½ feet (.7 meters) wide, and each standing on two silver bases (Ex 26:15-25). Scholars used to think these supports or frames were solid planks of acacia wood, but most modern scholars accept that each comprised two upright sides connected by horizontal pieces like a ladder. Such sections would be considerably stronger, would keep their shape better, and would allow a view of the beautiful inner layer of curtains from within the sanctuary. On the south and north sides were 20 such frames, with 6 more at the western end. In addition, on the western side were two corner pieces to which all the walls were attached by clasps (vv 23-25). A series of bars, which passed through gold rings attached to each upright frame, provided further security and alignment (vv 26-29). There were five such bars on each of the three sides. The central one on both the south and the north sides extended the entire length; the other four probably extended halfway, so that each frame was effectively secured by three bars. All the wooden sections were sheathed in gold.<\/p>\n<p>Over this framework several layers of coverings formed the top, sides, and back of the tabernacle. The first layer of ten linen curtains was dyed blue, purple, and scarlet, and embroidered with cherubim (Ex 26:1-6; 36:8-13). Each measured 42 feet by 6 feet (12.8 meters by 1.8 meters). Pairs joined along their length formed five sets of curtains. The two large curtains were themselves attached with 50 golden clasps that passed through a similar number of loops in each. Probably the curtains were stretched over the structure like a tablecloth.<\/p>\n<p>Eleven curtains or tarpaulins of goat hair, each 45 feet by 6 feet (13.7 meters by 1.8 meters), formed the next layer. These were divided into two sets by joining together five and six curtains respectively, and were linked using a similar method as the under curtain, except that bronze clasps instead of gold were used. The extra length of the goat-hair tarpaulins provided an overlap to protect the under curtain, and the larger tarpaulin overlapped at both the front and the rear of the tabernacle (Ex 26:7-9, 12-13). Two further layers ensured complete weatherproofing, one of ram’s skins dyed red and one of goatskins.<\/p>\n<p>A veil made of the same material as the under curtaining divided the sanctuary and hung under the golden clasps that joined the two curtains, supported by four pillars of acacia wood plated with gold and resting in silver bases. The cherubim on both the veil and the curtains were symbolic guardians of the sanctuary. The positioning of the veil made the Holy of Holies a perfect cube of 15 feet (4.6 meters). The layers of overlapping material and the attention given to the joints emphasizes the darkness of the innermost shrine. God was surrounded by darkness, carefully isolated from any unauthorized sight (Ps 97:2). The Holy Place occupied an area 30 feet by 15 feet (9.1 meters by 4.6 meters), exactly twice the area of the Holy of Holies. A screen made from the same fabric as the main curtain stood between the Holy Place and the outer court and hung from golden hooks on five posts of acacia wood, overlaid with gold and resting on bronze sockets. There is no mention of embroidered seraphim on this section, which formed the tabernacle’s eastern wall.<\/p>\n<p>The tabernacle, while probably having a somewhat squat appearance suggestive of strength, could be easily dismantled, transported, and reassembled. By the standards of that age, it was a fit dwelling place for God, constructed by the best human skills and the highest quality materials.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheOuterCourtandItsFurnishings\">The Outer Court and Its Furnishings<\/p>\n<p>The court of the tabernacle was a rectangle 150 feet (45.7 meters) long on the north and south sides and 75 feet (22.9 meters) wide on the east and west (Ex 27:9-18; 38:9-19). The tabernacle itself was at the western end. Curtains of fine-twined linen 7½ feet (2.3 meters) high screened the entire tabernacle area. In the eastern section, there was a central entrance, 30 feet (9.1 meters) wide. An embroidered curtain of the same height screened this doorway, which was probably recessed to facilitate entrance on either side. Silver rods supported all the curtains. These rods passed through silver hooks attached to the silver-plated posts that rested on bronze bases (38:17).<\/p>\n<p>The altar of burnt offering (Ex 27:1-8; 38:1-7), at the eastern end of the court adjacent to the entrance (40:29), was a reminder that there could be no approach to God except by the place of sacrifice. Seven feet (2.1 meters) square and four and a half feet (1.4 meters) high, it was small in comparison to the gigantic altar in Solomon’s temple (2 Chr 4:1). Basically, it was a hollow wooden framework overlaid with bronze, light enough to be carried on bronze-plated poles that passed through bronze rings at each corner. The grating (Ex 27:4-5) was probably inside the altar at the middle, although some scholars believe that it extended around the lower, outer sides of the altar, to provide draft and to allow the sacrificial blood to flow to the base of the altar. The horns, possibly symbolizing the sacrificial victims, could be used to tether the animals about to be sacrificed. In Israel, a person could claim sanctuary by clinging to the horns of the altar (e.g., 1 Kgs 1:50), with the possible symbolism that he was offering himself as a sacrifice to God and so claiming his protection. The lower part of the altar may have been partly filled with earth to absorb the blood (Ex 20:24). All the accessories were bronze: ash buckets, shovels for removing the ashes and filling the base with earth, basins for the blood, carcass hooks, and fire pans (27:3).<\/p>\n<p>No specifications concerning the size of the laver (<span>nlt<\/span> “washbasin”) have survived (Ex 30:17-20; 38:8). It was made from the mirrors of the women who served at the entrance to the court. The laver stood between the altar of sacrifice and the tabernacle. Failure to wash at the laver prior to ministering was punishable by death—a solemn reminder of the need for cleanliness and obedience before undertaking any task for God. The bronze pedestal may have been merely a support for the laver, but possibly it incorporated a lower basin in which the priests could wash their feet.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheConstructionandConsecrationoftheTabernacle\">The Construction and Consecration of the Tabernacle<\/p>\n<p>The God-given specifications required skills beyond the capabilities of Moses and Aaron. Prominent in the construction were Bezalel and Oholiab (Ex 30:1-11), with a large supporting group of experts, who must have learned their craftsmanship in Egypt. In a remarkable community effort, the Israelites gave so generously that the flow of gifts had to be stopped (35:20-24; 36:4-7). In addition, many gave of their special skills (35:25-29).<\/p>\n<p>When all the items had been completed and placed in position (Ex 40:1-33), every piece except the mercy seat and the cherubim was anointed with special oil (30:22-33; 40:9-11) and symbolically consecrated for its particular function. The climax came when the glory of the Lord filled the tabernacle (40:34). He came to be present among his people, and thereafter the cloud by day and fire by night provided reassurance concerning his presence and guidance. Yet there could be no laxity in approaching him, and even Moses was excluded from the Holy of Holies. The tabernacle was erected exactly one year after the deliverance from Egypt and a mere nine months after the Sinai revelation.<\/p>\n<p>Thereafter, when Israel camped, the Levites surrounded the tabernacle on three sides (Nm 1:53), with the families of Moses and Aaron occupying the remaining eastern side (Nm 3:14-38). This prevented any unauthorized intrusion into the sacred area. When the tabernacle was moved, the dismantlement was carefully regulated (4:5-15). The Kohathites were responsible for transporting the more sacred items, using the carrying poles; the Gershonites dealt with all the soft furnishings, the altar of sacrifice, and its accessories; and the Merarites carried the hard furnishings, such as the frames, bars, and bases. Even on the march, the tabernacle remained central, with six tribes preceding and the remaining six following (Nm 2).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Temple.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>TABERNACLE<\/h3>\n<p>Place of worship during the earliest years of the history of Israel.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Introduction<\/p>\n<p>• Names for the Tabernacle<\/p>\n<p>• Background<\/p>\n<p>• The Tabernacle and Its Furniture<\/p>\n<p>• The Tabernacle Proper<\/p>\n<p>• The Outer Court and Its Furnishings<\/p>\n<p>• The Construction and Consecration of the Tabernacle<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Introduction\">Introduction<\/p>\n<p>The tabernacle was the precursor of the temple during most of the period between the formation of Israel at Sinai and its final establishment in the Promised Land in the early period of the monarchy. A portable sanctuary in keeping with the demand for easy mobility, it was the symbol of God’s presence with his people and, therefore, of his availability, as well as a place where his will was communicated. At an early period it was anticipated that, when peace and security had been secured, a permanent national shrine would be established (Dt 12:10-11). This was not realized until the time of Solomon, when the temple was erected (2 Sm 7:10-13; 1 Kgs 5:1-5). Historical events, as well as the similarities in construction and underlying theology, illustrate the close connection between the tabernacle and temple.<\/p>\n\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"NamesfortheTabernacle\">Names for the Tabernacle<\/p>\n<p>Several words and descriptive phrases are used:<\/p>\n<p>1. “Sacred residence,” “sanctuary,“ or “holy place” (Ex 25:8; Lv 10:17-18) derive from the verb “to be holy.”<\/p>\n<li>2. “The tent” occurs 19 times and is also found in expressions such as “the tent of the testimony” (Nm 9:15), “the tent of the Lord” (1 Kgs 2:28-30), “the house of the tent” (1 Chr 9:23), and “the tent of meeting” (e.g., Ex 33:7). The last name appears approximately 130 times. The word involves the concept of meeting by appointment and designates the tabernacle as the place where God met with Moses and his people to make known his will.<\/li>\n<li>3. “Dwelling place” is the literal meaning of “tabernacle.” In Exodus 25:9 the word indicates the whole tabernacle (including the outer court), but in Exodus 26:1 it refers to the tabernacle proper (that included the Holy Place and the Holy of Holies). A variant of this is “the tabernacle of the testimony” (Ex 38:21; <span>nlt<\/span> “Tabernacle of the Covenant”), which, with other expressions like “the tent of the testimony,” stresses the presence of the two tablets of the law.<\/li>\n<li>4. “The house of the <span>Lord<\/span>” (Ex 23:19).<\/li>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Background\">Background<\/p>\n<p>The three-part construction of the tabernacle, composed of a general area and two restricted areas, was not unique. In other developed religions that included an organized priesthood there were three main levels of approach: one for all members of the community; one for the priests generally; and one for the chief religious leaders, which was an inner sanctuary, conceived as the dwelling place of the deity. Excavations of heathen sanctuaries in Palestine and Syria in the pre-Israelite period have revealed this type of divided sanctuary.<\/p>\n<p>There is also widespread evidence of the use of portable, often complex, prefabricated structures during the second millennium <span>BC<\/span>, usually as either staterooms for kings and other high dignitaries, or as sanctuaries. Rulers of settled communities used these structures when traveling to other areas within their kingdoms (e.g., Egypt and, to a lesser extent, Canaan). Also, nomadic or seminomadic peoples, such as the Midianites, used portable sanctuaries. In pre-Mosaic Egypt, craftsmen used techniques similar to those used in the construction of the tabernacle.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheTabernacleandItsFurniture\">The Tabernacle and Its Furniture<\/p>\n<p>The book of Exodus (Ex 25–40) describes the tabernacle and its furnishings in detail. The materials used included items ranging from precious to common materials. Three metals are mentioned in descending order of importance: gold, copper, and silver. Gold alone was employed in the principal sanctuary furnishings. The total amount of metals used was approximately one ton (.9 metric ton) of gold, three of copper, and four of silver (38:24-31). The relatively large amount of silver came from an offering (30:11-16), which augmented the silver and gold already given by the Egyptians (12:35).<\/p>\n<p>Significantly, in God’s building specifications, the starting point was the furniture of the inner sanctuary (the Holy Place and the Holy of Holies). In the actual construction, this furniture was made after the tabernacle itself, presumably so that it could be immediately and adequately housed (Ex 25:9–27:19; cf. 36:8–37:28).<\/p>\n<p>The first item listed was the ark, the only furniture in the Holy of Holies. It was a wooden box sheathed in gold, approximately three and three-quarters feet (1.1 meters) long, with a width and height of two and a quarter feet (.7 meter). The supreme symbol of the covenant relationship between God and Israel, it was often called “the ark of the covenant of the <span>Lord<\/span>” (Dt 10:8). Unlike contemporary arks in some neighboring countries, it contained no representation of the deity, only the Ten Commandments (Ex 25:16), a jar of manna (16:33), and Aaron’s rod (Nm 17:10)—all symbolic of various aspects of God’s provision (see Heb 9:4).<\/p>\n<p>The ark was transported by two poles that passed through rings attached to each lower corner (Ex 25:13-15). These poles, left in place, projected underneath the veil into the Holy Place, serving as a reminder of the presence of the unseen ark.<\/p>\n<p>Resting upon the ark was the mercy seat (<span>nlt<\/span> “atonement cover”), a rectangular slab of solid gold, to which were attached two cherubim. The inward-looking cherubim and the mercy seat formed a throne for the invisible God (Ex 25:22), who is frequently described as enthroned above or upon the cherubim (Pss 80:1; 99:1). The noun “mercy seat” comes from a verb meaning “to make atonement.” The mercy seat was sprinkled with blood at the climax of the annual Day of Atonement (Lv 16:14). The fact that the ark was placed <em>under<\/em> the mercy seat (Ex 25:21) signifies that the law was under God’s protection and explains the references to the ark as his footstool (e.g., Ps 132:7). Like the cherubim in the Garden of Eden (Gn 3:24), those in the Holy of Holies probably had a similar protective function. In the ancient world, symbolic winged creatures like the cherubim were frequently placed as guardians of thrones and important buildings.<\/p>\n<p>Like the ark, the portable table of the bread of the Presence (Ex 25:30) was made of acacia wood overlaid with gold. It was marginally smaller, with a length of three feet (.9 meter), a width of one and a half feet (.5 meter) and a height of two and a quarter feet (.7 meter). The various auxiliary vessels and implements are detailed (v 29); presumably the dishes would be used for carrying the bread. On each Sabbath day, 12 loaves, symbolizing God’s provision for the 12 tribes of Israel, were placed in two rows on the table (Lv 24:5-9). The table was located in the Holy Place, on the north side.<\/p>\n<p>On the south side was the seven-branched golden lampstand (Ex 25:31-39; 37:17-24; 40:24). It was the most impressive item of furniture in the Holy Place; like the cherubim and the mercy seat, it was made of pure gold. Six golden branches, three on either side, extended from a central shaft, and the whole lampstand was ornamented with almond flowers. From the biblical evidence, it is not clear whether the lampstand gave continuous illumination (Ex 27:20; Lv 24:2) or night light only (1 Sm 3:3 in most versions). Leviticus 24:4 strongly supports the former, and the reference in 1 Samuel probably reflects the laxity that had crept in during the period of the judges. In Scripture, the golden lampstand symbolizes the continuing witness of the covenant community (Zec 4:1-7; Rv 2:1). The precise attention to the smallest detail is well illustrated in the listing of the supplementary items, all made of pure gold, required for the servicing of the lamps. Without this precise attention, the light would soon grow dim, and the sanctuary itself be defiled by carbon deposits (Ex 25:38). Moreover, only the best-quality olive oil was used, thus ensuring the brightest possible light (27:20).<\/p>\n<p>The altar of incense (Ex 30:1-10) may have been deliberately played down to give greater prominence to the sacrificial altar in the outer court, which is frequently referred to as <em>“the<\/em> altar.” In order to distinguish the altar of incense from the bronze altar of sacrifice, the former was called “the golden altar” (40:5). The altar of incense was located in the Holy Place, immediately opposite the ark in the Holy of Holies but just outside the veil, between the table of the bread of the Presence and the lampstand. Made of acacia wood overlaid with gold, it was 18 inches (45.7 centimeters) square and 3 feet (.9 meter) high, with horns and a golden molding around the four sides. Like the ark, it was made readily portable by the provision of rings and carrying poles. The altar was used for the offering of incense every morning and evening and for anointing the horns for the yearly atonement (30:7-10). The incense from a special recipe was forbidden for secular use. Originally, incense indicated something that ascended from a sacrifice, a pleasing aroma to God. Incense acknowledged God in worship (Mal 1:11) and at an early date signified the prayers of the godly (Ps 141:2). It also concealed God from human eyes (Lv 16:13).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheTabernacleProper\">The Tabernacle Proper<\/p>\n<p>The tabernacle was fundamentally a tent structure supported on a rigid framework. As with most of the other items, a triplication of detail underlines the importance of the tabernacle proper. The specifications are given in Exodus 26, the construction in Exodus 36:8-38, and the final erection in Exodus 40:16-19. The overall dimensions were approximately 45 feet (13.7 meters) long, 15 feet (4.6 meters) wide, and 15 feet high.<\/p>\n<p>The basic framework was a series of upright supports, each 15 feet (4.6 meters) high and 2½ feet (.7 meters) wide, and each standing on two silver bases (Ex 26:15-25). Scholars used to think these supports or frames were solid planks of acacia wood, but most modern scholars accept that each comprised two upright sides connected by horizontal pieces like a ladder. Such sections would be considerably stronger, would keep their shape better, and would allow a view of the beautiful inner layer of curtains from within the sanctuary. On the south and north sides were 20 such frames, with 6 more at the western end. In addition, on the western side were two corner pieces to which all the walls were attached by clasps (vv 23-25). A series of bars, which passed through gold rings attached to each upright frame, provided further security and alignment (vv 26-29). There were five such bars on each of the three sides. The central one on both the south and the north sides extended the entire length; the other four probably extended halfway, so that each frame was effectively secured by three bars. All the wooden sections were sheathed in gold.<\/p>\n<p>Over this framework several layers of coverings formed the top, sides, and back of the tabernacle. The first layer of ten linen curtains was dyed blue, purple, and scarlet, and embroidered with cherubim (Ex 26:1-6; 36:8-13). Each measured 42 feet by 6 feet (12.8 meters by 1.8 meters). Pairs joined along their length formed five sets of curtains. The two large curtains were themselves attached with 50 golden clasps that passed through a similar number of loops in each. Probably the curtains were stretched over the structure like a tablecloth.<\/p>\n<p>Eleven curtains or tarpaulins of goat hair, each 45 feet by 6 feet (13.7 meters by 1.8 meters), formed the next layer. These were divided into two sets by joining together five and six curtains respectively, and were linked using a similar method as the under curtain, except that bronze clasps instead of gold were used. The extra length of the goat-hair tarpaulins provided an overlap to protect the under curtain, and the larger tarpaulin overlapped at both the front and the rear of the tabernacle (Ex 26:7-9, 12-13). Two further layers ensured complete weatherproofing, one of ram’s skins dyed red and one of goatskins.<\/p>\n<p>A veil made of the same material as the under curtaining divided the sanctuary and hung under the golden clasps that joined the two curtains, supported by four pillars of acacia wood plated with gold and resting in silver bases. The cherubim on both the veil and the curtains were symbolic guardians of the sanctuary. The positioning of the veil made the Holy of Holies a perfect cube of 15 feet (4.6 meters). The layers of overlapping material and the attention given to the joints emphasizes the darkness of the innermost shrine. God was surrounded by darkness, carefully isolated from any unauthorized sight (Ps 97:2). The Holy Place occupied an area 30 feet by 15 feet (9.1 meters by 4.6 meters), exactly twice the area of the Holy of Holies. A screen made from the same fabric as the main curtain stood between the Holy Place and the outer court and hung from golden hooks on five posts of acacia wood, overlaid with gold and resting on bronze sockets. There is no mention of embroidered seraphim on this section, which formed the tabernacle’s eastern wall.<\/p>\n<p>The tabernacle, while probably having a somewhat squat appearance suggestive of strength, could be easily dismantled, transported, and reassembled. By the standards of that age, it was a fit dwelling place for God, constructed by the best human skills and the highest quality materials.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheOuterCourtandItsFurnishings\">The Outer Court and Its Furnishings<\/p>\n<p>The court of the tabernacle was a rectangle 150 feet (45.7 meters) long on the north and south sides and 75 feet (22.9 meters) wide on the east and west (Ex 27:9-18; 38:9-19). The tabernacle itself was at the western end. Curtains of fine-twined linen 7½ feet (2.3 meters) high screened the entire tabernacle area. In the eastern section, there was a central entrance, 30 feet (9.1 meters) wide. An embroidered curtain of the same height screened this doorway, which was probably recessed to facilitate entrance on either side. Silver rods supported all the curtains. These rods passed through silver hooks attached to the silver-plated posts that rested on bronze bases (38:17).<\/p>\n<p>The altar of burnt offering (Ex 27:1-8; 38:1-7), at the eastern end of the court adjacent to the entrance (40:29), was a reminder that there could be no approach to God except by the place of sacrifice. Seven feet (2.1 meters) square and four and a half feet (1.4 meters) high, it was small in comparison to the gigantic altar in Solomon’s temple (2 Chr 4:1). Basically, it was a hollow wooden framework overlaid with bronze, light enough to be carried on bronze-plated poles that passed through bronze rings at each corner. The grating (Ex 27:4-5) was probably inside the altar at the middle, although some scholars believe that it extended around the lower, outer sides of the altar, to provide draft and to allow the sacrificial blood to flow to the base of the altar. The horns, possibly symbolizing the sacrificial victims, could be used to tether the animals about to be sacrificed. In Israel, a person could claim sanctuary by clinging to the horns of the altar (e.g., 1 Kgs 1:50), with the possible symbolism that he was offering himself as a sacrifice to God and so claiming his protection. The lower part of the altar may have been partly filled with earth to absorb the blood (Ex 20:24). All the accessories were bronze: ash buckets, shovels for removing the ashes and filling the base with earth, basins for the blood, carcass hooks, and fire pans (27:3).<\/p>\n<p>No specifications concerning the size of the laver (<span>nlt<\/span> “washbasin”) have survived (Ex 30:17-20; 38:8). It was made from the mirrors of the women who served at the entrance to the court. The laver stood between the altar of sacrifice and the tabernacle. Failure to wash at the laver prior to ministering was punishable by death—a solemn reminder of the need for cleanliness and obedience before undertaking any task for God. The bronze pedestal may have been merely a support for the laver, but possibly it incorporated a lower basin in which the priests could wash their feet.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheConstructionandConsecrationoftheTabernacle\">The Construction and Consecration of the Tabernacle<\/p>\n<p>The God-given specifications required skills beyond the capabilities of Moses and Aaron. Prominent in the construction were Bezalel and Oholiab (Ex 30:1-11), with a large supporting group of experts, who must have learned their craftsmanship in Egypt. In a remarkable community effort, the Israelites gave so generously that the flow of gifts had to be stopped (35:20-24; 36:4-7). In addition, many gave of their special skills (35:25-29).<\/p>\n<p>When all the items had been completed and placed in position (Ex 40:1-33), every piece except the mercy seat and the cherubim was anointed with special oil (30:22-33; 40:9-11) and symbolically consecrated for its particular function. The climax came when the glory of the Lord filled the tabernacle (40:34). He came to be present among his people, and thereafter the cloud by day and fire by night provided reassurance concerning his presence and guidance. Yet there could be no laxity in approaching him, and even Moses was excluded from the Holy of Holies. The tabernacle was erected exactly one year after the deliverance from Egypt and a mere nine months after the Sinai revelation.<\/p>\n<p>Thereafter, when Israel camped, the Levites surrounded the tabernacle on three sides (Nm 1:53), with the families of Moses and Aaron occupying the remaining eastern side (Nm 3:14-38). This prevented any unauthorized intrusion into the sacred area. When the tabernacle was moved, the dismantlement was carefully regulated (4:5-15). The Kohathites were responsible for transporting the more sacred items, using the carrying poles; the Gershonites dealt with all the soft furnishings, the altar of sacrifice, and its accessories; and the Merarites carried the hard furnishings, such as the frames, bars, and bases. Even on the march, the tabernacle remained central, with six tribes preceding and the remaining six following (Nm 2).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Temple.<\/p>","summary_ro":"TABERNACLE Place of worship during the earliest years of the history of Israel. Preview • Introduction • Names for the Tabernacle • Background • The Tabernacle and Its Furniture • The Tabernacle Proper • The Outer Court and Its Furnishings • The Construction and Consecration of the Tabernacle Introduction The tabernacle was the precursor of the temple during most of the period between the formation of Israel at Sinai and its final establishment in the Promised Land in the early period of the ...","summary_en":"TABERNACLE Place of worship during the earliest years of the history of Israel. Preview • Introduction • Names for the Tabernacle • Background • The Tabernacle and Its Furniture • The Tabernacle Proper • The Outer Court and Its Furnishings • The Construction and Consecration of the Tabernacle Introduction The tabernacle was the precursor of the temple during most of the period between the formation of Israel at Sinai and its final establishment in the Promised Land in the early period of the ...","source":"Articles\/T.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":44040,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Exodul 38:1","title_en":"Study Note: Exodul 38:1","content_ro":"<p><strong>38:1-20<\/strong> This section reports on building the courtyard (38:9-20) and its equipment, including the altar of burnt offering (38:1-7) and the washbasin (38:8).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>38:1-20<\/strong> This section reports on building the courtyard (38:9-20) and its equipment, including the altar of burnt offering (38:1-7) and the washbasin (38:8).<\/p>","summary_ro":"38:1-20 This section reports on building the courtyard (38:9-20) and its equipment, including the altar of burnt offering (38:1-7) and the washbasin (38:8).","summary_en":"38:1-20 This section reports on building the courtyard (38:9-20) and its equipment, including the altar of burnt offering (38:1-7) and the washbasin (38:8).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":71666,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Exodul 38:1","title_en":"Study Note: Exodul 38:1","content_ro":"<p><strong>38:1-20<\/strong> This section reports on building the courtyard (38:9-20) and its equipment, including the altar of burnt offering (38:1-7) and the washbasin (38:8).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>38:1-20<\/strong> This section reports on building the courtyard (38:9-20) and its equipment, including the altar of burnt offering (38:1-7) and the washbasin (38:8).<\/p>","summary_ro":"38:1-20 This section reports on building the courtyard (38:9-20) and its equipment, including the altar of burnt offering (38:1-7) and the washbasin (38:8).","summary_en":"38:1-20 This section reports on building the courtyard (38:9-20) and its equipment, including the altar of burnt offering (38:1-7) and the washbasin (38:8).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":99292,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Exodul 38:1","title_en":"Study Note: Exodul 38:1","content_ro":"<p><strong>38:1-20<\/strong> This section reports on building the courtyard (38:9-20) and its equipment, including the altar of burnt offering (38:1-7) and the washbasin (38:8).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>38:1-20<\/strong> This section reports on building the courtyard (38:9-20) and its equipment, including the altar of burnt offering (38:1-7) and the washbasin (38:8).<\/p>","summary_ro":"38:1-20 This section reports on building the courtyard (38:9-20) and its equipment, including the altar of burnt offering (38:1-7) and the washbasin (38:8).","summary_en":"38:1-20 This section reports on building the courtyard (38:9-20) and its equipment, including the altar of burnt offering (38:1-7) and the washbasin (38:8).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":126918,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Exodul 38:1","title_en":"Study Note: Exodul 38:1","content_ro":"<p><strong>38:1-20<\/strong> This section reports on building the courtyard (38:9-20) and its equipment, including the altar of burnt offering (38:1-7) and the washbasin (38:8).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>38:1-20<\/strong> This section reports on building the courtyard (38:9-20) and its equipment, including the altar of burnt offering (38:1-7) and the washbasin (38:8).<\/p>","summary_ro":"38:1-20 This section reports on building the courtyard (38:9-20) and its equipment, including the altar of burnt offering (38:1-7) and the washbasin (38:8).","summary_en":"38:1-20 This section reports on building the courtyard (38:9-20) and its equipment, including the altar of burnt offering (38:1-7) and the washbasin (38:8).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"8":[{"id":22651,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Laver*","title_en":"Laver*","content_ro":"<h3>LAVER*<\/h3>\n<p>Basin filled with water that the priests used to wash their hands and feet before entering the Holy Place and before returning to serve at the altar (Ex 30:17-21). In Solomon’s temple a large laver called the “molten sea” was placed between the altar of burnt offerings in the courtyard and the entrance to the inner temple. This consisted of the large basin and the pedestal on which it sat (Ex 30:18); it was made of bronze or brass, melted and shaped from mirrors of highly polished metal given by Israelite women (38:8).<\/p>\n<p>In Solomon’s temple, in addition to the molten sea (1 Kgs 7:23), there were ten smaller lavers, five on the north and five on the south sides of the sanctuary (1 Kgs 7:38-39). Each held 40 baths (320–440 gallons, or 1,211.2–1,665.4 liters), one-fiftieth the capacity of the large laver. The lavishly decorated molten sea was used for the ablutions of the priests, while the ten lavers were no doubt used for the sacrifices (2 Chr 4:6). Later King Ahaz, possibly for religious or financial reasons, severed the lavers from their bases and the sea from its base, placing it on a stone pediment (2 Kgs 16:17). The prophet Jeremiah, during King Jehoiakim’s reign, predicted that the molten sea and the bases would be carried into Babylon (Jer 27:19-22), which in fact happened, according to Jeremiah 52:17. No mention is made of the ten small lavers, which were perhaps already melted down and sold.<\/p>\n<p>In Ezekiel’s description of the temple to come (Ez 40–42), there is no mention of a laver or molten sea. The apostle John, however, in Revelation 4:6 and 15:2 mentions a “sea of glass,” perhaps reminiscent of Solomon’s molten sea.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Bronze Sea.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>LAVER*<\/h3>\n<p>Basin filled with water that the priests used to wash their hands and feet before entering the Holy Place and before returning to serve at the altar (Ex 30:17-21). In Solomon’s temple a large laver called the “molten sea” was placed between the altar of burnt offerings in the courtyard and the entrance to the inner temple. This consisted of the large basin and the pedestal on which it sat (Ex 30:18); it was made of bronze or brass, melted and shaped from mirrors of highly polished metal given by Israelite women (38:8).<\/p>\n<p>In Solomon’s temple, in addition to the molten sea (1 Kgs 7:23), there were ten smaller lavers, five on the north and five on the south sides of the sanctuary (1 Kgs 7:38-39). Each held 40 baths (320–440 gallons, or 1,211.2–1,665.4 liters), one-fiftieth the capacity of the large laver. The lavishly decorated molten sea was used for the ablutions of the priests, while the ten lavers were no doubt used for the sacrifices (2 Chr 4:6). Later King Ahaz, possibly for religious or financial reasons, severed the lavers from their bases and the sea from its base, placing it on a stone pediment (2 Kgs 16:17). The prophet Jeremiah, during King Jehoiakim’s reign, predicted that the molten sea and the bases would be carried into Babylon (Jer 27:19-22), which in fact happened, according to Jeremiah 52:17. No mention is made of the ten small lavers, which were perhaps already melted down and sold.<\/p>\n<p>In Ezekiel’s description of the temple to come (Ez 40–42), there is no mention of a laver or molten sea. The apostle John, however, in Revelation 4:6 and 15:2 mentions a “sea of glass,” perhaps reminiscent of Solomon’s molten sea.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Bronze Sea.<\/p>","summary_ro":"LAVER* Basin filled with water that the priests used to wash their hands and feet before entering the Holy Place and before returning to serve at the altar (Ex 30:17-21). In Solomon’s temple a large laver called the “molten sea” was placed between the altar of burnt offerings in the courtyard and the entrance to the inner temple. This consisted of the large basin and the pedestal on which it sat (Ex 30:18); it was made of bronze or brass, melted and shaped from mirrors of highly polished meta...","summary_en":"LAVER* Basin filled with water that the priests used to wash their hands and feet before entering the Holy Place and before returning to serve at the altar (Ex 30:17-21). In Solomon’s temple a large laver called the “molten sea” was placed between the altar of burnt offerings in the courtyard and the entrance to the inner temple. This consisted of the large basin and the pedestal on which it sat (Ex 30:18); it was made of bronze or brass, melted and shaped from mirrors of highly polished meta...","source":"Articles\/L.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":26055,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Mirror","title_en":"Mirror","content_ro":"<h3>MIRROR<\/h3>\n<p>Smooth surface for reflecting images. The word does not occur in the <span>kjv<\/span>, but the idea is there, translated from the Hebrew or Greek as “glass,” “glasses” or “looking glass.” Modern translations use the word “mirror.”<\/p>\n<p>In the biblical era, mirrors were made of copper, bronze, silver, gold, or electrum. They were highly polished so as to reflect the face as clearly as possible. Glass was in existence but was usually opaque (except Roman glass) and was not used for mirrors until after the biblical period.<\/p>\n<p>The Bible first mentions mirrors in the time of Moses in relationship to the building of the tabernacle in the wilderness of Sinai just after the exodus from Egypt (Ex 38:8). When Alexander the Great spread Greek culture, the use of mirrors became even more widespread in the biblical world. Until that time, they were the possession of either court ladies or prostitutes.<\/p>\n\n<p>Archaeological excavations have unearthed bronze mirrors in Palestine along with various items of women’s jewelry and clothes. Most of these date from the postexilic era up through Roman times. The mirrors are usually circular in shape with handles of wood or ivory, if they have handles at all.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>MIRROR<\/h3>\n<p>Smooth surface for reflecting images. The word does not occur in the <span>kjv<\/span>, but the idea is there, translated from the Hebrew or Greek as “glass,” “glasses” or “looking glass.” Modern translations use the word “mirror.”<\/p>\n<p>In the biblical era, mirrors were made of copper, bronze, silver, gold, or electrum. They were highly polished so as to reflect the face as clearly as possible. Glass was in existence but was usually opaque (except Roman glass) and was not used for mirrors until after the biblical period.<\/p>\n<p>The Bible first mentions mirrors in the time of Moses in relationship to the building of the tabernacle in the wilderness of Sinai just after the exodus from Egypt (Ex 38:8). When Alexander the Great spread Greek culture, the use of mirrors became even more widespread in the biblical world. Until that time, they were the possession of either court ladies or prostitutes.<\/p>\n\n<p>Archaeological excavations have unearthed bronze mirrors in Palestine along with various items of women’s jewelry and clothes. Most of these date from the postexilic era up through Roman times. The mirrors are usually circular in shape with handles of wood or ivory, if they have handles at all.<\/p>","summary_ro":"MIRROR Smooth surface for reflecting images. The word does not occur in the kjv, but the idea is there, translated from the Hebrew or Greek as “glass,” “glasses” or “looking glass.” Modern translations use the word “mirror.” In the biblical era, mirrors were made of copper, bronze, silver, gold, or electrum. They were highly polished so as to reflect the face as clearly as possible. Glass was in existence but was usually opaque (except Roman glass) and was not used for mirrors until after the...","summary_en":"MIRROR Smooth surface for reflecting images. The word does not occur in the kjv, but the idea is there, translated from the Hebrew or Greek as “glass,” “glasses” or “looking glass.” Modern translations use the word “mirror.” In the biblical era, mirrors were made of copper, bronze, silver, gold, or electrum. They were highly polished so as to reflect the face as clearly as possible. Glass was in existence but was usually opaque (except Roman glass) and was not used for mirrors until after the...","source":"Articles\/M.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":36655,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Tabernacle","title_en":"Tabernacle","content_ro":"<h3>TABERNACLE<\/h3>\n<p>Place of worship during the earliest years of the history of Israel.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Introduction<\/p>\n<p>• Names for the Tabernacle<\/p>\n<p>• Background<\/p>\n<p>• The Tabernacle and Its Furniture<\/p>\n<p>• The Tabernacle Proper<\/p>\n<p>• The Outer Court and Its Furnishings<\/p>\n<p>• The Construction and Consecration of the Tabernacle<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Introduction\">Introduction<\/p>\n<p>The tabernacle was the precursor of the temple during most of the period between the formation of Israel at Sinai and its final establishment in the Promised Land in the early period of the monarchy. A portable sanctuary in keeping with the demand for easy mobility, it was the symbol of God’s presence with his people and, therefore, of his availability, as well as a place where his will was communicated. At an early period it was anticipated that, when peace and security had been secured, a permanent national shrine would be established (Dt 12:10-11). This was not realized until the time of Solomon, when the temple was erected (2 Sm 7:10-13; 1 Kgs 5:1-5). Historical events, as well as the similarities in construction and underlying theology, illustrate the close connection between the tabernacle and temple.<\/p>\n\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"NamesfortheTabernacle\">Names for the Tabernacle<\/p>\n<p>Several words and descriptive phrases are used:<\/p>\n<p>1. “Sacred residence,” “sanctuary,“ or “holy place” (Ex 25:8; Lv 10:17-18) derive from the verb “to be holy.”<\/p>\n<li>2. “The tent” occurs 19 times and is also found in expressions such as “the tent of the testimony” (Nm 9:15), “the tent of the Lord” (1 Kgs 2:28-30), “the house of the tent” (1 Chr 9:23), and “the tent of meeting” (e.g., Ex 33:7). The last name appears approximately 130 times. The word involves the concept of meeting by appointment and designates the tabernacle as the place where God met with Moses and his people to make known his will.<\/li>\n<li>3. “Dwelling place” is the literal meaning of “tabernacle.” In Exodus 25:9 the word indicates the whole tabernacle (including the outer court), but in Exodus 26:1 it refers to the tabernacle proper (that included the Holy Place and the Holy of Holies). A variant of this is “the tabernacle of the testimony” (Ex 38:21; <span>nlt<\/span> “Tabernacle of the Covenant”), which, with other expressions like “the tent of the testimony,” stresses the presence of the two tablets of the law.<\/li>\n<li>4. “The house of the <span>Lord<\/span>” (Ex 23:19).<\/li>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Background\">Background<\/p>\n<p>The three-part construction of the tabernacle, composed of a general area and two restricted areas, was not unique. In other developed religions that included an organized priesthood there were three main levels of approach: one for all members of the community; one for the priests generally; and one for the chief religious leaders, which was an inner sanctuary, conceived as the dwelling place of the deity. Excavations of heathen sanctuaries in Palestine and Syria in the pre-Israelite period have revealed this type of divided sanctuary.<\/p>\n<p>There is also widespread evidence of the use of portable, often complex, prefabricated structures during the second millennium <span>BC<\/span>, usually as either staterooms for kings and other high dignitaries, or as sanctuaries. Rulers of settled communities used these structures when traveling to other areas within their kingdoms (e.g., Egypt and, to a lesser extent, Canaan). Also, nomadic or seminomadic peoples, such as the Midianites, used portable sanctuaries. In pre-Mosaic Egypt, craftsmen used techniques similar to those used in the construction of the tabernacle.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheTabernacleandItsFurniture\">The Tabernacle and Its Furniture<\/p>\n<p>The book of Exodus (Ex 25–40) describes the tabernacle and its furnishings in detail. The materials used included items ranging from precious to common materials. Three metals are mentioned in descending order of importance: gold, copper, and silver. Gold alone was employed in the principal sanctuary furnishings. The total amount of metals used was approximately one ton (.9 metric ton) of gold, three of copper, and four of silver (38:24-31). The relatively large amount of silver came from an offering (30:11-16), which augmented the silver and gold already given by the Egyptians (12:35).<\/p>\n<p>Significantly, in God’s building specifications, the starting point was the furniture of the inner sanctuary (the Holy Place and the Holy of Holies). In the actual construction, this furniture was made after the tabernacle itself, presumably so that it could be immediately and adequately housed (Ex 25:9–27:19; cf. 36:8–37:28).<\/p>\n<p>The first item listed was the ark, the only furniture in the Holy of Holies. It was a wooden box sheathed in gold, approximately three and three-quarters feet (1.1 meters) long, with a width and height of two and a quarter feet (.7 meter). The supreme symbol of the covenant relationship between God and Israel, it was often called “the ark of the covenant of the <span>Lord<\/span>” (Dt 10:8). Unlike contemporary arks in some neighboring countries, it contained no representation of the deity, only the Ten Commandments (Ex 25:16), a jar of manna (16:33), and Aaron’s rod (Nm 17:10)—all symbolic of various aspects of God’s provision (see Heb 9:4).<\/p>\n<p>The ark was transported by two poles that passed through rings attached to each lower corner (Ex 25:13-15). These poles, left in place, projected underneath the veil into the Holy Place, serving as a reminder of the presence of the unseen ark.<\/p>\n<p>Resting upon the ark was the mercy seat (<span>nlt<\/span> “atonement cover”), a rectangular slab of solid gold, to which were attached two cherubim. The inward-looking cherubim and the mercy seat formed a throne for the invisible God (Ex 25:22), who is frequently described as enthroned above or upon the cherubim (Pss 80:1; 99:1). The noun “mercy seat” comes from a verb meaning “to make atonement.” The mercy seat was sprinkled with blood at the climax of the annual Day of Atonement (Lv 16:14). The fact that the ark was placed <em>under<\/em> the mercy seat (Ex 25:21) signifies that the law was under God’s protection and explains the references to the ark as his footstool (e.g., Ps 132:7). Like the cherubim in the Garden of Eden (Gn 3:24), those in the Holy of Holies probably had a similar protective function. In the ancient world, symbolic winged creatures like the cherubim were frequently placed as guardians of thrones and important buildings.<\/p>\n<p>Like the ark, the portable table of the bread of the Presence (Ex 25:30) was made of acacia wood overlaid with gold. It was marginally smaller, with a length of three feet (.9 meter), a width of one and a half feet (.5 meter) and a height of two and a quarter feet (.7 meter). The various auxiliary vessels and implements are detailed (v 29); presumably the dishes would be used for carrying the bread. On each Sabbath day, 12 loaves, symbolizing God’s provision for the 12 tribes of Israel, were placed in two rows on the table (Lv 24:5-9). The table was located in the Holy Place, on the north side.<\/p>\n<p>On the south side was the seven-branched golden lampstand (Ex 25:31-39; 37:17-24; 40:24). It was the most impressive item of furniture in the Holy Place; like the cherubim and the mercy seat, it was made of pure gold. Six golden branches, three on either side, extended from a central shaft, and the whole lampstand was ornamented with almond flowers. From the biblical evidence, it is not clear whether the lampstand gave continuous illumination (Ex 27:20; Lv 24:2) or night light only (1 Sm 3:3 in most versions). Leviticus 24:4 strongly supports the former, and the reference in 1 Samuel probably reflects the laxity that had crept in during the period of the judges. In Scripture, the golden lampstand symbolizes the continuing witness of the covenant community (Zec 4:1-7; Rv 2:1). The precise attention to the smallest detail is well illustrated in the listing of the supplementary items, all made of pure gold, required for the servicing of the lamps. Without this precise attention, the light would soon grow dim, and the sanctuary itself be defiled by carbon deposits (Ex 25:38). Moreover, only the best-quality olive oil was used, thus ensuring the brightest possible light (27:20).<\/p>\n<p>The altar of incense (Ex 30:1-10) may have been deliberately played down to give greater prominence to the sacrificial altar in the outer court, which is frequently referred to as <em>“the<\/em> altar.” In order to distinguish the altar of incense from the bronze altar of sacrifice, the former was called “the golden altar” (40:5). The altar of incense was located in the Holy Place, immediately opposite the ark in the Holy of Holies but just outside the veil, between the table of the bread of the Presence and the lampstand. Made of acacia wood overlaid with gold, it was 18 inches (45.7 centimeters) square and 3 feet (.9 meter) high, with horns and a golden molding around the four sides. Like the ark, it was made readily portable by the provision of rings and carrying poles. The altar was used for the offering of incense every morning and evening and for anointing the horns for the yearly atonement (30:7-10). The incense from a special recipe was forbidden for secular use. Originally, incense indicated something that ascended from a sacrifice, a pleasing aroma to God. Incense acknowledged God in worship (Mal 1:11) and at an early date signified the prayers of the godly (Ps 141:2). It also concealed God from human eyes (Lv 16:13).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheTabernacleProper\">The Tabernacle Proper<\/p>\n<p>The tabernacle was fundamentally a tent structure supported on a rigid framework. As with most of the other items, a triplication of detail underlines the importance of the tabernacle proper. The specifications are given in Exodus 26, the construction in Exodus 36:8-38, and the final erection in Exodus 40:16-19. The overall dimensions were approximately 45 feet (13.7 meters) long, 15 feet (4.6 meters) wide, and 15 feet high.<\/p>\n<p>The basic framework was a series of upright supports, each 15 feet (4.6 meters) high and 2½ feet (.7 meters) wide, and each standing on two silver bases (Ex 26:15-25). Scholars used to think these supports or frames were solid planks of acacia wood, but most modern scholars accept that each comprised two upright sides connected by horizontal pieces like a ladder. Such sections would be considerably stronger, would keep their shape better, and would allow a view of the beautiful inner layer of curtains from within the sanctuary. On the south and north sides were 20 such frames, with 6 more at the western end. In addition, on the western side were two corner pieces to which all the walls were attached by clasps (vv 23-25). A series of bars, which passed through gold rings attached to each upright frame, provided further security and alignment (vv 26-29). There were five such bars on each of the three sides. The central one on both the south and the north sides extended the entire length; the other four probably extended halfway, so that each frame was effectively secured by three bars. All the wooden sections were sheathed in gold.<\/p>\n<p>Over this framework several layers of coverings formed the top, sides, and back of the tabernacle. The first layer of ten linen curtains was dyed blue, purple, and scarlet, and embroidered with cherubim (Ex 26:1-6; 36:8-13). Each measured 42 feet by 6 feet (12.8 meters by 1.8 meters). Pairs joined along their length formed five sets of curtains. The two large curtains were themselves attached with 50 golden clasps that passed through a similar number of loops in each. Probably the curtains were stretched over the structure like a tablecloth.<\/p>\n<p>Eleven curtains or tarpaulins of goat hair, each 45 feet by 6 feet (13.7 meters by 1.8 meters), formed the next layer. These were divided into two sets by joining together five and six curtains respectively, and were linked using a similar method as the under curtain, except that bronze clasps instead of gold were used. The extra length of the goat-hair tarpaulins provided an overlap to protect the under curtain, and the larger tarpaulin overlapped at both the front and the rear of the tabernacle (Ex 26:7-9, 12-13). Two further layers ensured complete weatherproofing, one of ram’s skins dyed red and one of goatskins.<\/p>\n<p>A veil made of the same material as the under curtaining divided the sanctuary and hung under the golden clasps that joined the two curtains, supported by four pillars of acacia wood plated with gold and resting in silver bases. The cherubim on both the veil and the curtains were symbolic guardians of the sanctuary. The positioning of the veil made the Holy of Holies a perfect cube of 15 feet (4.6 meters). The layers of overlapping material and the attention given to the joints emphasizes the darkness of the innermost shrine. God was surrounded by darkness, carefully isolated from any unauthorized sight (Ps 97:2). The Holy Place occupied an area 30 feet by 15 feet (9.1 meters by 4.6 meters), exactly twice the area of the Holy of Holies. A screen made from the same fabric as the main curtain stood between the Holy Place and the outer court and hung from golden hooks on five posts of acacia wood, overlaid with gold and resting on bronze sockets. There is no mention of embroidered seraphim on this section, which formed the tabernacle’s eastern wall.<\/p>\n<p>The tabernacle, while probably having a somewhat squat appearance suggestive of strength, could be easily dismantled, transported, and reassembled. By the standards of that age, it was a fit dwelling place for God, constructed by the best human skills and the highest quality materials.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheOuterCourtandItsFurnishings\">The Outer Court and Its Furnishings<\/p>\n<p>The court of the tabernacle was a rectangle 150 feet (45.7 meters) long on the north and south sides and 75 feet (22.9 meters) wide on the east and west (Ex 27:9-18; 38:9-19). The tabernacle itself was at the western end. Curtains of fine-twined linen 7½ feet (2.3 meters) high screened the entire tabernacle area. In the eastern section, there was a central entrance, 30 feet (9.1 meters) wide. An embroidered curtain of the same height screened this doorway, which was probably recessed to facilitate entrance on either side. Silver rods supported all the curtains. These rods passed through silver hooks attached to the silver-plated posts that rested on bronze bases (38:17).<\/p>\n<p>The altar of burnt offering (Ex 27:1-8; 38:1-7), at the eastern end of the court adjacent to the entrance (40:29), was a reminder that there could be no approach to God except by the place of sacrifice. Seven feet (2.1 meters) square and four and a half feet (1.4 meters) high, it was small in comparison to the gigantic altar in Solomon’s temple (2 Chr 4:1). Basically, it was a hollow wooden framework overlaid with bronze, light enough to be carried on bronze-plated poles that passed through bronze rings at each corner. The grating (Ex 27:4-5) was probably inside the altar at the middle, although some scholars believe that it extended around the lower, outer sides of the altar, to provide draft and to allow the sacrificial blood to flow to the base of the altar. The horns, possibly symbolizing the sacrificial victims, could be used to tether the animals about to be sacrificed. In Israel, a person could claim sanctuary by clinging to the horns of the altar (e.g., 1 Kgs 1:50), with the possible symbolism that he was offering himself as a sacrifice to God and so claiming his protection. The lower part of the altar may have been partly filled with earth to absorb the blood (Ex 20:24). All the accessories were bronze: ash buckets, shovels for removing the ashes and filling the base with earth, basins for the blood, carcass hooks, and fire pans (27:3).<\/p>\n<p>No specifications concerning the size of the laver (<span>nlt<\/span> “washbasin”) have survived (Ex 30:17-20; 38:8). It was made from the mirrors of the women who served at the entrance to the court. The laver stood between the altar of sacrifice and the tabernacle. Failure to wash at the laver prior to ministering was punishable by death—a solemn reminder of the need for cleanliness and obedience before undertaking any task for God. The bronze pedestal may have been merely a support for the laver, but possibly it incorporated a lower basin in which the priests could wash their feet.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheConstructionandConsecrationoftheTabernacle\">The Construction and Consecration of the Tabernacle<\/p>\n<p>The God-given specifications required skills beyond the capabilities of Moses and Aaron. Prominent in the construction were Bezalel and Oholiab (Ex 30:1-11), with a large supporting group of experts, who must have learned their craftsmanship in Egypt. In a remarkable community effort, the Israelites gave so generously that the flow of gifts had to be stopped (35:20-24; 36:4-7). In addition, many gave of their special skills (35:25-29).<\/p>\n<p>When all the items had been completed and placed in position (Ex 40:1-33), every piece except the mercy seat and the cherubim was anointed with special oil (30:22-33; 40:9-11) and symbolically consecrated for its particular function. The climax came when the glory of the Lord filled the tabernacle (40:34). He came to be present among his people, and thereafter the cloud by day and fire by night provided reassurance concerning his presence and guidance. Yet there could be no laxity in approaching him, and even Moses was excluded from the Holy of Holies. The tabernacle was erected exactly one year after the deliverance from Egypt and a mere nine months after the Sinai revelation.<\/p>\n<p>Thereafter, when Israel camped, the Levites surrounded the tabernacle on three sides (Nm 1:53), with the families of Moses and Aaron occupying the remaining eastern side (Nm 3:14-38). This prevented any unauthorized intrusion into the sacred area. When the tabernacle was moved, the dismantlement was carefully regulated (4:5-15). The Kohathites were responsible for transporting the more sacred items, using the carrying poles; the Gershonites dealt with all the soft furnishings, the altar of sacrifice, and its accessories; and the Merarites carried the hard furnishings, such as the frames, bars, and bases. Even on the march, the tabernacle remained central, with six tribes preceding and the remaining six following (Nm 2).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Temple.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>TABERNACLE<\/h3>\n<p>Place of worship during the earliest years of the history of Israel.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Introduction<\/p>\n<p>• Names for the Tabernacle<\/p>\n<p>• Background<\/p>\n<p>• The Tabernacle and Its Furniture<\/p>\n<p>• The Tabernacle Proper<\/p>\n<p>• The Outer Court and Its Furnishings<\/p>\n<p>• The Construction and Consecration of the Tabernacle<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Introduction\">Introduction<\/p>\n<p>The tabernacle was the precursor of the temple during most of the period between the formation of Israel at Sinai and its final establishment in the Promised Land in the early period of the monarchy. A portable sanctuary in keeping with the demand for easy mobility, it was the symbol of God’s presence with his people and, therefore, of his availability, as well as a place where his will was communicated. At an early period it was anticipated that, when peace and security had been secured, a permanent national shrine would be established (Dt 12:10-11). This was not realized until the time of Solomon, when the temple was erected (2 Sm 7:10-13; 1 Kgs 5:1-5). Historical events, as well as the similarities in construction and underlying theology, illustrate the close connection between the tabernacle and temple.<\/p>\n\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"NamesfortheTabernacle\">Names for the Tabernacle<\/p>\n<p>Several words and descriptive phrases are used:<\/p>\n<p>1. “Sacred residence,” “sanctuary,“ or “holy place” (Ex 25:8; Lv 10:17-18) derive from the verb “to be holy.”<\/p>\n<li>2. “The tent” occurs 19 times and is also found in expressions such as “the tent of the testimony” (Nm 9:15), “the tent of the Lord” (1 Kgs 2:28-30), “the house of the tent” (1 Chr 9:23), and “the tent of meeting” (e.g., Ex 33:7). The last name appears approximately 130 times. The word involves the concept of meeting by appointment and designates the tabernacle as the place where God met with Moses and his people to make known his will.<\/li>\n<li>3. “Dwelling place” is the literal meaning of “tabernacle.” In Exodus 25:9 the word indicates the whole tabernacle (including the outer court), but in Exodus 26:1 it refers to the tabernacle proper (that included the Holy Place and the Holy of Holies). A variant of this is “the tabernacle of the testimony” (Ex 38:21; <span>nlt<\/span> “Tabernacle of the Covenant”), which, with other expressions like “the tent of the testimony,” stresses the presence of the two tablets of the law.<\/li>\n<li>4. “The house of the <span>Lord<\/span>” (Ex 23:19).<\/li>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Background\">Background<\/p>\n<p>The three-part construction of the tabernacle, composed of a general area and two restricted areas, was not unique. In other developed religions that included an organized priesthood there were three main levels of approach: one for all members of the community; one for the priests generally; and one for the chief religious leaders, which was an inner sanctuary, conceived as the dwelling place of the deity. Excavations of heathen sanctuaries in Palestine and Syria in the pre-Israelite period have revealed this type of divided sanctuary.<\/p>\n<p>There is also widespread evidence of the use of portable, often complex, prefabricated structures during the second millennium <span>BC<\/span>, usually as either staterooms for kings and other high dignitaries, or as sanctuaries. Rulers of settled communities used these structures when traveling to other areas within their kingdoms (e.g., Egypt and, to a lesser extent, Canaan). Also, nomadic or seminomadic peoples, such as the Midianites, used portable sanctuaries. In pre-Mosaic Egypt, craftsmen used techniques similar to those used in the construction of the tabernacle.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheTabernacleandItsFurniture\">The Tabernacle and Its Furniture<\/p>\n<p>The book of Exodus (Ex 25–40) describes the tabernacle and its furnishings in detail. The materials used included items ranging from precious to common materials. Three metals are mentioned in descending order of importance: gold, copper, and silver. Gold alone was employed in the principal sanctuary furnishings. The total amount of metals used was approximately one ton (.9 metric ton) of gold, three of copper, and four of silver (38:24-31). The relatively large amount of silver came from an offering (30:11-16), which augmented the silver and gold already given by the Egyptians (12:35).<\/p>\n<p>Significantly, in God’s building specifications, the starting point was the furniture of the inner sanctuary (the Holy Place and the Holy of Holies). In the actual construction, this furniture was made after the tabernacle itself, presumably so that it could be immediately and adequately housed (Ex 25:9–27:19; cf. 36:8–37:28).<\/p>\n<p>The first item listed was the ark, the only furniture in the Holy of Holies. It was a wooden box sheathed in gold, approximately three and three-quarters feet (1.1 meters) long, with a width and height of two and a quarter feet (.7 meter). The supreme symbol of the covenant relationship between God and Israel, it was often called “the ark of the covenant of the <span>Lord<\/span>” (Dt 10:8). Unlike contemporary arks in some neighboring countries, it contained no representation of the deity, only the Ten Commandments (Ex 25:16), a jar of manna (16:33), and Aaron’s rod (Nm 17:10)—all symbolic of various aspects of God’s provision (see Heb 9:4).<\/p>\n<p>The ark was transported by two poles that passed through rings attached to each lower corner (Ex 25:13-15). These poles, left in place, projected underneath the veil into the Holy Place, serving as a reminder of the presence of the unseen ark.<\/p>\n<p>Resting upon the ark was the mercy seat (<span>nlt<\/span> “atonement cover”), a rectangular slab of solid gold, to which were attached two cherubim. The inward-looking cherubim and the mercy seat formed a throne for the invisible God (Ex 25:22), who is frequently described as enthroned above or upon the cherubim (Pss 80:1; 99:1). The noun “mercy seat” comes from a verb meaning “to make atonement.” The mercy seat was sprinkled with blood at the climax of the annual Day of Atonement (Lv 16:14). The fact that the ark was placed <em>under<\/em> the mercy seat (Ex 25:21) signifies that the law was under God’s protection and explains the references to the ark as his footstool (e.g., Ps 132:7). Like the cherubim in the Garden of Eden (Gn 3:24), those in the Holy of Holies probably had a similar protective function. In the ancient world, symbolic winged creatures like the cherubim were frequently placed as guardians of thrones and important buildings.<\/p>\n<p>Like the ark, the portable table of the bread of the Presence (Ex 25:30) was made of acacia wood overlaid with gold. It was marginally smaller, with a length of three feet (.9 meter), a width of one and a half feet (.5 meter) and a height of two and a quarter feet (.7 meter). The various auxiliary vessels and implements are detailed (v 29); presumably the dishes would be used for carrying the bread. On each Sabbath day, 12 loaves, symbolizing God’s provision for the 12 tribes of Israel, were placed in two rows on the table (Lv 24:5-9). The table was located in the Holy Place, on the north side.<\/p>\n<p>On the south side was the seven-branched golden lampstand (Ex 25:31-39; 37:17-24; 40:24). It was the most impressive item of furniture in the Holy Place; like the cherubim and the mercy seat, it was made of pure gold. Six golden branches, three on either side, extended from a central shaft, and the whole lampstand was ornamented with almond flowers. From the biblical evidence, it is not clear whether the lampstand gave continuous illumination (Ex 27:20; Lv 24:2) or night light only (1 Sm 3:3 in most versions). Leviticus 24:4 strongly supports the former, and the reference in 1 Samuel probably reflects the laxity that had crept in during the period of the judges. In Scripture, the golden lampstand symbolizes the continuing witness of the covenant community (Zec 4:1-7; Rv 2:1). The precise attention to the smallest detail is well illustrated in the listing of the supplementary items, all made of pure gold, required for the servicing of the lamps. Without this precise attention, the light would soon grow dim, and the sanctuary itself be defiled by carbon deposits (Ex 25:38). Moreover, only the best-quality olive oil was used, thus ensuring the brightest possible light (27:20).<\/p>\n<p>The altar of incense (Ex 30:1-10) may have been deliberately played down to give greater prominence to the sacrificial altar in the outer court, which is frequently referred to as <em>“the<\/em> altar.” In order to distinguish the altar of incense from the bronze altar of sacrifice, the former was called “the golden altar” (40:5). The altar of incense was located in the Holy Place, immediately opposite the ark in the Holy of Holies but just outside the veil, between the table of the bread of the Presence and the lampstand. Made of acacia wood overlaid with gold, it was 18 inches (45.7 centimeters) square and 3 feet (.9 meter) high, with horns and a golden molding around the four sides. Like the ark, it was made readily portable by the provision of rings and carrying poles. The altar was used for the offering of incense every morning and evening and for anointing the horns for the yearly atonement (30:7-10). The incense from a special recipe was forbidden for secular use. Originally, incense indicated something that ascended from a sacrifice, a pleasing aroma to God. Incense acknowledged God in worship (Mal 1:11) and at an early date signified the prayers of the godly (Ps 141:2). It also concealed God from human eyes (Lv 16:13).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheTabernacleProper\">The Tabernacle Proper<\/p>\n<p>The tabernacle was fundamentally a tent structure supported on a rigid framework. As with most of the other items, a triplication of detail underlines the importance of the tabernacle proper. The specifications are given in Exodus 26, the construction in Exodus 36:8-38, and the final erection in Exodus 40:16-19. The overall dimensions were approximately 45 feet (13.7 meters) long, 15 feet (4.6 meters) wide, and 15 feet high.<\/p>\n<p>The basic framework was a series of upright supports, each 15 feet (4.6 meters) high and 2½ feet (.7 meters) wide, and each standing on two silver bases (Ex 26:15-25). Scholars used to think these supports or frames were solid planks of acacia wood, but most modern scholars accept that each comprised two upright sides connected by horizontal pieces like a ladder. Such sections would be considerably stronger, would keep their shape better, and would allow a view of the beautiful inner layer of curtains from within the sanctuary. On the south and north sides were 20 such frames, with 6 more at the western end. In addition, on the western side were two corner pieces to which all the walls were attached by clasps (vv 23-25). A series of bars, which passed through gold rings attached to each upright frame, provided further security and alignment (vv 26-29). There were five such bars on each of the three sides. The central one on both the south and the north sides extended the entire length; the other four probably extended halfway, so that each frame was effectively secured by three bars. All the wooden sections were sheathed in gold.<\/p>\n<p>Over this framework several layers of coverings formed the top, sides, and back of the tabernacle. The first layer of ten linen curtains was dyed blue, purple, and scarlet, and embroidered with cherubim (Ex 26:1-6; 36:8-13). Each measured 42 feet by 6 feet (12.8 meters by 1.8 meters). Pairs joined along their length formed five sets of curtains. The two large curtains were themselves attached with 50 golden clasps that passed through a similar number of loops in each. Probably the curtains were stretched over the structure like a tablecloth.<\/p>\n<p>Eleven curtains or tarpaulins of goat hair, each 45 feet by 6 feet (13.7 meters by 1.8 meters), formed the next layer. These were divided into two sets by joining together five and six curtains respectively, and were linked using a similar method as the under curtain, except that bronze clasps instead of gold were used. The extra length of the goat-hair tarpaulins provided an overlap to protect the under curtain, and the larger tarpaulin overlapped at both the front and the rear of the tabernacle (Ex 26:7-9, 12-13). Two further layers ensured complete weatherproofing, one of ram’s skins dyed red and one of goatskins.<\/p>\n<p>A veil made of the same material as the under curtaining divided the sanctuary and hung under the golden clasps that joined the two curtains, supported by four pillars of acacia wood plated with gold and resting in silver bases. The cherubim on both the veil and the curtains were symbolic guardians of the sanctuary. The positioning of the veil made the Holy of Holies a perfect cube of 15 feet (4.6 meters). The layers of overlapping material and the attention given to the joints emphasizes the darkness of the innermost shrine. God was surrounded by darkness, carefully isolated from any unauthorized sight (Ps 97:2). The Holy Place occupied an area 30 feet by 15 feet (9.1 meters by 4.6 meters), exactly twice the area of the Holy of Holies. A screen made from the same fabric as the main curtain stood between the Holy Place and the outer court and hung from golden hooks on five posts of acacia wood, overlaid with gold and resting on bronze sockets. There is no mention of embroidered seraphim on this section, which formed the tabernacle’s eastern wall.<\/p>\n<p>The tabernacle, while probably having a somewhat squat appearance suggestive of strength, could be easily dismantled, transported, and reassembled. By the standards of that age, it was a fit dwelling place for God, constructed by the best human skills and the highest quality materials.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheOuterCourtandItsFurnishings\">The Outer Court and Its Furnishings<\/p>\n<p>The court of the tabernacle was a rectangle 150 feet (45.7 meters) long on the north and south sides and 75 feet (22.9 meters) wide on the east and west (Ex 27:9-18; 38:9-19). The tabernacle itself was at the western end. Curtains of fine-twined linen 7½ feet (2.3 meters) high screened the entire tabernacle area. In the eastern section, there was a central entrance, 30 feet (9.1 meters) wide. An embroidered curtain of the same height screened this doorway, which was probably recessed to facilitate entrance on either side. Silver rods supported all the curtains. These rods passed through silver hooks attached to the silver-plated posts that rested on bronze bases (38:17).<\/p>\n<p>The altar of burnt offering (Ex 27:1-8; 38:1-7), at the eastern end of the court adjacent to the entrance (40:29), was a reminder that there could be no approach to God except by the place of sacrifice. Seven feet (2.1 meters) square and four and a half feet (1.4 meters) high, it was small in comparison to the gigantic altar in Solomon’s temple (2 Chr 4:1). Basically, it was a hollow wooden framework overlaid with bronze, light enough to be carried on bronze-plated poles that passed through bronze rings at each corner. The grating (Ex 27:4-5) was probably inside the altar at the middle, although some scholars believe that it extended around the lower, outer sides of the altar, to provide draft and to allow the sacrificial blood to flow to the base of the altar. The horns, possibly symbolizing the sacrificial victims, could be used to tether the animals about to be sacrificed. In Israel, a person could claim sanctuary by clinging to the horns of the altar (e.g., 1 Kgs 1:50), with the possible symbolism that he was offering himself as a sacrifice to God and so claiming his protection. The lower part of the altar may have been partly filled with earth to absorb the blood (Ex 20:24). All the accessories were bronze: ash buckets, shovels for removing the ashes and filling the base with earth, basins for the blood, carcass hooks, and fire pans (27:3).<\/p>\n<p>No specifications concerning the size of the laver (<span>nlt<\/span> “washbasin”) have survived (Ex 30:17-20; 38:8). It was made from the mirrors of the women who served at the entrance to the court. The laver stood between the altar of sacrifice and the tabernacle. Failure to wash at the laver prior to ministering was punishable by death—a solemn reminder of the need for cleanliness and obedience before undertaking any task for God. The bronze pedestal may have been merely a support for the laver, but possibly it incorporated a lower basin in which the priests could wash their feet.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheConstructionandConsecrationoftheTabernacle\">The Construction and Consecration of the Tabernacle<\/p>\n<p>The God-given specifications required skills beyond the capabilities of Moses and Aaron. Prominent in the construction were Bezalel and Oholiab (Ex 30:1-11), with a large supporting group of experts, who must have learned their craftsmanship in Egypt. In a remarkable community effort, the Israelites gave so generously that the flow of gifts had to be stopped (35:20-24; 36:4-7). In addition, many gave of their special skills (35:25-29).<\/p>\n<p>When all the items had been completed and placed in position (Ex 40:1-33), every piece except the mercy seat and the cherubim was anointed with special oil (30:22-33; 40:9-11) and symbolically consecrated for its particular function. The climax came when the glory of the Lord filled the tabernacle (40:34). He came to be present among his people, and thereafter the cloud by day and fire by night provided reassurance concerning his presence and guidance. Yet there could be no laxity in approaching him, and even Moses was excluded from the Holy of Holies. The tabernacle was erected exactly one year after the deliverance from Egypt and a mere nine months after the Sinai revelation.<\/p>\n<p>Thereafter, when Israel camped, the Levites surrounded the tabernacle on three sides (Nm 1:53), with the families of Moses and Aaron occupying the remaining eastern side (Nm 3:14-38). This prevented any unauthorized intrusion into the sacred area. When the tabernacle was moved, the dismantlement was carefully regulated (4:5-15). The Kohathites were responsible for transporting the more sacred items, using the carrying poles; the Gershonites dealt with all the soft furnishings, the altar of sacrifice, and its accessories; and the Merarites carried the hard furnishings, such as the frames, bars, and bases. Even on the march, the tabernacle remained central, with six tribes preceding and the remaining six following (Nm 2).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Temple.<\/p>","summary_ro":"TABERNACLE Place of worship during the earliest years of the history of Israel. Preview • Introduction • Names for the Tabernacle • Background • The Tabernacle and Its Furniture • The Tabernacle Proper • The Outer Court and Its Furnishings • The Construction and Consecration of the Tabernacle Introduction The tabernacle was the precursor of the temple during most of the period between the formation of Israel at Sinai and its final establishment in the Promised Land in the early period of the ...","summary_en":"TABERNACLE Place of worship during the earliest years of the history of Israel. Preview • Introduction • Names for the Tabernacle • Background • The Tabernacle and Its Furniture • The Tabernacle Proper • The Outer Court and Its Furnishings • The Construction and Consecration of the Tabernacle Introduction The tabernacle was the precursor of the temple during most of the period between the formation of Israel at Sinai and its final establishment in the Promised Land in the early period of the ...","source":"Articles\/T.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":44041,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Exodul 38:8","title_en":"Study Note: Exodul 38:8","content_ro":"<p><strong>38:8<\/strong> While the plans for the <em>washbasin<\/em> (30:17-21) were included in the instructions to the priests (29:38–30:38), here its construction is reported in logical sequence. • This <em>bronze<\/em><em>,<\/em> which could be polished to a mirror-like finish, was probably of especially high quality, as was fitting for use in God’s Tabernacle.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>38:8<\/strong> While the plans for the <em>washbasin<\/em> (30:17-21) were included in the instructions to the priests (29:38–30:38), here its construction is reported in logical sequence. • This <em>bronze<\/em><em>,<\/em> which could be polished to a mirror-like finish, was probably of especially high quality, as was fitting for use in God’s Tabernacle.<\/p>","summary_ro":"38:8 While the plans for the washbasin (30:17-21) were included in the instructions to the priests (29:38–30:38), here its construction is reported in logical sequence. • This bronze, which could be polished to a mirror-like finish, was probably of especially high quality, as was fitting for use in God’s Tabernacle.","summary_en":"38:8 While the plans for the washbasin (30:17-21) were included in the instructions to the priests (29:38–30:38), here its construction is reported in logical sequence. • This bronze, which could be polished to a mirror-like finish, was probably of especially high quality, as was fitting for use in God’s Tabernacle.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":71667,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Exodul 38:8","title_en":"Study Note: Exodul 38:8","content_ro":"<p><strong>38:8<\/strong> While the plans for the <em>washbasin<\/em> (30:17-21) were included in the instructions to the priests (29:38–30:38), here its construction is reported in logical sequence. • This <em>bronze<\/em><em>,<\/em> which could be polished to a mirror-like finish, was probably of especially high quality, as was fitting for use in God’s Tabernacle.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>38:8<\/strong> While the plans for the <em>washbasin<\/em> (30:17-21) were included in the instructions to the priests (29:38–30:38), here its construction is reported in logical sequence. • This <em>bronze<\/em><em>,<\/em> which could be polished to a mirror-like finish, was probably of especially high quality, as was fitting for use in God’s Tabernacle.<\/p>","summary_ro":"38:8 While the plans for the washbasin (30:17-21) were included in the instructions to the priests (29:38–30:38), here its construction is reported in logical sequence. • This bronze, which could be polished to a mirror-like finish, was probably of especially high quality, as was fitting for use in God’s Tabernacle.","summary_en":"38:8 While the plans for the washbasin (30:17-21) were included in the instructions to the priests (29:38–30:38), here its construction is reported in logical sequence. • This bronze, which could be polished to a mirror-like finish, was probably of especially high quality, as was fitting for use in God’s Tabernacle.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":99293,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Exodul 38:8","title_en":"Study Note: Exodul 38:8","content_ro":"<p><strong>38:8<\/strong> While the plans for the <em>washbasin<\/em> (30:17-21) were included in the instructions to the priests (29:38–30:38), here its construction is reported in logical sequence. • This <em>bronze<\/em><em>,<\/em> which could be polished to a mirror-like finish, was probably of especially high quality, as was fitting for use in God’s Tabernacle.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>38:8<\/strong> While the plans for the <em>washbasin<\/em> (30:17-21) were included in the instructions to the priests (29:38–30:38), here its construction is reported in logical sequence. • This <em>bronze<\/em><em>,<\/em> which could be polished to a mirror-like finish, was probably of especially high quality, as was fitting for use in God’s Tabernacle.<\/p>","summary_ro":"38:8 While the plans for the washbasin (30:17-21) were included in the instructions to the priests (29:38–30:38), here its construction is reported in logical sequence. • This bronze, which could be polished to a mirror-like finish, was probably of especially high quality, as was fitting for use in God’s Tabernacle.","summary_en":"38:8 While the plans for the washbasin (30:17-21) were included in the instructions to the priests (29:38–30:38), here its construction is reported in logical sequence. • This bronze, which could be polished to a mirror-like finish, was probably of especially high quality, as was fitting for use in God’s Tabernacle.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":126919,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Exodul 38:8","title_en":"Study Note: Exodul 38:8","content_ro":"<p><strong>38:8<\/strong> While the plans for the <em>washbasin<\/em> (30:17-21) were included in the instructions to the priests (29:38–30:38), here its construction is reported in logical sequence. • This <em>bronze<\/em><em>,<\/em> which could be polished to a mirror-like finish, was probably of especially high quality, as was fitting for use in God’s Tabernacle.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>38:8<\/strong> While the plans for the <em>washbasin<\/em> (30:17-21) were included in the instructions to the priests (29:38–30:38), here its construction is reported in logical sequence. • This <em>bronze<\/em><em>,<\/em> which could be polished to a mirror-like finish, was probably of especially high quality, as was fitting for use in God’s Tabernacle.<\/p>","summary_ro":"38:8 While the plans for the washbasin (30:17-21) were included in the instructions to the priests (29:38–30:38), here its construction is reported in logical sequence. • This bronze, which could be polished to a mirror-like finish, was probably of especially high quality, as was fitting for use in God’s Tabernacle.","summary_en":"38:8 While the plans for the washbasin (30:17-21) were included in the instructions to the priests (29:38–30:38), here its construction is reported in logical sequence. • This bronze, which could be polished to a mirror-like finish, was probably of especially high quality, as was fitting for use in God’s Tabernacle.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"9":[{"id":36644,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Tabernacle","title_en":"Tabernacle","content_ro":"<h3>TABERNACLE<\/h3>\n<p>Place of worship during the earliest years of the history of Israel.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Introduction<\/p>\n<p>• Names for the Tabernacle<\/p>\n<p>• Background<\/p>\n<p>• The Tabernacle and Its Furniture<\/p>\n<p>• The Tabernacle Proper<\/p>\n<p>• The Outer Court and Its Furnishings<\/p>\n<p>• The Construction and Consecration of the Tabernacle<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Introduction\">Introduction<\/p>\n<p>The tabernacle was the precursor of the temple during most of the period between the formation of Israel at Sinai and its final establishment in the Promised Land in the early period of the monarchy. A portable sanctuary in keeping with the demand for easy mobility, it was the symbol of God’s presence with his people and, therefore, of his availability, as well as a place where his will was communicated. At an early period it was anticipated that, when peace and security had been secured, a permanent national shrine would be established (Dt 12:10-11). This was not realized until the time of Solomon, when the temple was erected (2 Sm 7:10-13; 1 Kgs 5:1-5). Historical events, as well as the similarities in construction and underlying theology, illustrate the close connection between the tabernacle and temple.<\/p>\n\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"NamesfortheTabernacle\">Names for the Tabernacle<\/p>\n<p>Several words and descriptive phrases are used:<\/p>\n<p>1. “Sacred residence,” “sanctuary,“ or “holy place” (Ex 25:8; Lv 10:17-18) derive from the verb “to be holy.”<\/p>\n<li>2. “The tent” occurs 19 times and is also found in expressions such as “the tent of the testimony” (Nm 9:15), “the tent of the Lord” (1 Kgs 2:28-30), “the house of the tent” (1 Chr 9:23), and “the tent of meeting” (e.g., Ex 33:7). The last name appears approximately 130 times. The word involves the concept of meeting by appointment and designates the tabernacle as the place where God met with Moses and his people to make known his will.<\/li>\n<li>3. “Dwelling place” is the literal meaning of “tabernacle.” In Exodus 25:9 the word indicates the whole tabernacle (including the outer court), but in Exodus 26:1 it refers to the tabernacle proper (that included the Holy Place and the Holy of Holies). A variant of this is “the tabernacle of the testimony” (Ex 38:21; <span>nlt<\/span> “Tabernacle of the Covenant”), which, with other expressions like “the tent of the testimony,” stresses the presence of the two tablets of the law.<\/li>\n<li>4. “The house of the <span>Lord<\/span>” (Ex 23:19).<\/li>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Background\">Background<\/p>\n<p>The three-part construction of the tabernacle, composed of a general area and two restricted areas, was not unique. In other developed religions that included an organized priesthood there were three main levels of approach: one for all members of the community; one for the priests generally; and one for the chief religious leaders, which was an inner sanctuary, conceived as the dwelling place of the deity. Excavations of heathen sanctuaries in Palestine and Syria in the pre-Israelite period have revealed this type of divided sanctuary.<\/p>\n<p>There is also widespread evidence of the use of portable, often complex, prefabricated structures during the second millennium <span>BC<\/span>, usually as either staterooms for kings and other high dignitaries, or as sanctuaries. Rulers of settled communities used these structures when traveling to other areas within their kingdoms (e.g., Egypt and, to a lesser extent, Canaan). Also, nomadic or seminomadic peoples, such as the Midianites, used portable sanctuaries. In pre-Mosaic Egypt, craftsmen used techniques similar to those used in the construction of the tabernacle.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheTabernacleandItsFurniture\">The Tabernacle and Its Furniture<\/p>\n<p>The book of Exodus (Ex 25–40) describes the tabernacle and its furnishings in detail. The materials used included items ranging from precious to common materials. Three metals are mentioned in descending order of importance: gold, copper, and silver. Gold alone was employed in the principal sanctuary furnishings. The total amount of metals used was approximately one ton (.9 metric ton) of gold, three of copper, and four of silver (38:24-31). The relatively large amount of silver came from an offering (30:11-16), which augmented the silver and gold already given by the Egyptians (12:35).<\/p>\n<p>Significantly, in God’s building specifications, the starting point was the furniture of the inner sanctuary (the Holy Place and the Holy of Holies). In the actual construction, this furniture was made after the tabernacle itself, presumably so that it could be immediately and adequately housed (Ex 25:9–27:19; cf. 36:8–37:28).<\/p>\n<p>The first item listed was the ark, the only furniture in the Holy of Holies. It was a wooden box sheathed in gold, approximately three and three-quarters feet (1.1 meters) long, with a width and height of two and a quarter feet (.7 meter). The supreme symbol of the covenant relationship between God and Israel, it was often called “the ark of the covenant of the <span>Lord<\/span>” (Dt 10:8). Unlike contemporary arks in some neighboring countries, it contained no representation of the deity, only the Ten Commandments (Ex 25:16), a jar of manna (16:33), and Aaron’s rod (Nm 17:10)—all symbolic of various aspects of God’s provision (see Heb 9:4).<\/p>\n<p>The ark was transported by two poles that passed through rings attached to each lower corner (Ex 25:13-15). These poles, left in place, projected underneath the veil into the Holy Place, serving as a reminder of the presence of the unseen ark.<\/p>\n<p>Resting upon the ark was the mercy seat (<span>nlt<\/span> “atonement cover”), a rectangular slab of solid gold, to which were attached two cherubim. The inward-looking cherubim and the mercy seat formed a throne for the invisible God (Ex 25:22), who is frequently described as enthroned above or upon the cherubim (Pss 80:1; 99:1). The noun “mercy seat” comes from a verb meaning “to make atonement.” The mercy seat was sprinkled with blood at the climax of the annual Day of Atonement (Lv 16:14). The fact that the ark was placed <em>under<\/em> the mercy seat (Ex 25:21) signifies that the law was under God’s protection and explains the references to the ark as his footstool (e.g., Ps 132:7). Like the cherubim in the Garden of Eden (Gn 3:24), those in the Holy of Holies probably had a similar protective function. In the ancient world, symbolic winged creatures like the cherubim were frequently placed as guardians of thrones and important buildings.<\/p>\n<p>Like the ark, the portable table of the bread of the Presence (Ex 25:30) was made of acacia wood overlaid with gold. It was marginally smaller, with a length of three feet (.9 meter), a width of one and a half feet (.5 meter) and a height of two and a quarter feet (.7 meter). The various auxiliary vessels and implements are detailed (v 29); presumably the dishes would be used for carrying the bread. On each Sabbath day, 12 loaves, symbolizing God’s provision for the 12 tribes of Israel, were placed in two rows on the table (Lv 24:5-9). The table was located in the Holy Place, on the north side.<\/p>\n<p>On the south side was the seven-branched golden lampstand (Ex 25:31-39; 37:17-24; 40:24). It was the most impressive item of furniture in the Holy Place; like the cherubim and the mercy seat, it was made of pure gold. Six golden branches, three on either side, extended from a central shaft, and the whole lampstand was ornamented with almond flowers. From the biblical evidence, it is not clear whether the lampstand gave continuous illumination (Ex 27:20; Lv 24:2) or night light only (1 Sm 3:3 in most versions). Leviticus 24:4 strongly supports the former, and the reference in 1 Samuel probably reflects the laxity that had crept in during the period of the judges. In Scripture, the golden lampstand symbolizes the continuing witness of the covenant community (Zec 4:1-7; Rv 2:1). The precise attention to the smallest detail is well illustrated in the listing of the supplementary items, all made of pure gold, required for the servicing of the lamps. Without this precise attention, the light would soon grow dim, and the sanctuary itself be defiled by carbon deposits (Ex 25:38). Moreover, only the best-quality olive oil was used, thus ensuring the brightest possible light (27:20).<\/p>\n<p>The altar of incense (Ex 30:1-10) may have been deliberately played down to give greater prominence to the sacrificial altar in the outer court, which is frequently referred to as <em>“the<\/em> altar.” In order to distinguish the altar of incense from the bronze altar of sacrifice, the former was called “the golden altar” (40:5). The altar of incense was located in the Holy Place, immediately opposite the ark in the Holy of Holies but just outside the veil, between the table of the bread of the Presence and the lampstand. Made of acacia wood overlaid with gold, it was 18 inches (45.7 centimeters) square and 3 feet (.9 meter) high, with horns and a golden molding around the four sides. Like the ark, it was made readily portable by the provision of rings and carrying poles. The altar was used for the offering of incense every morning and evening and for anointing the horns for the yearly atonement (30:7-10). The incense from a special recipe was forbidden for secular use. Originally, incense indicated something that ascended from a sacrifice, a pleasing aroma to God. Incense acknowledged God in worship (Mal 1:11) and at an early date signified the prayers of the godly (Ps 141:2). It also concealed God from human eyes (Lv 16:13).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheTabernacleProper\">The Tabernacle Proper<\/p>\n<p>The tabernacle was fundamentally a tent structure supported on a rigid framework. As with most of the other items, a triplication of detail underlines the importance of the tabernacle proper. The specifications are given in Exodus 26, the construction in Exodus 36:8-38, and the final erection in Exodus 40:16-19. The overall dimensions were approximately 45 feet (13.7 meters) long, 15 feet (4.6 meters) wide, and 15 feet high.<\/p>\n<p>The basic framework was a series of upright supports, each 15 feet (4.6 meters) high and 2½ feet (.7 meters) wide, and each standing on two silver bases (Ex 26:15-25). Scholars used to think these supports or frames were solid planks of acacia wood, but most modern scholars accept that each comprised two upright sides connected by horizontal pieces like a ladder. Such sections would be considerably stronger, would keep their shape better, and would allow a view of the beautiful inner layer of curtains from within the sanctuary. On the south and north sides were 20 such frames, with 6 more at the western end. In addition, on the western side were two corner pieces to which all the walls were attached by clasps (vv 23-25). A series of bars, which passed through gold rings attached to each upright frame, provided further security and alignment (vv 26-29). There were five such bars on each of the three sides. The central one on both the south and the north sides extended the entire length; the other four probably extended halfway, so that each frame was effectively secured by three bars. All the wooden sections were sheathed in gold.<\/p>\n<p>Over this framework several layers of coverings formed the top, sides, and back of the tabernacle. The first layer of ten linen curtains was dyed blue, purple, and scarlet, and embroidered with cherubim (Ex 26:1-6; 36:8-13). Each measured 42 feet by 6 feet (12.8 meters by 1.8 meters). Pairs joined along their length formed five sets of curtains. The two large curtains were themselves attached with 50 golden clasps that passed through a similar number of loops in each. Probably the curtains were stretched over the structure like a tablecloth.<\/p>\n<p>Eleven curtains or tarpaulins of goat hair, each 45 feet by 6 feet (13.7 meters by 1.8 meters), formed the next layer. These were divided into two sets by joining together five and six curtains respectively, and were linked using a similar method as the under curtain, except that bronze clasps instead of gold were used. The extra length of the goat-hair tarpaulins provided an overlap to protect the under curtain, and the larger tarpaulin overlapped at both the front and the rear of the tabernacle (Ex 26:7-9, 12-13). Two further layers ensured complete weatherproofing, one of ram’s skins dyed red and one of goatskins.<\/p>\n<p>A veil made of the same material as the under curtaining divided the sanctuary and hung under the golden clasps that joined the two curtains, supported by four pillars of acacia wood plated with gold and resting in silver bases. The cherubim on both the veil and the curtains were symbolic guardians of the sanctuary. The positioning of the veil made the Holy of Holies a perfect cube of 15 feet (4.6 meters). The layers of overlapping material and the attention given to the joints emphasizes the darkness of the innermost shrine. God was surrounded by darkness, carefully isolated from any unauthorized sight (Ps 97:2). The Holy Place occupied an area 30 feet by 15 feet (9.1 meters by 4.6 meters), exactly twice the area of the Holy of Holies. A screen made from the same fabric as the main curtain stood between the Holy Place and the outer court and hung from golden hooks on five posts of acacia wood, overlaid with gold and resting on bronze sockets. There is no mention of embroidered seraphim on this section, which formed the tabernacle’s eastern wall.<\/p>\n<p>The tabernacle, while probably having a somewhat squat appearance suggestive of strength, could be easily dismantled, transported, and reassembled. By the standards of that age, it was a fit dwelling place for God, constructed by the best human skills and the highest quality materials.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheOuterCourtandItsFurnishings\">The Outer Court and Its Furnishings<\/p>\n<p>The court of the tabernacle was a rectangle 150 feet (45.7 meters) long on the north and south sides and 75 feet (22.9 meters) wide on the east and west (Ex 27:9-18; 38:9-19). The tabernacle itself was at the western end. Curtains of fine-twined linen 7½ feet (2.3 meters) high screened the entire tabernacle area. In the eastern section, there was a central entrance, 30 feet (9.1 meters) wide. An embroidered curtain of the same height screened this doorway, which was probably recessed to facilitate entrance on either side. Silver rods supported all the curtains. These rods passed through silver hooks attached to the silver-plated posts that rested on bronze bases (38:17).<\/p>\n<p>The altar of burnt offering (Ex 27:1-8; 38:1-7), at the eastern end of the court adjacent to the entrance (40:29), was a reminder that there could be no approach to God except by the place of sacrifice. Seven feet (2.1 meters) square and four and a half feet (1.4 meters) high, it was small in comparison to the gigantic altar in Solomon’s temple (2 Chr 4:1). Basically, it was a hollow wooden framework overlaid with bronze, light enough to be carried on bronze-plated poles that passed through bronze rings at each corner. The grating (Ex 27:4-5) was probably inside the altar at the middle, although some scholars believe that it extended around the lower, outer sides of the altar, to provide draft and to allow the sacrificial blood to flow to the base of the altar. The horns, possibly symbolizing the sacrificial victims, could be used to tether the animals about to be sacrificed. In Israel, a person could claim sanctuary by clinging to the horns of the altar (e.g., 1 Kgs 1:50), with the possible symbolism that he was offering himself as a sacrifice to God and so claiming his protection. The lower part of the altar may have been partly filled with earth to absorb the blood (Ex 20:24). All the accessories were bronze: ash buckets, shovels for removing the ashes and filling the base with earth, basins for the blood, carcass hooks, and fire pans (27:3).<\/p>\n<p>No specifications concerning the size of the laver (<span>nlt<\/span> “washbasin”) have survived (Ex 30:17-20; 38:8). It was made from the mirrors of the women who served at the entrance to the court. The laver stood between the altar of sacrifice and the tabernacle. Failure to wash at the laver prior to ministering was punishable by death—a solemn reminder of the need for cleanliness and obedience before undertaking any task for God. The bronze pedestal may have been merely a support for the laver, but possibly it incorporated a lower basin in which the priests could wash their feet.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheConstructionandConsecrationoftheTabernacle\">The Construction and Consecration of the Tabernacle<\/p>\n<p>The God-given specifications required skills beyond the capabilities of Moses and Aaron. Prominent in the construction were Bezalel and Oholiab (Ex 30:1-11), with a large supporting group of experts, who must have learned their craftsmanship in Egypt. In a remarkable community effort, the Israelites gave so generously that the flow of gifts had to be stopped (35:20-24; 36:4-7). In addition, many gave of their special skills (35:25-29).<\/p>\n<p>When all the items had been completed and placed in position (Ex 40:1-33), every piece except the mercy seat and the cherubim was anointed with special oil (30:22-33; 40:9-11) and symbolically consecrated for its particular function. The climax came when the glory of the Lord filled the tabernacle (40:34). He came to be present among his people, and thereafter the cloud by day and fire by night provided reassurance concerning his presence and guidance. Yet there could be no laxity in approaching him, and even Moses was excluded from the Holy of Holies. The tabernacle was erected exactly one year after the deliverance from Egypt and a mere nine months after the Sinai revelation.<\/p>\n<p>Thereafter, when Israel camped, the Levites surrounded the tabernacle on three sides (Nm 1:53), with the families of Moses and Aaron occupying the remaining eastern side (Nm 3:14-38). This prevented any unauthorized intrusion into the sacred area. When the tabernacle was moved, the dismantlement was carefully regulated (4:5-15). The Kohathites were responsible for transporting the more sacred items, using the carrying poles; the Gershonites dealt with all the soft furnishings, the altar of sacrifice, and its accessories; and the Merarites carried the hard furnishings, such as the frames, bars, and bases. Even on the march, the tabernacle remained central, with six tribes preceding and the remaining six following (Nm 2).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Temple.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>TABERNACLE<\/h3>\n<p>Place of worship during the earliest years of the history of Israel.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Introduction<\/p>\n<p>• Names for the Tabernacle<\/p>\n<p>• Background<\/p>\n<p>• The Tabernacle and Its Furniture<\/p>\n<p>• The Tabernacle Proper<\/p>\n<p>• The Outer Court and Its Furnishings<\/p>\n<p>• The Construction and Consecration of the Tabernacle<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Introduction\">Introduction<\/p>\n<p>The tabernacle was the precursor of the temple during most of the period between the formation of Israel at Sinai and its final establishment in the Promised Land in the early period of the monarchy. A portable sanctuary in keeping with the demand for easy mobility, it was the symbol of God’s presence with his people and, therefore, of his availability, as well as a place where his will was communicated. At an early period it was anticipated that, when peace and security had been secured, a permanent national shrine would be established (Dt 12:10-11). This was not realized until the time of Solomon, when the temple was erected (2 Sm 7:10-13; 1 Kgs 5:1-5). Historical events, as well as the similarities in construction and underlying theology, illustrate the close connection between the tabernacle and temple.<\/p>\n\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"NamesfortheTabernacle\">Names for the Tabernacle<\/p>\n<p>Several words and descriptive phrases are used:<\/p>\n<p>1. “Sacred residence,” “sanctuary,“ or “holy place” (Ex 25:8; Lv 10:17-18) derive from the verb “to be holy.”<\/p>\n<li>2. “The tent” occurs 19 times and is also found in expressions such as “the tent of the testimony” (Nm 9:15), “the tent of the Lord” (1 Kgs 2:28-30), “the house of the tent” (1 Chr 9:23), and “the tent of meeting” (e.g., Ex 33:7). The last name appears approximately 130 times. The word involves the concept of meeting by appointment and designates the tabernacle as the place where God met with Moses and his people to make known his will.<\/li>\n<li>3. “Dwelling place” is the literal meaning of “tabernacle.” In Exodus 25:9 the word indicates the whole tabernacle (including the outer court), but in Exodus 26:1 it refers to the tabernacle proper (that included the Holy Place and the Holy of Holies). A variant of this is “the tabernacle of the testimony” (Ex 38:21; <span>nlt<\/span> “Tabernacle of the Covenant”), which, with other expressions like “the tent of the testimony,” stresses the presence of the two tablets of the law.<\/li>\n<li>4. “The house of the <span>Lord<\/span>” (Ex 23:19).<\/li>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Background\">Background<\/p>\n<p>The three-part construction of the tabernacle, composed of a general area and two restricted areas, was not unique. In other developed religions that included an organized priesthood there were three main levels of approach: one for all members of the community; one for the priests generally; and one for the chief religious leaders, which was an inner sanctuary, conceived as the dwelling place of the deity. Excavations of heathen sanctuaries in Palestine and Syria in the pre-Israelite period have revealed this type of divided sanctuary.<\/p>\n<p>There is also widespread evidence of the use of portable, often complex, prefabricated structures during the second millennium <span>BC<\/span>, usually as either staterooms for kings and other high dignitaries, or as sanctuaries. Rulers of settled communities used these structures when traveling to other areas within their kingdoms (e.g., Egypt and, to a lesser extent, Canaan). Also, nomadic or seminomadic peoples, such as the Midianites, used portable sanctuaries. In pre-Mosaic Egypt, craftsmen used techniques similar to those used in the construction of the tabernacle.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheTabernacleandItsFurniture\">The Tabernacle and Its Furniture<\/p>\n<p>The book of Exodus (Ex 25–40) describes the tabernacle and its furnishings in detail. The materials used included items ranging from precious to common materials. Three metals are mentioned in descending order of importance: gold, copper, and silver. Gold alone was employed in the principal sanctuary furnishings. The total amount of metals used was approximately one ton (.9 metric ton) of gold, three of copper, and four of silver (38:24-31). The relatively large amount of silver came from an offering (30:11-16), which augmented the silver and gold already given by the Egyptians (12:35).<\/p>\n<p>Significantly, in God’s building specifications, the starting point was the furniture of the inner sanctuary (the Holy Place and the Holy of Holies). In the actual construction, this furniture was made after the tabernacle itself, presumably so that it could be immediately and adequately housed (Ex 25:9–27:19; cf. 36:8–37:28).<\/p>\n<p>The first item listed was the ark, the only furniture in the Holy of Holies. It was a wooden box sheathed in gold, approximately three and three-quarters feet (1.1 meters) long, with a width and height of two and a quarter feet (.7 meter). The supreme symbol of the covenant relationship between God and Israel, it was often called “the ark of the covenant of the <span>Lord<\/span>” (Dt 10:8). Unlike contemporary arks in some neighboring countries, it contained no representation of the deity, only the Ten Commandments (Ex 25:16), a jar of manna (16:33), and Aaron’s rod (Nm 17:10)—all symbolic of various aspects of God’s provision (see Heb 9:4).<\/p>\n<p>The ark was transported by two poles that passed through rings attached to each lower corner (Ex 25:13-15). These poles, left in place, projected underneath the veil into the Holy Place, serving as a reminder of the presence of the unseen ark.<\/p>\n<p>Resting upon the ark was the mercy seat (<span>nlt<\/span> “atonement cover”), a rectangular slab of solid gold, to which were attached two cherubim. The inward-looking cherubim and the mercy seat formed a throne for the invisible God (Ex 25:22), who is frequently described as enthroned above or upon the cherubim (Pss 80:1; 99:1). The noun “mercy seat” comes from a verb meaning “to make atonement.” The mercy seat was sprinkled with blood at the climax of the annual Day of Atonement (Lv 16:14). The fact that the ark was placed <em>under<\/em> the mercy seat (Ex 25:21) signifies that the law was under God’s protection and explains the references to the ark as his footstool (e.g., Ps 132:7). Like the cherubim in the Garden of Eden (Gn 3:24), those in the Holy of Holies probably had a similar protective function. In the ancient world, symbolic winged creatures like the cherubim were frequently placed as guardians of thrones and important buildings.<\/p>\n<p>Like the ark, the portable table of the bread of the Presence (Ex 25:30) was made of acacia wood overlaid with gold. It was marginally smaller, with a length of three feet (.9 meter), a width of one and a half feet (.5 meter) and a height of two and a quarter feet (.7 meter). The various auxiliary vessels and implements are detailed (v 29); presumably the dishes would be used for carrying the bread. On each Sabbath day, 12 loaves, symbolizing God’s provision for the 12 tribes of Israel, were placed in two rows on the table (Lv 24:5-9). The table was located in the Holy Place, on the north side.<\/p>\n<p>On the south side was the seven-branched golden lampstand (Ex 25:31-39; 37:17-24; 40:24). It was the most impressive item of furniture in the Holy Place; like the cherubim and the mercy seat, it was made of pure gold. Six golden branches, three on either side, extended from a central shaft, and the whole lampstand was ornamented with almond flowers. From the biblical evidence, it is not clear whether the lampstand gave continuous illumination (Ex 27:20; Lv 24:2) or night light only (1 Sm 3:3 in most versions). Leviticus 24:4 strongly supports the former, and the reference in 1 Samuel probably reflects the laxity that had crept in during the period of the judges. In Scripture, the golden lampstand symbolizes the continuing witness of the covenant community (Zec 4:1-7; Rv 2:1). The precise attention to the smallest detail is well illustrated in the listing of the supplementary items, all made of pure gold, required for the servicing of the lamps. Without this precise attention, the light would soon grow dim, and the sanctuary itself be defiled by carbon deposits (Ex 25:38). Moreover, only the best-quality olive oil was used, thus ensuring the brightest possible light (27:20).<\/p>\n<p>The altar of incense (Ex 30:1-10) may have been deliberately played down to give greater prominence to the sacrificial altar in the outer court, which is frequently referred to as <em>“the<\/em> altar.” In order to distinguish the altar of incense from the bronze altar of sacrifice, the former was called “the golden altar” (40:5). The altar of incense was located in the Holy Place, immediately opposite the ark in the Holy of Holies but just outside the veil, between the table of the bread of the Presence and the lampstand. Made of acacia wood overlaid with gold, it was 18 inches (45.7 centimeters) square and 3 feet (.9 meter) high, with horns and a golden molding around the four sides. Like the ark, it was made readily portable by the provision of rings and carrying poles. The altar was used for the offering of incense every morning and evening and for anointing the horns for the yearly atonement (30:7-10). The incense from a special recipe was forbidden for secular use. Originally, incense indicated something that ascended from a sacrifice, a pleasing aroma to God. Incense acknowledged God in worship (Mal 1:11) and at an early date signified the prayers of the godly (Ps 141:2). It also concealed God from human eyes (Lv 16:13).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheTabernacleProper\">The Tabernacle Proper<\/p>\n<p>The tabernacle was fundamentally a tent structure supported on a rigid framework. As with most of the other items, a triplication of detail underlines the importance of the tabernacle proper. The specifications are given in Exodus 26, the construction in Exodus 36:8-38, and the final erection in Exodus 40:16-19. The overall dimensions were approximately 45 feet (13.7 meters) long, 15 feet (4.6 meters) wide, and 15 feet high.<\/p>\n<p>The basic framework was a series of upright supports, each 15 feet (4.6 meters) high and 2½ feet (.7 meters) wide, and each standing on two silver bases (Ex 26:15-25). Scholars used to think these supports or frames were solid planks of acacia wood, but most modern scholars accept that each comprised two upright sides connected by horizontal pieces like a ladder. Such sections would be considerably stronger, would keep their shape better, and would allow a view of the beautiful inner layer of curtains from within the sanctuary. On the south and north sides were 20 such frames, with 6 more at the western end. In addition, on the western side were two corner pieces to which all the walls were attached by clasps (vv 23-25). A series of bars, which passed through gold rings attached to each upright frame, provided further security and alignment (vv 26-29). There were five such bars on each of the three sides. The central one on both the south and the north sides extended the entire length; the other four probably extended halfway, so that each frame was effectively secured by three bars. All the wooden sections were sheathed in gold.<\/p>\n<p>Over this framework several layers of coverings formed the top, sides, and back of the tabernacle. The first layer of ten linen curtains was dyed blue, purple, and scarlet, and embroidered with cherubim (Ex 26:1-6; 36:8-13). Each measured 42 feet by 6 feet (12.8 meters by 1.8 meters). Pairs joined along their length formed five sets of curtains. The two large curtains were themselves attached with 50 golden clasps that passed through a similar number of loops in each. Probably the curtains were stretched over the structure like a tablecloth.<\/p>\n<p>Eleven curtains or tarpaulins of goat hair, each 45 feet by 6 feet (13.7 meters by 1.8 meters), formed the next layer. These were divided into two sets by joining together five and six curtains respectively, and were linked using a similar method as the under curtain, except that bronze clasps instead of gold were used. The extra length of the goat-hair tarpaulins provided an overlap to protect the under curtain, and the larger tarpaulin overlapped at both the front and the rear of the tabernacle (Ex 26:7-9, 12-13). Two further layers ensured complete weatherproofing, one of ram’s skins dyed red and one of goatskins.<\/p>\n<p>A veil made of the same material as the under curtaining divided the sanctuary and hung under the golden clasps that joined the two curtains, supported by four pillars of acacia wood plated with gold and resting in silver bases. The cherubim on both the veil and the curtains were symbolic guardians of the sanctuary. The positioning of the veil made the Holy of Holies a perfect cube of 15 feet (4.6 meters). The layers of overlapping material and the attention given to the joints emphasizes the darkness of the innermost shrine. God was surrounded by darkness, carefully isolated from any unauthorized sight (Ps 97:2). The Holy Place occupied an area 30 feet by 15 feet (9.1 meters by 4.6 meters), exactly twice the area of the Holy of Holies. A screen made from the same fabric as the main curtain stood between the Holy Place and the outer court and hung from golden hooks on five posts of acacia wood, overlaid with gold and resting on bronze sockets. There is no mention of embroidered seraphim on this section, which formed the tabernacle’s eastern wall.<\/p>\n<p>The tabernacle, while probably having a somewhat squat appearance suggestive of strength, could be easily dismantled, transported, and reassembled. By the standards of that age, it was a fit dwelling place for God, constructed by the best human skills and the highest quality materials.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheOuterCourtandItsFurnishings\">The Outer Court and Its Furnishings<\/p>\n<p>The court of the tabernacle was a rectangle 150 feet (45.7 meters) long on the north and south sides and 75 feet (22.9 meters) wide on the east and west (Ex 27:9-18; 38:9-19). The tabernacle itself was at the western end. Curtains of fine-twined linen 7½ feet (2.3 meters) high screened the entire tabernacle area. In the eastern section, there was a central entrance, 30 feet (9.1 meters) wide. An embroidered curtain of the same height screened this doorway, which was probably recessed to facilitate entrance on either side. Silver rods supported all the curtains. These rods passed through silver hooks attached to the silver-plated posts that rested on bronze bases (38:17).<\/p>\n<p>The altar of burnt offering (Ex 27:1-8; 38:1-7), at the eastern end of the court adjacent to the entrance (40:29), was a reminder that there could be no approach to God except by the place of sacrifice. Seven feet (2.1 meters) square and four and a half feet (1.4 meters) high, it was small in comparison to the gigantic altar in Solomon’s temple (2 Chr 4:1). Basically, it was a hollow wooden framework overlaid with bronze, light enough to be carried on bronze-plated poles that passed through bronze rings at each corner. The grating (Ex 27:4-5) was probably inside the altar at the middle, although some scholars believe that it extended around the lower, outer sides of the altar, to provide draft and to allow the sacrificial blood to flow to the base of the altar. The horns, possibly symbolizing the sacrificial victims, could be used to tether the animals about to be sacrificed. In Israel, a person could claim sanctuary by clinging to the horns of the altar (e.g., 1 Kgs 1:50), with the possible symbolism that he was offering himself as a sacrifice to God and so claiming his protection. The lower part of the altar may have been partly filled with earth to absorb the blood (Ex 20:24). All the accessories were bronze: ash buckets, shovels for removing the ashes and filling the base with earth, basins for the blood, carcass hooks, and fire pans (27:3).<\/p>\n<p>No specifications concerning the size of the laver (<span>nlt<\/span> “washbasin”) have survived (Ex 30:17-20; 38:8). It was made from the mirrors of the women who served at the entrance to the court. The laver stood between the altar of sacrifice and the tabernacle. Failure to wash at the laver prior to ministering was punishable by death—a solemn reminder of the need for cleanliness and obedience before undertaking any task for God. The bronze pedestal may have been merely a support for the laver, but possibly it incorporated a lower basin in which the priests could wash their feet.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheConstructionandConsecrationoftheTabernacle\">The Construction and Consecration of the Tabernacle<\/p>\n<p>The God-given specifications required skills beyond the capabilities of Moses and Aaron. Prominent in the construction were Bezalel and Oholiab (Ex 30:1-11), with a large supporting group of experts, who must have learned their craftsmanship in Egypt. In a remarkable community effort, the Israelites gave so generously that the flow of gifts had to be stopped (35:20-24; 36:4-7). In addition, many gave of their special skills (35:25-29).<\/p>\n<p>When all the items had been completed and placed in position (Ex 40:1-33), every piece except the mercy seat and the cherubim was anointed with special oil (30:22-33; 40:9-11) and symbolically consecrated for its particular function. The climax came when the glory of the Lord filled the tabernacle (40:34). He came to be present among his people, and thereafter the cloud by day and fire by night provided reassurance concerning his presence and guidance. Yet there could be no laxity in approaching him, and even Moses was excluded from the Holy of Holies. The tabernacle was erected exactly one year after the deliverance from Egypt and a mere nine months after the Sinai revelation.<\/p>\n<p>Thereafter, when Israel camped, the Levites surrounded the tabernacle on three sides (Nm 1:53), with the families of Moses and Aaron occupying the remaining eastern side (Nm 3:14-38). This prevented any unauthorized intrusion into the sacred area. When the tabernacle was moved, the dismantlement was carefully regulated (4:5-15). The Kohathites were responsible for transporting the more sacred items, using the carrying poles; the Gershonites dealt with all the soft furnishings, the altar of sacrifice, and its accessories; and the Merarites carried the hard furnishings, such as the frames, bars, and bases. Even on the march, the tabernacle remained central, with six tribes preceding and the remaining six following (Nm 2).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Temple.<\/p>","summary_ro":"TABERNACLE Place of worship during the earliest years of the history of Israel. Preview • Introduction • Names for the Tabernacle • Background • The Tabernacle and Its Furniture • The Tabernacle Proper • The Outer Court and Its Furnishings • The Construction and Consecration of the Tabernacle Introduction The tabernacle was the precursor of the temple during most of the period between the formation of Israel at Sinai and its final establishment in the Promised Land in the early period of the ...","summary_en":"TABERNACLE Place of worship during the earliest years of the history of Israel. Preview • Introduction • Names for the Tabernacle • Background • The Tabernacle and Its Furniture • The Tabernacle Proper • The Outer Court and Its Furnishings • The Construction and Consecration of the Tabernacle Introduction The tabernacle was the precursor of the temple during most of the period between the formation of Israel at Sinai and its final establishment in the Promised Land in the early period of the ...","source":"Articles\/T.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"17":[{"id":36645,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Tabernacle","title_en":"Tabernacle","content_ro":"<h3>TABERNACLE<\/h3>\n<p>Place of worship during the earliest years of the history of Israel.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Introduction<\/p>\n<p>• Names for the Tabernacle<\/p>\n<p>• Background<\/p>\n<p>• The Tabernacle and Its Furniture<\/p>\n<p>• The Tabernacle Proper<\/p>\n<p>• The Outer Court and Its Furnishings<\/p>\n<p>• The Construction and Consecration of the Tabernacle<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Introduction\">Introduction<\/p>\n<p>The tabernacle was the precursor of the temple during most of the period between the formation of Israel at Sinai and its final establishment in the Promised Land in the early period of the monarchy. A portable sanctuary in keeping with the demand for easy mobility, it was the symbol of God’s presence with his people and, therefore, of his availability, as well as a place where his will was communicated. At an early period it was anticipated that, when peace and security had been secured, a permanent national shrine would be established (Dt 12:10-11). This was not realized until the time of Solomon, when the temple was erected (2 Sm 7:10-13; 1 Kgs 5:1-5). Historical events, as well as the similarities in construction and underlying theology, illustrate the close connection between the tabernacle and temple.<\/p>\n\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"NamesfortheTabernacle\">Names for the Tabernacle<\/p>\n<p>Several words and descriptive phrases are used:<\/p>\n<p>1. “Sacred residence,” “sanctuary,“ or “holy place” (Ex 25:8; Lv 10:17-18) derive from the verb “to be holy.”<\/p>\n<li>2. “The tent” occurs 19 times and is also found in expressions such as “the tent of the testimony” (Nm 9:15), “the tent of the Lord” (1 Kgs 2:28-30), “the house of the tent” (1 Chr 9:23), and “the tent of meeting” (e.g., Ex 33:7). The last name appears approximately 130 times. The word involves the concept of meeting by appointment and designates the tabernacle as the place where God met with Moses and his people to make known his will.<\/li>\n<li>3. “Dwelling place” is the literal meaning of “tabernacle.” In Exodus 25:9 the word indicates the whole tabernacle (including the outer court), but in Exodus 26:1 it refers to the tabernacle proper (that included the Holy Place and the Holy of Holies). A variant of this is “the tabernacle of the testimony” (Ex 38:21; <span>nlt<\/span> “Tabernacle of the Covenant”), which, with other expressions like “the tent of the testimony,” stresses the presence of the two tablets of the law.<\/li>\n<li>4. “The house of the <span>Lord<\/span>” (Ex 23:19).<\/li>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Background\">Background<\/p>\n<p>The three-part construction of the tabernacle, composed of a general area and two restricted areas, was not unique. In other developed religions that included an organized priesthood there were three main levels of approach: one for all members of the community; one for the priests generally; and one for the chief religious leaders, which was an inner sanctuary, conceived as the dwelling place of the deity. Excavations of heathen sanctuaries in Palestine and Syria in the pre-Israelite period have revealed this type of divided sanctuary.<\/p>\n<p>There is also widespread evidence of the use of portable, often complex, prefabricated structures during the second millennium <span>BC<\/span>, usually as either staterooms for kings and other high dignitaries, or as sanctuaries. Rulers of settled communities used these structures when traveling to other areas within their kingdoms (e.g., Egypt and, to a lesser extent, Canaan). Also, nomadic or seminomadic peoples, such as the Midianites, used portable sanctuaries. In pre-Mosaic Egypt, craftsmen used techniques similar to those used in the construction of the tabernacle.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheTabernacleandItsFurniture\">The Tabernacle and Its Furniture<\/p>\n<p>The book of Exodus (Ex 25–40) describes the tabernacle and its furnishings in detail. The materials used included items ranging from precious to common materials. Three metals are mentioned in descending order of importance: gold, copper, and silver. Gold alone was employed in the principal sanctuary furnishings. The total amount of metals used was approximately one ton (.9 metric ton) of gold, three of copper, and four of silver (38:24-31). The relatively large amount of silver came from an offering (30:11-16), which augmented the silver and gold already given by the Egyptians (12:35).<\/p>\n<p>Significantly, in God’s building specifications, the starting point was the furniture of the inner sanctuary (the Holy Place and the Holy of Holies). In the actual construction, this furniture was made after the tabernacle itself, presumably so that it could be immediately and adequately housed (Ex 25:9–27:19; cf. 36:8–37:28).<\/p>\n<p>The first item listed was the ark, the only furniture in the Holy of Holies. It was a wooden box sheathed in gold, approximately three and three-quarters feet (1.1 meters) long, with a width and height of two and a quarter feet (.7 meter). The supreme symbol of the covenant relationship between God and Israel, it was often called “the ark of the covenant of the <span>Lord<\/span>” (Dt 10:8). Unlike contemporary arks in some neighboring countries, it contained no representation of the deity, only the Ten Commandments (Ex 25:16), a jar of manna (16:33), and Aaron’s rod (Nm 17:10)—all symbolic of various aspects of God’s provision (see Heb 9:4).<\/p>\n<p>The ark was transported by two poles that passed through rings attached to each lower corner (Ex 25:13-15). These poles, left in place, projected underneath the veil into the Holy Place, serving as a reminder of the presence of the unseen ark.<\/p>\n<p>Resting upon the ark was the mercy seat (<span>nlt<\/span> “atonement cover”), a rectangular slab of solid gold, to which were attached two cherubim. The inward-looking cherubim and the mercy seat formed a throne for the invisible God (Ex 25:22), who is frequently described as enthroned above or upon the cherubim (Pss 80:1; 99:1). The noun “mercy seat” comes from a verb meaning “to make atonement.” The mercy seat was sprinkled with blood at the climax of the annual Day of Atonement (Lv 16:14). The fact that the ark was placed <em>under<\/em> the mercy seat (Ex 25:21) signifies that the law was under God’s protection and explains the references to the ark as his footstool (e.g., Ps 132:7). Like the cherubim in the Garden of Eden (Gn 3:24), those in the Holy of Holies probably had a similar protective function. In the ancient world, symbolic winged creatures like the cherubim were frequently placed as guardians of thrones and important buildings.<\/p>\n<p>Like the ark, the portable table of the bread of the Presence (Ex 25:30) was made of acacia wood overlaid with gold. It was marginally smaller, with a length of three feet (.9 meter), a width of one and a half feet (.5 meter) and a height of two and a quarter feet (.7 meter). The various auxiliary vessels and implements are detailed (v 29); presumably the dishes would be used for carrying the bread. On each Sabbath day, 12 loaves, symbolizing God’s provision for the 12 tribes of Israel, were placed in two rows on the table (Lv 24:5-9). The table was located in the Holy Place, on the north side.<\/p>\n<p>On the south side was the seven-branched golden lampstand (Ex 25:31-39; 37:17-24; 40:24). It was the most impressive item of furniture in the Holy Place; like the cherubim and the mercy seat, it was made of pure gold. Six golden branches, three on either side, extended from a central shaft, and the whole lampstand was ornamented with almond flowers. From the biblical evidence, it is not clear whether the lampstand gave continuous illumination (Ex 27:20; Lv 24:2) or night light only (1 Sm 3:3 in most versions). Leviticus 24:4 strongly supports the former, and the reference in 1 Samuel probably reflects the laxity that had crept in during the period of the judges. In Scripture, the golden lampstand symbolizes the continuing witness of the covenant community (Zec 4:1-7; Rv 2:1). The precise attention to the smallest detail is well illustrated in the listing of the supplementary items, all made of pure gold, required for the servicing of the lamps. Without this precise attention, the light would soon grow dim, and the sanctuary itself be defiled by carbon deposits (Ex 25:38). Moreover, only the best-quality olive oil was used, thus ensuring the brightest possible light (27:20).<\/p>\n<p>The altar of incense (Ex 30:1-10) may have been deliberately played down to give greater prominence to the sacrificial altar in the outer court, which is frequently referred to as <em>“the<\/em> altar.” In order to distinguish the altar of incense from the bronze altar of sacrifice, the former was called “the golden altar” (40:5). The altar of incense was located in the Holy Place, immediately opposite the ark in the Holy of Holies but just outside the veil, between the table of the bread of the Presence and the lampstand. Made of acacia wood overlaid with gold, it was 18 inches (45.7 centimeters) square and 3 feet (.9 meter) high, with horns and a golden molding around the four sides. Like the ark, it was made readily portable by the provision of rings and carrying poles. The altar was used for the offering of incense every morning and evening and for anointing the horns for the yearly atonement (30:7-10). The incense from a special recipe was forbidden for secular use. Originally, incense indicated something that ascended from a sacrifice, a pleasing aroma to God. Incense acknowledged God in worship (Mal 1:11) and at an early date signified the prayers of the godly (Ps 141:2). It also concealed God from human eyes (Lv 16:13).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheTabernacleProper\">The Tabernacle Proper<\/p>\n<p>The tabernacle was fundamentally a tent structure supported on a rigid framework. As with most of the other items, a triplication of detail underlines the importance of the tabernacle proper. The specifications are given in Exodus 26, the construction in Exodus 36:8-38, and the final erection in Exodus 40:16-19. The overall dimensions were approximately 45 feet (13.7 meters) long, 15 feet (4.6 meters) wide, and 15 feet high.<\/p>\n<p>The basic framework was a series of upright supports, each 15 feet (4.6 meters) high and 2½ feet (.7 meters) wide, and each standing on two silver bases (Ex 26:15-25). Scholars used to think these supports or frames were solid planks of acacia wood, but most modern scholars accept that each comprised two upright sides connected by horizontal pieces like a ladder. Such sections would be considerably stronger, would keep their shape better, and would allow a view of the beautiful inner layer of curtains from within the sanctuary. On the south and north sides were 20 such frames, with 6 more at the western end. In addition, on the western side were two corner pieces to which all the walls were attached by clasps (vv 23-25). A series of bars, which passed through gold rings attached to each upright frame, provided further security and alignment (vv 26-29). There were five such bars on each of the three sides. The central one on both the south and the north sides extended the entire length; the other four probably extended halfway, so that each frame was effectively secured by three bars. All the wooden sections were sheathed in gold.<\/p>\n<p>Over this framework several layers of coverings formed the top, sides, and back of the tabernacle. The first layer of ten linen curtains was dyed blue, purple, and scarlet, and embroidered with cherubim (Ex 26:1-6; 36:8-13). Each measured 42 feet by 6 feet (12.8 meters by 1.8 meters). Pairs joined along their length formed five sets of curtains. The two large curtains were themselves attached with 50 golden clasps that passed through a similar number of loops in each. Probably the curtains were stretched over the structure like a tablecloth.<\/p>\n<p>Eleven curtains or tarpaulins of goat hair, each 45 feet by 6 feet (13.7 meters by 1.8 meters), formed the next layer. These were divided into two sets by joining together five and six curtains respectively, and were linked using a similar method as the under curtain, except that bronze clasps instead of gold were used. The extra length of the goat-hair tarpaulins provided an overlap to protect the under curtain, and the larger tarpaulin overlapped at both the front and the rear of the tabernacle (Ex 26:7-9, 12-13). Two further layers ensured complete weatherproofing, one of ram’s skins dyed red and one of goatskins.<\/p>\n<p>A veil made of the same material as the under curtaining divided the sanctuary and hung under the golden clasps that joined the two curtains, supported by four pillars of acacia wood plated with gold and resting in silver bases. The cherubim on both the veil and the curtains were symbolic guardians of the sanctuary. The positioning of the veil made the Holy of Holies a perfect cube of 15 feet (4.6 meters). The layers of overlapping material and the attention given to the joints emphasizes the darkness of the innermost shrine. God was surrounded by darkness, carefully isolated from any unauthorized sight (Ps 97:2). The Holy Place occupied an area 30 feet by 15 feet (9.1 meters by 4.6 meters), exactly twice the area of the Holy of Holies. A screen made from the same fabric as the main curtain stood between the Holy Place and the outer court and hung from golden hooks on five posts of acacia wood, overlaid with gold and resting on bronze sockets. There is no mention of embroidered seraphim on this section, which formed the tabernacle’s eastern wall.<\/p>\n<p>The tabernacle, while probably having a somewhat squat appearance suggestive of strength, could be easily dismantled, transported, and reassembled. By the standards of that age, it was a fit dwelling place for God, constructed by the best human skills and the highest quality materials.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheOuterCourtandItsFurnishings\">The Outer Court and Its Furnishings<\/p>\n<p>The court of the tabernacle was a rectangle 150 feet (45.7 meters) long on the north and south sides and 75 feet (22.9 meters) wide on the east and west (Ex 27:9-18; 38:9-19). The tabernacle itself was at the western end. Curtains of fine-twined linen 7½ feet (2.3 meters) high screened the entire tabernacle area. In the eastern section, there was a central entrance, 30 feet (9.1 meters) wide. An embroidered curtain of the same height screened this doorway, which was probably recessed to facilitate entrance on either side. Silver rods supported all the curtains. These rods passed through silver hooks attached to the silver-plated posts that rested on bronze bases (38:17).<\/p>\n<p>The altar of burnt offering (Ex 27:1-8; 38:1-7), at the eastern end of the court adjacent to the entrance (40:29), was a reminder that there could be no approach to God except by the place of sacrifice. Seven feet (2.1 meters) square and four and a half feet (1.4 meters) high, it was small in comparison to the gigantic altar in Solomon’s temple (2 Chr 4:1). Basically, it was a hollow wooden framework overlaid with bronze, light enough to be carried on bronze-plated poles that passed through bronze rings at each corner. The grating (Ex 27:4-5) was probably inside the altar at the middle, although some scholars believe that it extended around the lower, outer sides of the altar, to provide draft and to allow the sacrificial blood to flow to the base of the altar. The horns, possibly symbolizing the sacrificial victims, could be used to tether the animals about to be sacrificed. In Israel, a person could claim sanctuary by clinging to the horns of the altar (e.g., 1 Kgs 1:50), with the possible symbolism that he was offering himself as a sacrifice to God and so claiming his protection. The lower part of the altar may have been partly filled with earth to absorb the blood (Ex 20:24). All the accessories were bronze: ash buckets, shovels for removing the ashes and filling the base with earth, basins for the blood, carcass hooks, and fire pans (27:3).<\/p>\n<p>No specifications concerning the size of the laver (<span>nlt<\/span> “washbasin”) have survived (Ex 30:17-20; 38:8). It was made from the mirrors of the women who served at the entrance to the court. The laver stood between the altar of sacrifice and the tabernacle. Failure to wash at the laver prior to ministering was punishable by death—a solemn reminder of the need for cleanliness and obedience before undertaking any task for God. The bronze pedestal may have been merely a support for the laver, but possibly it incorporated a lower basin in which the priests could wash their feet.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheConstructionandConsecrationoftheTabernacle\">The Construction and Consecration of the Tabernacle<\/p>\n<p>The God-given specifications required skills beyond the capabilities of Moses and Aaron. Prominent in the construction were Bezalel and Oholiab (Ex 30:1-11), with a large supporting group of experts, who must have learned their craftsmanship in Egypt. In a remarkable community effort, the Israelites gave so generously that the flow of gifts had to be stopped (35:20-24; 36:4-7). In addition, many gave of their special skills (35:25-29).<\/p>\n<p>When all the items had been completed and placed in position (Ex 40:1-33), every piece except the mercy seat and the cherubim was anointed with special oil (30:22-33; 40:9-11) and symbolically consecrated for its particular function. The climax came when the glory of the Lord filled the tabernacle (40:34). He came to be present among his people, and thereafter the cloud by day and fire by night provided reassurance concerning his presence and guidance. Yet there could be no laxity in approaching him, and even Moses was excluded from the Holy of Holies. The tabernacle was erected exactly one year after the deliverance from Egypt and a mere nine months after the Sinai revelation.<\/p>\n<p>Thereafter, when Israel camped, the Levites surrounded the tabernacle on three sides (Nm 1:53), with the families of Moses and Aaron occupying the remaining eastern side (Nm 3:14-38). This prevented any unauthorized intrusion into the sacred area. When the tabernacle was moved, the dismantlement was carefully regulated (4:5-15). The Kohathites were responsible for transporting the more sacred items, using the carrying poles; the Gershonites dealt with all the soft furnishings, the altar of sacrifice, and its accessories; and the Merarites carried the hard furnishings, such as the frames, bars, and bases. Even on the march, the tabernacle remained central, with six tribes preceding and the remaining six following (Nm 2).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Temple.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>TABERNACLE<\/h3>\n<p>Place of worship during the earliest years of the history of Israel.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Introduction<\/p>\n<p>• Names for the Tabernacle<\/p>\n<p>• Background<\/p>\n<p>• The Tabernacle and Its Furniture<\/p>\n<p>• The Tabernacle Proper<\/p>\n<p>• The Outer Court and Its Furnishings<\/p>\n<p>• The Construction and Consecration of the Tabernacle<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Introduction\">Introduction<\/p>\n<p>The tabernacle was the precursor of the temple during most of the period between the formation of Israel at Sinai and its final establishment in the Promised Land in the early period of the monarchy. A portable sanctuary in keeping with the demand for easy mobility, it was the symbol of God’s presence with his people and, therefore, of his availability, as well as a place where his will was communicated. At an early period it was anticipated that, when peace and security had been secured, a permanent national shrine would be established (Dt 12:10-11). This was not realized until the time of Solomon, when the temple was erected (2 Sm 7:10-13; 1 Kgs 5:1-5). Historical events, as well as the similarities in construction and underlying theology, illustrate the close connection between the tabernacle and temple.<\/p>\n\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"NamesfortheTabernacle\">Names for the Tabernacle<\/p>\n<p>Several words and descriptive phrases are used:<\/p>\n<p>1. “Sacred residence,” “sanctuary,“ or “holy place” (Ex 25:8; Lv 10:17-18) derive from the verb “to be holy.”<\/p>\n<li>2. “The tent” occurs 19 times and is also found in expressions such as “the tent of the testimony” (Nm 9:15), “the tent of the Lord” (1 Kgs 2:28-30), “the house of the tent” (1 Chr 9:23), and “the tent of meeting” (e.g., Ex 33:7). The last name appears approximately 130 times. The word involves the concept of meeting by appointment and designates the tabernacle as the place where God met with Moses and his people to make known his will.<\/li>\n<li>3. “Dwelling place” is the literal meaning of “tabernacle.” In Exodus 25:9 the word indicates the whole tabernacle (including the outer court), but in Exodus 26:1 it refers to the tabernacle proper (that included the Holy Place and the Holy of Holies). A variant of this is “the tabernacle of the testimony” (Ex 38:21; <span>nlt<\/span> “Tabernacle of the Covenant”), which, with other expressions like “the tent of the testimony,” stresses the presence of the two tablets of the law.<\/li>\n<li>4. “The house of the <span>Lord<\/span>” (Ex 23:19).<\/li>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Background\">Background<\/p>\n<p>The three-part construction of the tabernacle, composed of a general area and two restricted areas, was not unique. In other developed religions that included an organized priesthood there were three main levels of approach: one for all members of the community; one for the priests generally; and one for the chief religious leaders, which was an inner sanctuary, conceived as the dwelling place of the deity. Excavations of heathen sanctuaries in Palestine and Syria in the pre-Israelite period have revealed this type of divided sanctuary.<\/p>\n<p>There is also widespread evidence of the use of portable, often complex, prefabricated structures during the second millennium <span>BC<\/span>, usually as either staterooms for kings and other high dignitaries, or as sanctuaries. Rulers of settled communities used these structures when traveling to other areas within their kingdoms (e.g., Egypt and, to a lesser extent, Canaan). Also, nomadic or seminomadic peoples, such as the Midianites, used portable sanctuaries. In pre-Mosaic Egypt, craftsmen used techniques similar to those used in the construction of the tabernacle.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheTabernacleandItsFurniture\">The Tabernacle and Its Furniture<\/p>\n<p>The book of Exodus (Ex 25–40) describes the tabernacle and its furnishings in detail. The materials used included items ranging from precious to common materials. Three metals are mentioned in descending order of importance: gold, copper, and silver. Gold alone was employed in the principal sanctuary furnishings. The total amount of metals used was approximately one ton (.9 metric ton) of gold, three of copper, and four of silver (38:24-31). The relatively large amount of silver came from an offering (30:11-16), which augmented the silver and gold already given by the Egyptians (12:35).<\/p>\n<p>Significantly, in God’s building specifications, the starting point was the furniture of the inner sanctuary (the Holy Place and the Holy of Holies). In the actual construction, this furniture was made after the tabernacle itself, presumably so that it could be immediately and adequately housed (Ex 25:9–27:19; cf. 36:8–37:28).<\/p>\n<p>The first item listed was the ark, the only furniture in the Holy of Holies. It was a wooden box sheathed in gold, approximately three and three-quarters feet (1.1 meters) long, with a width and height of two and a quarter feet (.7 meter). The supreme symbol of the covenant relationship between God and Israel, it was often called “the ark of the covenant of the <span>Lord<\/span>” (Dt 10:8). Unlike contemporary arks in some neighboring countries, it contained no representation of the deity, only the Ten Commandments (Ex 25:16), a jar of manna (16:33), and Aaron’s rod (Nm 17:10)—all symbolic of various aspects of God’s provision (see Heb 9:4).<\/p>\n<p>The ark was transported by two poles that passed through rings attached to each lower corner (Ex 25:13-15). These poles, left in place, projected underneath the veil into the Holy Place, serving as a reminder of the presence of the unseen ark.<\/p>\n<p>Resting upon the ark was the mercy seat (<span>nlt<\/span> “atonement cover”), a rectangular slab of solid gold, to which were attached two cherubim. The inward-looking cherubim and the mercy seat formed a throne for the invisible God (Ex 25:22), who is frequently described as enthroned above or upon the cherubim (Pss 80:1; 99:1). The noun “mercy seat” comes from a verb meaning “to make atonement.” The mercy seat was sprinkled with blood at the climax of the annual Day of Atonement (Lv 16:14). The fact that the ark was placed <em>under<\/em> the mercy seat (Ex 25:21) signifies that the law was under God’s protection and explains the references to the ark as his footstool (e.g., Ps 132:7). Like the cherubim in the Garden of Eden (Gn 3:24), those in the Holy of Holies probably had a similar protective function. In the ancient world, symbolic winged creatures like the cherubim were frequently placed as guardians of thrones and important buildings.<\/p>\n<p>Like the ark, the portable table of the bread of the Presence (Ex 25:30) was made of acacia wood overlaid with gold. It was marginally smaller, with a length of three feet (.9 meter), a width of one and a half feet (.5 meter) and a height of two and a quarter feet (.7 meter). The various auxiliary vessels and implements are detailed (v 29); presumably the dishes would be used for carrying the bread. On each Sabbath day, 12 loaves, symbolizing God’s provision for the 12 tribes of Israel, were placed in two rows on the table (Lv 24:5-9). The table was located in the Holy Place, on the north side.<\/p>\n<p>On the south side was the seven-branched golden lampstand (Ex 25:31-39; 37:17-24; 40:24). It was the most impressive item of furniture in the Holy Place; like the cherubim and the mercy seat, it was made of pure gold. Six golden branches, three on either side, extended from a central shaft, and the whole lampstand was ornamented with almond flowers. From the biblical evidence, it is not clear whether the lampstand gave continuous illumination (Ex 27:20; Lv 24:2) or night light only (1 Sm 3:3 in most versions). Leviticus 24:4 strongly supports the former, and the reference in 1 Samuel probably reflects the laxity that had crept in during the period of the judges. In Scripture, the golden lampstand symbolizes the continuing witness of the covenant community (Zec 4:1-7; Rv 2:1). The precise attention to the smallest detail is well illustrated in the listing of the supplementary items, all made of pure gold, required for the servicing of the lamps. Without this precise attention, the light would soon grow dim, and the sanctuary itself be defiled by carbon deposits (Ex 25:38). Moreover, only the best-quality olive oil was used, thus ensuring the brightest possible light (27:20).<\/p>\n<p>The altar of incense (Ex 30:1-10) may have been deliberately played down to give greater prominence to the sacrificial altar in the outer court, which is frequently referred to as <em>“the<\/em> altar.” In order to distinguish the altar of incense from the bronze altar of sacrifice, the former was called “the golden altar” (40:5). The altar of incense was located in the Holy Place, immediately opposite the ark in the Holy of Holies but just outside the veil, between the table of the bread of the Presence and the lampstand. Made of acacia wood overlaid with gold, it was 18 inches (45.7 centimeters) square and 3 feet (.9 meter) high, with horns and a golden molding around the four sides. Like the ark, it was made readily portable by the provision of rings and carrying poles. The altar was used for the offering of incense every morning and evening and for anointing the horns for the yearly atonement (30:7-10). The incense from a special recipe was forbidden for secular use. Originally, incense indicated something that ascended from a sacrifice, a pleasing aroma to God. Incense acknowledged God in worship (Mal 1:11) and at an early date signified the prayers of the godly (Ps 141:2). It also concealed God from human eyes (Lv 16:13).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheTabernacleProper\">The Tabernacle Proper<\/p>\n<p>The tabernacle was fundamentally a tent structure supported on a rigid framework. As with most of the other items, a triplication of detail underlines the importance of the tabernacle proper. The specifications are given in Exodus 26, the construction in Exodus 36:8-38, and the final erection in Exodus 40:16-19. The overall dimensions were approximately 45 feet (13.7 meters) long, 15 feet (4.6 meters) wide, and 15 feet high.<\/p>\n<p>The basic framework was a series of upright supports, each 15 feet (4.6 meters) high and 2½ feet (.7 meters) wide, and each standing on two silver bases (Ex 26:15-25). Scholars used to think these supports or frames were solid planks of acacia wood, but most modern scholars accept that each comprised two upright sides connected by horizontal pieces like a ladder. Such sections would be considerably stronger, would keep their shape better, and would allow a view of the beautiful inner layer of curtains from within the sanctuary. On the south and north sides were 20 such frames, with 6 more at the western end. In addition, on the western side were two corner pieces to which all the walls were attached by clasps (vv 23-25). A series of bars, which passed through gold rings attached to each upright frame, provided further security and alignment (vv 26-29). There were five such bars on each of the three sides. The central one on both the south and the north sides extended the entire length; the other four probably extended halfway, so that each frame was effectively secured by three bars. All the wooden sections were sheathed in gold.<\/p>\n<p>Over this framework several layers of coverings formed the top, sides, and back of the tabernacle. The first layer of ten linen curtains was dyed blue, purple, and scarlet, and embroidered with cherubim (Ex 26:1-6; 36:8-13). Each measured 42 feet by 6 feet (12.8 meters by 1.8 meters). Pairs joined along their length formed five sets of curtains. The two large curtains were themselves attached with 50 golden clasps that passed through a similar number of loops in each. Probably the curtains were stretched over the structure like a tablecloth.<\/p>\n<p>Eleven curtains or tarpaulins of goat hair, each 45 feet by 6 feet (13.7 meters by 1.8 meters), formed the next layer. These were divided into two sets by joining together five and six curtains respectively, and were linked using a similar method as the under curtain, except that bronze clasps instead of gold were used. The extra length of the goat-hair tarpaulins provided an overlap to protect the under curtain, and the larger tarpaulin overlapped at both the front and the rear of the tabernacle (Ex 26:7-9, 12-13). Two further layers ensured complete weatherproofing, one of ram’s skins dyed red and one of goatskins.<\/p>\n<p>A veil made of the same material as the under curtaining divided the sanctuary and hung under the golden clasps that joined the two curtains, supported by four pillars of acacia wood plated with gold and resting in silver bases. The cherubim on both the veil and the curtains were symbolic guardians of the sanctuary. The positioning of the veil made the Holy of Holies a perfect cube of 15 feet (4.6 meters). The layers of overlapping material and the attention given to the joints emphasizes the darkness of the innermost shrine. God was surrounded by darkness, carefully isolated from any unauthorized sight (Ps 97:2). The Holy Place occupied an area 30 feet by 15 feet (9.1 meters by 4.6 meters), exactly twice the area of the Holy of Holies. A screen made from the same fabric as the main curtain stood between the Holy Place and the outer court and hung from golden hooks on five posts of acacia wood, overlaid with gold and resting on bronze sockets. There is no mention of embroidered seraphim on this section, which formed the tabernacle’s eastern wall.<\/p>\n<p>The tabernacle, while probably having a somewhat squat appearance suggestive of strength, could be easily dismantled, transported, and reassembled. By the standards of that age, it was a fit dwelling place for God, constructed by the best human skills and the highest quality materials.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheOuterCourtandItsFurnishings\">The Outer Court and Its Furnishings<\/p>\n<p>The court of the tabernacle was a rectangle 150 feet (45.7 meters) long on the north and south sides and 75 feet (22.9 meters) wide on the east and west (Ex 27:9-18; 38:9-19). The tabernacle itself was at the western end. Curtains of fine-twined linen 7½ feet (2.3 meters) high screened the entire tabernacle area. In the eastern section, there was a central entrance, 30 feet (9.1 meters) wide. An embroidered curtain of the same height screened this doorway, which was probably recessed to facilitate entrance on either side. Silver rods supported all the curtains. These rods passed through silver hooks attached to the silver-plated posts that rested on bronze bases (38:17).<\/p>\n<p>The altar of burnt offering (Ex 27:1-8; 38:1-7), at the eastern end of the court adjacent to the entrance (40:29), was a reminder that there could be no approach to God except by the place of sacrifice. Seven feet (2.1 meters) square and four and a half feet (1.4 meters) high, it was small in comparison to the gigantic altar in Solomon’s temple (2 Chr 4:1). Basically, it was a hollow wooden framework overlaid with bronze, light enough to be carried on bronze-plated poles that passed through bronze rings at each corner. The grating (Ex 27:4-5) was probably inside the altar at the middle, although some scholars believe that it extended around the lower, outer sides of the altar, to provide draft and to allow the sacrificial blood to flow to the base of the altar. The horns, possibly symbolizing the sacrificial victims, could be used to tether the animals about to be sacrificed. In Israel, a person could claim sanctuary by clinging to the horns of the altar (e.g., 1 Kgs 1:50), with the possible symbolism that he was offering himself as a sacrifice to God and so claiming his protection. The lower part of the altar may have been partly filled with earth to absorb the blood (Ex 20:24). All the accessories were bronze: ash buckets, shovels for removing the ashes and filling the base with earth, basins for the blood, carcass hooks, and fire pans (27:3).<\/p>\n<p>No specifications concerning the size of the laver (<span>nlt<\/span> “washbasin”) have survived (Ex 30:17-20; 38:8). It was made from the mirrors of the women who served at the entrance to the court. The laver stood between the altar of sacrifice and the tabernacle. Failure to wash at the laver prior to ministering was punishable by death—a solemn reminder of the need for cleanliness and obedience before undertaking any task for God. The bronze pedestal may have been merely a support for the laver, but possibly it incorporated a lower basin in which the priests could wash their feet.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheConstructionandConsecrationoftheTabernacle\">The Construction and Consecration of the Tabernacle<\/p>\n<p>The God-given specifications required skills beyond the capabilities of Moses and Aaron. Prominent in the construction were Bezalel and Oholiab (Ex 30:1-11), with a large supporting group of experts, who must have learned their craftsmanship in Egypt. In a remarkable community effort, the Israelites gave so generously that the flow of gifts had to be stopped (35:20-24; 36:4-7). In addition, many gave of their special skills (35:25-29).<\/p>\n<p>When all the items had been completed and placed in position (Ex 40:1-33), every piece except the mercy seat and the cherubim was anointed with special oil (30:22-33; 40:9-11) and symbolically consecrated for its particular function. The climax came when the glory of the Lord filled the tabernacle (40:34). He came to be present among his people, and thereafter the cloud by day and fire by night provided reassurance concerning his presence and guidance. Yet there could be no laxity in approaching him, and even Moses was excluded from the Holy of Holies. The tabernacle was erected exactly one year after the deliverance from Egypt and a mere nine months after the Sinai revelation.<\/p>\n<p>Thereafter, when Israel camped, the Levites surrounded the tabernacle on three sides (Nm 1:53), with the families of Moses and Aaron occupying the remaining eastern side (Nm 3:14-38). This prevented any unauthorized intrusion into the sacred area. When the tabernacle was moved, the dismantlement was carefully regulated (4:5-15). The Kohathites were responsible for transporting the more sacred items, using the carrying poles; the Gershonites dealt with all the soft furnishings, the altar of sacrifice, and its accessories; and the Merarites carried the hard furnishings, such as the frames, bars, and bases. Even on the march, the tabernacle remained central, with six tribes preceding and the remaining six following (Nm 2).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Temple.<\/p>","summary_ro":"TABERNACLE Place of worship during the earliest years of the history of Israel. Preview • Introduction • Names for the Tabernacle • Background • The Tabernacle and Its Furniture • The Tabernacle Proper • The Outer Court and Its Furnishings • The Construction and Consecration of the Tabernacle Introduction The tabernacle was the precursor of the temple during most of the period between the formation of Israel at Sinai and its final establishment in the Promised Land in the early period of the ...","summary_en":"TABERNACLE Place of worship during the earliest years of the history of Israel. Preview • Introduction • Names for the Tabernacle • Background • The Tabernacle and Its Furniture • The Tabernacle Proper • The Outer Court and Its Furnishings • The Construction and Consecration of the Tabernacle Introduction The tabernacle was the precursor of the temple during most of the period between the formation of Israel at Sinai and its final establishment in the Promised Land in the early period of the ...","source":"Articles\/T.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"21":[{"id":31319,"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":36598,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Tabernacle","title_en":"Tabernacle","content_ro":"<h3>TABERNACLE<\/h3>\n<p>Place of worship during the earliest years of the history of Israel.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Introduction<\/p>\n<p>• Names for the Tabernacle<\/p>\n<p>• Background<\/p>\n<p>• The Tabernacle and Its Furniture<\/p>\n<p>• The Tabernacle Proper<\/p>\n<p>• The Outer Court and Its Furnishings<\/p>\n<p>• The Construction and Consecration of the Tabernacle<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Introduction\">Introduction<\/p>\n<p>The tabernacle was the precursor of the temple during most of the period between the formation of Israel at Sinai and its final establishment in the Promised Land in the early period of the monarchy. A portable sanctuary in keeping with the demand for easy mobility, it was the symbol of God’s presence with his people and, therefore, of his availability, as well as a place where his will was communicated. At an early period it was anticipated that, when peace and security had been secured, a permanent national shrine would be established (Dt 12:10-11). This was not realized until the time of Solomon, when the temple was erected (2 Sm 7:10-13; 1 Kgs 5:1-5). Historical events, as well as the similarities in construction and underlying theology, illustrate the close connection between the tabernacle and temple.<\/p>\n\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"NamesfortheTabernacle\">Names for the Tabernacle<\/p>\n<p>Several words and descriptive phrases are used:<\/p>\n<p>1. “Sacred residence,” “sanctuary,“ or “holy place” (Ex 25:8; Lv 10:17-18) derive from the verb “to be holy.”<\/p>\n<li>2. “The tent” occurs 19 times and is also found in expressions such as “the tent of the testimony” (Nm 9:15), “the tent of the Lord” (1 Kgs 2:28-30), “the house of the tent” (1 Chr 9:23), and “the tent of meeting” (e.g., Ex 33:7). The last name appears approximately 130 times. The word involves the concept of meeting by appointment and designates the tabernacle as the place where God met with Moses and his people to make known his will.<\/li>\n<li>3. “Dwelling place” is the literal meaning of “tabernacle.” In Exodus 25:9 the word indicates the whole tabernacle (including the outer court), but in Exodus 26:1 it refers to the tabernacle proper (that included the Holy Place and the Holy of Holies). A variant of this is “the tabernacle of the testimony” (Ex 38:21; <span>nlt<\/span> “Tabernacle of the Covenant”), which, with other expressions like “the tent of the testimony,” stresses the presence of the two tablets of the law.<\/li>\n<li>4. “The house of the <span>Lord<\/span>” (Ex 23:19).<\/li>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Background\">Background<\/p>\n<p>The three-part construction of the tabernacle, composed of a general area and two restricted areas, was not unique. In other developed religions that included an organized priesthood there were three main levels of approach: one for all members of the community; one for the priests generally; and one for the chief religious leaders, which was an inner sanctuary, conceived as the dwelling place of the deity. Excavations of heathen sanctuaries in Palestine and Syria in the pre-Israelite period have revealed this type of divided sanctuary.<\/p>\n<p>There is also widespread evidence of the use of portable, often complex, prefabricated structures during the second millennium <span>BC<\/span>, usually as either staterooms for kings and other high dignitaries, or as sanctuaries. Rulers of settled communities used these structures when traveling to other areas within their kingdoms (e.g., Egypt and, to a lesser extent, Canaan). Also, nomadic or seminomadic peoples, such as the Midianites, used portable sanctuaries. In pre-Mosaic Egypt, craftsmen used techniques similar to those used in the construction of the tabernacle.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheTabernacleandItsFurniture\">The Tabernacle and Its Furniture<\/p>\n<p>The book of Exodus (Ex 25–40) describes the tabernacle and its furnishings in detail. The materials used included items ranging from precious to common materials. Three metals are mentioned in descending order of importance: gold, copper, and silver. Gold alone was employed in the principal sanctuary furnishings. The total amount of metals used was approximately one ton (.9 metric ton) of gold, three of copper, and four of silver (38:24-31). The relatively large amount of silver came from an offering (30:11-16), which augmented the silver and gold already given by the Egyptians (12:35).<\/p>\n<p>Significantly, in God’s building specifications, the starting point was the furniture of the inner sanctuary (the Holy Place and the Holy of Holies). In the actual construction, this furniture was made after the tabernacle itself, presumably so that it could be immediately and adequately housed (Ex 25:9–27:19; cf. 36:8–37:28).<\/p>\n<p>The first item listed was the ark, the only furniture in the Holy of Holies. It was a wooden box sheathed in gold, approximately three and three-quarters feet (1.1 meters) long, with a width and height of two and a quarter feet (.7 meter). The supreme symbol of the covenant relationship between God and Israel, it was often called “the ark of the covenant of the <span>Lord<\/span>” (Dt 10:8). Unlike contemporary arks in some neighboring countries, it contained no representation of the deity, only the Ten Commandments (Ex 25:16), a jar of manna (16:33), and Aaron’s rod (Nm 17:10)—all symbolic of various aspects of God’s provision (see Heb 9:4).<\/p>\n<p>The ark was transported by two poles that passed through rings attached to each lower corner (Ex 25:13-15). These poles, left in place, projected underneath the veil into the Holy Place, serving as a reminder of the presence of the unseen ark.<\/p>\n<p>Resting upon the ark was the mercy seat (<span>nlt<\/span> “atonement cover”), a rectangular slab of solid gold, to which were attached two cherubim. The inward-looking cherubim and the mercy seat formed a throne for the invisible God (Ex 25:22), who is frequently described as enthroned above or upon the cherubim (Pss 80:1; 99:1). The noun “mercy seat” comes from a verb meaning “to make atonement.” The mercy seat was sprinkled with blood at the climax of the annual Day of Atonement (Lv 16:14). The fact that the ark was placed <em>under<\/em> the mercy seat (Ex 25:21) signifies that the law was under God’s protection and explains the references to the ark as his footstool (e.g., Ps 132:7). Like the cherubim in the Garden of Eden (Gn 3:24), those in the Holy of Holies probably had a similar protective function. In the ancient world, symbolic winged creatures like the cherubim were frequently placed as guardians of thrones and important buildings.<\/p>\n<p>Like the ark, the portable table of the bread of the Presence (Ex 25:30) was made of acacia wood overlaid with gold. It was marginally smaller, with a length of three feet (.9 meter), a width of one and a half feet (.5 meter) and a height of two and a quarter feet (.7 meter). The various auxiliary vessels and implements are detailed (v 29); presumably the dishes would be used for carrying the bread. On each Sabbath day, 12 loaves, symbolizing God’s provision for the 12 tribes of Israel, were placed in two rows on the table (Lv 24:5-9). The table was located in the Holy Place, on the north side.<\/p>\n<p>On the south side was the seven-branched golden lampstand (Ex 25:31-39; 37:17-24; 40:24). It was the most impressive item of furniture in the Holy Place; like the cherubim and the mercy seat, it was made of pure gold. Six golden branches, three on either side, extended from a central shaft, and the whole lampstand was ornamented with almond flowers. From the biblical evidence, it is not clear whether the lampstand gave continuous illumination (Ex 27:20; Lv 24:2) or night light only (1 Sm 3:3 in most versions). Leviticus 24:4 strongly supports the former, and the reference in 1 Samuel probably reflects the laxity that had crept in during the period of the judges. In Scripture, the golden lampstand symbolizes the continuing witness of the covenant community (Zec 4:1-7; Rv 2:1). The precise attention to the smallest detail is well illustrated in the listing of the supplementary items, all made of pure gold, required for the servicing of the lamps. Without this precise attention, the light would soon grow dim, and the sanctuary itself be defiled by carbon deposits (Ex 25:38). Moreover, only the best-quality olive oil was used, thus ensuring the brightest possible light (27:20).<\/p>\n<p>The altar of incense (Ex 30:1-10) may have been deliberately played down to give greater prominence to the sacrificial altar in the outer court, which is frequently referred to as <em>“the<\/em> altar.” In order to distinguish the altar of incense from the bronze altar of sacrifice, the former was called “the golden altar” (40:5). The altar of incense was located in the Holy Place, immediately opposite the ark in the Holy of Holies but just outside the veil, between the table of the bread of the Presence and the lampstand. Made of acacia wood overlaid with gold, it was 18 inches (45.7 centimeters) square and 3 feet (.9 meter) high, with horns and a golden molding around the four sides. Like the ark, it was made readily portable by the provision of rings and carrying poles. The altar was used for the offering of incense every morning and evening and for anointing the horns for the yearly atonement (30:7-10). The incense from a special recipe was forbidden for secular use. Originally, incense indicated something that ascended from a sacrifice, a pleasing aroma to God. Incense acknowledged God in worship (Mal 1:11) and at an early date signified the prayers of the godly (Ps 141:2). It also concealed God from human eyes (Lv 16:13).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheTabernacleProper\">The Tabernacle Proper<\/p>\n<p>The tabernacle was fundamentally a tent structure supported on a rigid framework. As with most of the other items, a triplication of detail underlines the importance of the tabernacle proper. The specifications are given in Exodus 26, the construction in Exodus 36:8-38, and the final erection in Exodus 40:16-19. The overall dimensions were approximately 45 feet (13.7 meters) long, 15 feet (4.6 meters) wide, and 15 feet high.<\/p>\n<p>The basic framework was a series of upright supports, each 15 feet (4.6 meters) high and 2½ feet (.7 meters) wide, and each standing on two silver bases (Ex 26:15-25). Scholars used to think these supports or frames were solid planks of acacia wood, but most modern scholars accept that each comprised two upright sides connected by horizontal pieces like a ladder. Such sections would be considerably stronger, would keep their shape better, and would allow a view of the beautiful inner layer of curtains from within the sanctuary. On the south and north sides were 20 such frames, with 6 more at the western end. In addition, on the western side were two corner pieces to which all the walls were attached by clasps (vv 23-25). A series of bars, which passed through gold rings attached to each upright frame, provided further security and alignment (vv 26-29). There were five such bars on each of the three sides. The central one on both the south and the north sides extended the entire length; the other four probably extended halfway, so that each frame was effectively secured by three bars. All the wooden sections were sheathed in gold.<\/p>\n<p>Over this framework several layers of coverings formed the top, sides, and back of the tabernacle. The first layer of ten linen curtains was dyed blue, purple, and scarlet, and embroidered with cherubim (Ex 26:1-6; 36:8-13). Each measured 42 feet by 6 feet (12.8 meters by 1.8 meters). Pairs joined along their length formed five sets of curtains. The two large curtains were themselves attached with 50 golden clasps that passed through a similar number of loops in each. Probably the curtains were stretched over the structure like a tablecloth.<\/p>\n<p>Eleven curtains or tarpaulins of goat hair, each 45 feet by 6 feet (13.7 meters by 1.8 meters), formed the next layer. These were divided into two sets by joining together five and six curtains respectively, and were linked using a similar method as the under curtain, except that bronze clasps instead of gold were used. The extra length of the goat-hair tarpaulins provided an overlap to protect the under curtain, and the larger tarpaulin overlapped at both the front and the rear of the tabernacle (Ex 26:7-9, 12-13). Two further layers ensured complete weatherproofing, one of ram’s skins dyed red and one of goatskins.<\/p>\n<p>A veil made of the same material as the under curtaining divided the sanctuary and hung under the golden clasps that joined the two curtains, supported by four pillars of acacia wood plated with gold and resting in silver bases. The cherubim on both the veil and the curtains were symbolic guardians of the sanctuary. The positioning of the veil made the Holy of Holies a perfect cube of 15 feet (4.6 meters). The layers of overlapping material and the attention given to the joints emphasizes the darkness of the innermost shrine. God was surrounded by darkness, carefully isolated from any unauthorized sight (Ps 97:2). The Holy Place occupied an area 30 feet by 15 feet (9.1 meters by 4.6 meters), exactly twice the area of the Holy of Holies. A screen made from the same fabric as the main curtain stood between the Holy Place and the outer court and hung from golden hooks on five posts of acacia wood, overlaid with gold and resting on bronze sockets. There is no mention of embroidered seraphim on this section, which formed the tabernacle’s eastern wall.<\/p>\n<p>The tabernacle, while probably having a somewhat squat appearance suggestive of strength, could be easily dismantled, transported, and reassembled. By the standards of that age, it was a fit dwelling place for God, constructed by the best human skills and the highest quality materials.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheOuterCourtandItsFurnishings\">The Outer Court and Its Furnishings<\/p>\n<p>The court of the tabernacle was a rectangle 150 feet (45.7 meters) long on the north and south sides and 75 feet (22.9 meters) wide on the east and west (Ex 27:9-18; 38:9-19). The tabernacle itself was at the western end. Curtains of fine-twined linen 7½ feet (2.3 meters) high screened the entire tabernacle area. In the eastern section, there was a central entrance, 30 feet (9.1 meters) wide. An embroidered curtain of the same height screened this doorway, which was probably recessed to facilitate entrance on either side. Silver rods supported all the curtains. These rods passed through silver hooks attached to the silver-plated posts that rested on bronze bases (38:17).<\/p>\n<p>The altar of burnt offering (Ex 27:1-8; 38:1-7), at the eastern end of the court adjacent to the entrance (40:29), was a reminder that there could be no approach to God except by the place of sacrifice. Seven feet (2.1 meters) square and four and a half feet (1.4 meters) high, it was small in comparison to the gigantic altar in Solomon’s temple (2 Chr 4:1). Basically, it was a hollow wooden framework overlaid with bronze, light enough to be carried on bronze-plated poles that passed through bronze rings at each corner. The grating (Ex 27:4-5) was probably inside the altar at the middle, although some scholars believe that it extended around the lower, outer sides of the altar, to provide draft and to allow the sacrificial blood to flow to the base of the altar. The horns, possibly symbolizing the sacrificial victims, could be used to tether the animals about to be sacrificed. In Israel, a person could claim sanctuary by clinging to the horns of the altar (e.g., 1 Kgs 1:50), with the possible symbolism that he was offering himself as a sacrifice to God and so claiming his protection. The lower part of the altar may have been partly filled with earth to absorb the blood (Ex 20:24). All the accessories were bronze: ash buckets, shovels for removing the ashes and filling the base with earth, basins for the blood, carcass hooks, and fire pans (27:3).<\/p>\n<p>No specifications concerning the size of the laver (<span>nlt<\/span> “washbasin”) have survived (Ex 30:17-20; 38:8). It was made from the mirrors of the women who served at the entrance to the court. The laver stood between the altar of sacrifice and the tabernacle. Failure to wash at the laver prior to ministering was punishable by death—a solemn reminder of the need for cleanliness and obedience before undertaking any task for God. The bronze pedestal may have been merely a support for the laver, but possibly it incorporated a lower basin in which the priests could wash their feet.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheConstructionandConsecrationoftheTabernacle\">The Construction and Consecration of the Tabernacle<\/p>\n<p>The God-given specifications required skills beyond the capabilities of Moses and Aaron. Prominent in the construction were Bezalel and Oholiab (Ex 30:1-11), with a large supporting group of experts, who must have learned their craftsmanship in Egypt. In a remarkable community effort, the Israelites gave so generously that the flow of gifts had to be stopped (35:20-24; 36:4-7). In addition, many gave of their special skills (35:25-29).<\/p>\n<p>When all the items had been completed and placed in position (Ex 40:1-33), every piece except the mercy seat and the cherubim was anointed with special oil (30:22-33; 40:9-11) and symbolically consecrated for its particular function. The climax came when the glory of the Lord filled the tabernacle (40:34). He came to be present among his people, and thereafter the cloud by day and fire by night provided reassurance concerning his presence and guidance. Yet there could be no laxity in approaching him, and even Moses was excluded from the Holy of Holies. The tabernacle was erected exactly one year after the deliverance from Egypt and a mere nine months after the Sinai revelation.<\/p>\n<p>Thereafter, when Israel camped, the Levites surrounded the tabernacle on three sides (Nm 1:53), with the families of Moses and Aaron occupying the remaining eastern side (Nm 3:14-38). This prevented any unauthorized intrusion into the sacred area. When the tabernacle was moved, the dismantlement was carefully regulated (4:5-15). The Kohathites were responsible for transporting the more sacred items, using the carrying poles; the Gershonites dealt with all the soft furnishings, the altar of sacrifice, and its accessories; and the Merarites carried the hard furnishings, such as the frames, bars, and bases. Even on the march, the tabernacle remained central, with six tribes preceding and the remaining six following (Nm 2).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Temple.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>TABERNACLE<\/h3>\n<p>Place of worship during the earliest years of the history of Israel.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Introduction<\/p>\n<p>• Names for the Tabernacle<\/p>\n<p>• Background<\/p>\n<p>• The Tabernacle and Its Furniture<\/p>\n<p>• The Tabernacle Proper<\/p>\n<p>• The Outer Court and Its Furnishings<\/p>\n<p>• The Construction and Consecration of the Tabernacle<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Introduction\">Introduction<\/p>\n<p>The tabernacle was the precursor of the temple during most of the period between the formation of Israel at Sinai and its final establishment in the Promised Land in the early period of the monarchy. A portable sanctuary in keeping with the demand for easy mobility, it was the symbol of God’s presence with his people and, therefore, of his availability, as well as a place where his will was communicated. At an early period it was anticipated that, when peace and security had been secured, a permanent national shrine would be established (Dt 12:10-11). This was not realized until the time of Solomon, when the temple was erected (2 Sm 7:10-13; 1 Kgs 5:1-5). Historical events, as well as the similarities in construction and underlying theology, illustrate the close connection between the tabernacle and temple.<\/p>\n\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"NamesfortheTabernacle\">Names for the Tabernacle<\/p>\n<p>Several words and descriptive phrases are used:<\/p>\n<p>1. “Sacred residence,” “sanctuary,“ or “holy place” (Ex 25:8; Lv 10:17-18) derive from the verb “to be holy.”<\/p>\n<li>2. “The tent” occurs 19 times and is also found in expressions such as “the tent of the testimony” (Nm 9:15), “the tent of the Lord” (1 Kgs 2:28-30), “the house of the tent” (1 Chr 9:23), and “the tent of meeting” (e.g., Ex 33:7). The last name appears approximately 130 times. The word involves the concept of meeting by appointment and designates the tabernacle as the place where God met with Moses and his people to make known his will.<\/li>\n<li>3. “Dwelling place” is the literal meaning of “tabernacle.” In Exodus 25:9 the word indicates the whole tabernacle (including the outer court), but in Exodus 26:1 it refers to the tabernacle proper (that included the Holy Place and the Holy of Holies). A variant of this is “the tabernacle of the testimony” (Ex 38:21; <span>nlt<\/span> “Tabernacle of the Covenant”), which, with other expressions like “the tent of the testimony,” stresses the presence of the two tablets of the law.<\/li>\n<li>4. “The house of the <span>Lord<\/span>” (Ex 23:19).<\/li>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Background\">Background<\/p>\n<p>The three-part construction of the tabernacle, composed of a general area and two restricted areas, was not unique. In other developed religions that included an organized priesthood there were three main levels of approach: one for all members of the community; one for the priests generally; and one for the chief religious leaders, which was an inner sanctuary, conceived as the dwelling place of the deity. Excavations of heathen sanctuaries in Palestine and Syria in the pre-Israelite period have revealed this type of divided sanctuary.<\/p>\n<p>There is also widespread evidence of the use of portable, often complex, prefabricated structures during the second millennium <span>BC<\/span>, usually as either staterooms for kings and other high dignitaries, or as sanctuaries. Rulers of settled communities used these structures when traveling to other areas within their kingdoms (e.g., Egypt and, to a lesser extent, Canaan). Also, nomadic or seminomadic peoples, such as the Midianites, used portable sanctuaries. In pre-Mosaic Egypt, craftsmen used techniques similar to those used in the construction of the tabernacle.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheTabernacleandItsFurniture\">The Tabernacle and Its Furniture<\/p>\n<p>The book of Exodus (Ex 25–40) describes the tabernacle and its furnishings in detail. The materials used included items ranging from precious to common materials. Three metals are mentioned in descending order of importance: gold, copper, and silver. Gold alone was employed in the principal sanctuary furnishings. The total amount of metals used was approximately one ton (.9 metric ton) of gold, three of copper, and four of silver (38:24-31). The relatively large amount of silver came from an offering (30:11-16), which augmented the silver and gold already given by the Egyptians (12:35).<\/p>\n<p>Significantly, in God’s building specifications, the starting point was the furniture of the inner sanctuary (the Holy Place and the Holy of Holies). In the actual construction, this furniture was made after the tabernacle itself, presumably so that it could be immediately and adequately housed (Ex 25:9–27:19; cf. 36:8–37:28).<\/p>\n<p>The first item listed was the ark, the only furniture in the Holy of Holies. It was a wooden box sheathed in gold, approximately three and three-quarters feet (1.1 meters) long, with a width and height of two and a quarter feet (.7 meter). The supreme symbol of the covenant relationship between God and Israel, it was often called “the ark of the covenant of the <span>Lord<\/span>” (Dt 10:8). Unlike contemporary arks in some neighboring countries, it contained no representation of the deity, only the Ten Commandments (Ex 25:16), a jar of manna (16:33), and Aaron’s rod (Nm 17:10)—all symbolic of various aspects of God’s provision (see Heb 9:4).<\/p>\n<p>The ark was transported by two poles that passed through rings attached to each lower corner (Ex 25:13-15). These poles, left in place, projected underneath the veil into the Holy Place, serving as a reminder of the presence of the unseen ark.<\/p>\n<p>Resting upon the ark was the mercy seat (<span>nlt<\/span> “atonement cover”), a rectangular slab of solid gold, to which were attached two cherubim. The inward-looking cherubim and the mercy seat formed a throne for the invisible God (Ex 25:22), who is frequently described as enthroned above or upon the cherubim (Pss 80:1; 99:1). The noun “mercy seat” comes from a verb meaning “to make atonement.” The mercy seat was sprinkled with blood at the climax of the annual Day of Atonement (Lv 16:14). The fact that the ark was placed <em>under<\/em> the mercy seat (Ex 25:21) signifies that the law was under God’s protection and explains the references to the ark as his footstool (e.g., Ps 132:7). Like the cherubim in the Garden of Eden (Gn 3:24), those in the Holy of Holies probably had a similar protective function. In the ancient world, symbolic winged creatures like the cherubim were frequently placed as guardians of thrones and important buildings.<\/p>\n<p>Like the ark, the portable table of the bread of the Presence (Ex 25:30) was made of acacia wood overlaid with gold. It was marginally smaller, with a length of three feet (.9 meter), a width of one and a half feet (.5 meter) and a height of two and a quarter feet (.7 meter). The various auxiliary vessels and implements are detailed (v 29); presumably the dishes would be used for carrying the bread. On each Sabbath day, 12 loaves, symbolizing God’s provision for the 12 tribes of Israel, were placed in two rows on the table (Lv 24:5-9). The table was located in the Holy Place, on the north side.<\/p>\n<p>On the south side was the seven-branched golden lampstand (Ex 25:31-39; 37:17-24; 40:24). It was the most impressive item of furniture in the Holy Place; like the cherubim and the mercy seat, it was made of pure gold. Six golden branches, three on either side, extended from a central shaft, and the whole lampstand was ornamented with almond flowers. From the biblical evidence, it is not clear whether the lampstand gave continuous illumination (Ex 27:20; Lv 24:2) or night light only (1 Sm 3:3 in most versions). Leviticus 24:4 strongly supports the former, and the reference in 1 Samuel probably reflects the laxity that had crept in during the period of the judges. In Scripture, the golden lampstand symbolizes the continuing witness of the covenant community (Zec 4:1-7; Rv 2:1). The precise attention to the smallest detail is well illustrated in the listing of the supplementary items, all made of pure gold, required for the servicing of the lamps. Without this precise attention, the light would soon grow dim, and the sanctuary itself be defiled by carbon deposits (Ex 25:38). Moreover, only the best-quality olive oil was used, thus ensuring the brightest possible light (27:20).<\/p>\n<p>The altar of incense (Ex 30:1-10) may have been deliberately played down to give greater prominence to the sacrificial altar in the outer court, which is frequently referred to as <em>“the<\/em> altar.” In order to distinguish the altar of incense from the bronze altar of sacrifice, the former was called “the golden altar” (40:5). The altar of incense was located in the Holy Place, immediately opposite the ark in the Holy of Holies but just outside the veil, between the table of the bread of the Presence and the lampstand. Made of acacia wood overlaid with gold, it was 18 inches (45.7 centimeters) square and 3 feet (.9 meter) high, with horns and a golden molding around the four sides. Like the ark, it was made readily portable by the provision of rings and carrying poles. The altar was used for the offering of incense every morning and evening and for anointing the horns for the yearly atonement (30:7-10). The incense from a special recipe was forbidden for secular use. Originally, incense indicated something that ascended from a sacrifice, a pleasing aroma to God. Incense acknowledged God in worship (Mal 1:11) and at an early date signified the prayers of the godly (Ps 141:2). It also concealed God from human eyes (Lv 16:13).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheTabernacleProper\">The Tabernacle Proper<\/p>\n<p>The tabernacle was fundamentally a tent structure supported on a rigid framework. As with most of the other items, a triplication of detail underlines the importance of the tabernacle proper. The specifications are given in Exodus 26, the construction in Exodus 36:8-38, and the final erection in Exodus 40:16-19. The overall dimensions were approximately 45 feet (13.7 meters) long, 15 feet (4.6 meters) wide, and 15 feet high.<\/p>\n<p>The basic framework was a series of upright supports, each 15 feet (4.6 meters) high and 2½ feet (.7 meters) wide, and each standing on two silver bases (Ex 26:15-25). Scholars used to think these supports or frames were solid planks of acacia wood, but most modern scholars accept that each comprised two upright sides connected by horizontal pieces like a ladder. Such sections would be considerably stronger, would keep their shape better, and would allow a view of the beautiful inner layer of curtains from within the sanctuary. On the south and north sides were 20 such frames, with 6 more at the western end. In addition, on the western side were two corner pieces to which all the walls were attached by clasps (vv 23-25). A series of bars, which passed through gold rings attached to each upright frame, provided further security and alignment (vv 26-29). There were five such bars on each of the three sides. The central one on both the south and the north sides extended the entire length; the other four probably extended halfway, so that each frame was effectively secured by three bars. All the wooden sections were sheathed in gold.<\/p>\n<p>Over this framework several layers of coverings formed the top, sides, and back of the tabernacle. The first layer of ten linen curtains was dyed blue, purple, and scarlet, and embroidered with cherubim (Ex 26:1-6; 36:8-13). Each measured 42 feet by 6 feet (12.8 meters by 1.8 meters). Pairs joined along their length formed five sets of curtains. The two large curtains were themselves attached with 50 golden clasps that passed through a similar number of loops in each. Probably the curtains were stretched over the structure like a tablecloth.<\/p>\n<p>Eleven curtains or tarpaulins of goat hair, each 45 feet by 6 feet (13.7 meters by 1.8 meters), formed the next layer. These were divided into two sets by joining together five and six curtains respectively, and were linked using a similar method as the under curtain, except that bronze clasps instead of gold were used. The extra length of the goat-hair tarpaulins provided an overlap to protect the under curtain, and the larger tarpaulin overlapped at both the front and the rear of the tabernacle (Ex 26:7-9, 12-13). Two further layers ensured complete weatherproofing, one of ram’s skins dyed red and one of goatskins.<\/p>\n<p>A veil made of the same material as the under curtaining divided the sanctuary and hung under the golden clasps that joined the two curtains, supported by four pillars of acacia wood plated with gold and resting in silver bases. The cherubim on both the veil and the curtains were symbolic guardians of the sanctuary. The positioning of the veil made the Holy of Holies a perfect cube of 15 feet (4.6 meters). The layers of overlapping material and the attention given to the joints emphasizes the darkness of the innermost shrine. God was surrounded by darkness, carefully isolated from any unauthorized sight (Ps 97:2). The Holy Place occupied an area 30 feet by 15 feet (9.1 meters by 4.6 meters), exactly twice the area of the Holy of Holies. A screen made from the same fabric as the main curtain stood between the Holy Place and the outer court and hung from golden hooks on five posts of acacia wood, overlaid with gold and resting on bronze sockets. There is no mention of embroidered seraphim on this section, which formed the tabernacle’s eastern wall.<\/p>\n<p>The tabernacle, while probably having a somewhat squat appearance suggestive of strength, could be easily dismantled, transported, and reassembled. By the standards of that age, it was a fit dwelling place for God, constructed by the best human skills and the highest quality materials.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheOuterCourtandItsFurnishings\">The Outer Court and Its Furnishings<\/p>\n<p>The court of the tabernacle was a rectangle 150 feet (45.7 meters) long on the north and south sides and 75 feet (22.9 meters) wide on the east and west (Ex 27:9-18; 38:9-19). The tabernacle itself was at the western end. Curtains of fine-twined linen 7½ feet (2.3 meters) high screened the entire tabernacle area. In the eastern section, there was a central entrance, 30 feet (9.1 meters) wide. An embroidered curtain of the same height screened this doorway, which was probably recessed to facilitate entrance on either side. Silver rods supported all the curtains. These rods passed through silver hooks attached to the silver-plated posts that rested on bronze bases (38:17).<\/p>\n<p>The altar of burnt offering (Ex 27:1-8; 38:1-7), at the eastern end of the court adjacent to the entrance (40:29), was a reminder that there could be no approach to God except by the place of sacrifice. Seven feet (2.1 meters) square and four and a half feet (1.4 meters) high, it was small in comparison to the gigantic altar in Solomon’s temple (2 Chr 4:1). Basically, it was a hollow wooden framework overlaid with bronze, light enough to be carried on bronze-plated poles that passed through bronze rings at each corner. The grating (Ex 27:4-5) was probably inside the altar at the middle, although some scholars believe that it extended around the lower, outer sides of the altar, to provide draft and to allow the sacrificial blood to flow to the base of the altar. The horns, possibly symbolizing the sacrificial victims, could be used to tether the animals about to be sacrificed. In Israel, a person could claim sanctuary by clinging to the horns of the altar (e.g., 1 Kgs 1:50), with the possible symbolism that he was offering himself as a sacrifice to God and so claiming his protection. The lower part of the altar may have been partly filled with earth to absorb the blood (Ex 20:24). All the accessories were bronze: ash buckets, shovels for removing the ashes and filling the base with earth, basins for the blood, carcass hooks, and fire pans (27:3).<\/p>\n<p>No specifications concerning the size of the laver (<span>nlt<\/span> “washbasin”) have survived (Ex 30:17-20; 38:8). It was made from the mirrors of the women who served at the entrance to the court. The laver stood between the altar of sacrifice and the tabernacle. Failure to wash at the laver prior to ministering was punishable by death—a solemn reminder of the need for cleanliness and obedience before undertaking any task for God. The bronze pedestal may have been merely a support for the laver, but possibly it incorporated a lower basin in which the priests could wash their feet.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheConstructionandConsecrationoftheTabernacle\">The Construction and Consecration of the Tabernacle<\/p>\n<p>The God-given specifications required skills beyond the capabilities of Moses and Aaron. Prominent in the construction were Bezalel and Oholiab (Ex 30:1-11), with a large supporting group of experts, who must have learned their craftsmanship in Egypt. In a remarkable community effort, the Israelites gave so generously that the flow of gifts had to be stopped (35:20-24; 36:4-7). In addition, many gave of their special skills (35:25-29).<\/p>\n<p>When all the items had been completed and placed in position (Ex 40:1-33), every piece except the mercy seat and the cherubim was anointed with special oil (30:22-33; 40:9-11) and symbolically consecrated for its particular function. The climax came when the glory of the Lord filled the tabernacle (40:34). He came to be present among his people, and thereafter the cloud by day and fire by night provided reassurance concerning his presence and guidance. Yet there could be no laxity in approaching him, and even Moses was excluded from the Holy of Holies. The tabernacle was erected exactly one year after the deliverance from Egypt and a mere nine months after the Sinai revelation.<\/p>\n<p>Thereafter, when Israel camped, the Levites surrounded the tabernacle on three sides (Nm 1:53), with the families of Moses and Aaron occupying the remaining eastern side (Nm 3:14-38). This prevented any unauthorized intrusion into the sacred area. When the tabernacle was moved, the dismantlement was carefully regulated (4:5-15). The Kohathites were responsible for transporting the more sacred items, using the carrying poles; the Gershonites dealt with all the soft furnishings, the altar of sacrifice, and its accessories; and the Merarites carried the hard furnishings, such as the frames, bars, and bases. Even on the march, the tabernacle remained central, with six tribes preceding and the remaining six following (Nm 2).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Temple.<\/p>","summary_ro":"TABERNACLE Place of worship during the earliest years of the history of Israel. Preview • Introduction • Names for the Tabernacle • Background • The Tabernacle and Its Furniture • The Tabernacle Proper • The Outer Court and Its Furnishings • The Construction and Consecration of the Tabernacle Introduction The tabernacle was the precursor of the temple during most of the period between the formation of Israel at Sinai and its final establishment in the Promised Land in the early period of the ...","summary_en":"TABERNACLE Place of worship during the earliest years of the history of Israel. Preview • Introduction • Names for the Tabernacle • Background • The Tabernacle and Its Furniture • The Tabernacle Proper • The Outer Court and Its Furnishings • The Construction and Consecration of the Tabernacle Introduction The tabernacle was the precursor of the temple during most of the period between the formation of Israel at Sinai and its final establishment in the Promised Land in the early period of the ...","source":"Articles\/T.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":44042,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Exodul 38:21","title_en":"Study Note: Exodul 38:21","content_ro":"<p><strong>38:21-29<\/strong> The immense amount of metal reported in this inventory of materials (more than a ton of <em>gold<\/em><em>,<\/em> almost four tons of <em>silver<\/em><em>,<\/em> and two and a half tons of <em>bronze<\/em>) reflects the Egyptians’ eagerness to get the Israelites out of Egypt, giving the Israelites anything they asked for in order to hurry them on their way (see 12:35-36).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>38:21-29<\/strong> The immense amount of metal reported in this inventory of materials (more than a ton of <em>gold<\/em><em>,<\/em> almost four tons of <em>silver<\/em><em>,<\/em> and two and a half tons of <em>bronze<\/em>) reflects the Egyptians’ eagerness to get the Israelites out of Egypt, giving the Israelites anything they asked for in order to hurry them on their way (see 12:35-36).<\/p>","summary_ro":"38:21-29 The immense amount of metal reported in this inventory of materials (more than a ton of gold, almost four tons of silver, and two and a half tons of bronze) reflects the Egyptians’ eagerness to get the Israelites out of Egypt, giving the Israelites anything they asked for in order to hurry them on their way (see 12:35-36).","summary_en":"38:21-29 The immense amount of metal reported in this inventory of materials (more than a ton of gold, almost four tons of silver, and two and a half tons of bronze) reflects the Egyptians’ eagerness to get the Israelites out of Egypt, giving the Israelites anything they asked for in order to hurry them on their way (see 12:35-36).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":44043,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Exodul 38:21","title_en":"Study Note: Exodul 38:21","content_ro":"<p><strong>38:21<\/strong> Since the Tabernacle contained the Ark of the Covenant, it is called the <em>Tabernacle of the Covenant<\/em>.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>38:21<\/strong> Since the Tabernacle contained the Ark of the Covenant, it is called the <em>Tabernacle of the Covenant<\/em>.<\/p>","summary_ro":"38:21 Since the Tabernacle contained the Ark of the Covenant, it is called the Tabernacle of the Covenant.","summary_en":"38:21 Since the Tabernacle contained the Ark of the Covenant, it is called the Tabernacle of the Covenant.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":71668,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Exodul 38:21","title_en":"Study Note: Exodul 38:21","content_ro":"<p><strong>38:21-29<\/strong> The immense amount of metal reported in this inventory of materials (more than a ton of <em>gold<\/em><em>,<\/em> almost four tons of <em>silver<\/em><em>,<\/em> and two and a half tons of <em>bronze<\/em>) reflects the Egyptians’ eagerness to get the Israelites out of Egypt, giving the Israelites anything they asked for in order to hurry them on their way (see 12:35-36).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>38:21-29<\/strong> The immense amount of metal reported in this inventory of materials (more than a ton of <em>gold<\/em><em>,<\/em> almost four tons of <em>silver<\/em><em>,<\/em> and two and a half tons of <em>bronze<\/em>) reflects the Egyptians’ eagerness to get the Israelites out of Egypt, giving the Israelites anything they asked for in order to hurry them on their way (see 12:35-36).<\/p>","summary_ro":"38:21-29 The immense amount of metal reported in this inventory of materials (more than a ton of gold, almost four tons of silver, and two and a half tons of bronze) reflects the Egyptians’ eagerness to get the Israelites out of Egypt, giving the Israelites anything they asked for in order to hurry them on their way (see 12:35-36).","summary_en":"38:21-29 The immense amount of metal reported in this inventory of materials (more than a ton of gold, almost four tons of silver, and two and a half tons of bronze) reflects the Egyptians’ eagerness to get the Israelites out of Egypt, giving the Israelites anything they asked for in order to hurry them on their way (see 12:35-36).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":71669,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Exodul 38:21","title_en":"Study Note: Exodul 38:21","content_ro":"<p><strong>38:21<\/strong> Since the Tabernacle contained the Ark of the Covenant, it is called the <em>Tabernacle of the Covenant<\/em>.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>38:21<\/strong> Since the Tabernacle contained the Ark of the Covenant, it is called the <em>Tabernacle of the Covenant<\/em>.<\/p>","summary_ro":"38:21 Since the Tabernacle contained the Ark of the Covenant, it is called the Tabernacle of the Covenant.","summary_en":"38:21 Since the Tabernacle contained the Ark of the Covenant, it is called the Tabernacle of the Covenant.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":99294,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Exodul 38:21","title_en":"Study Note: Exodul 38:21","content_ro":"<p><strong>38:21-29<\/strong> The immense amount of metal reported in this inventory of materials (more than a ton of <em>gold<\/em><em>,<\/em> almost four tons of <em>silver<\/em><em>,<\/em> and two and a half tons of <em>bronze<\/em>) reflects the Egyptians’ eagerness to get the Israelites out of Egypt, giving the Israelites anything they asked for in order to hurry them on their way (see 12:35-36).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>38:21-29<\/strong> The immense amount of metal reported in this inventory of materials (more than a ton of <em>gold<\/em><em>,<\/em> almost four tons of <em>silver<\/em><em>,<\/em> and two and a half tons of <em>bronze<\/em>) reflects the Egyptians’ eagerness to get the Israelites out of Egypt, giving the Israelites anything they asked for in order to hurry them on their way (see 12:35-36).<\/p>","summary_ro":"38:21-29 The immense amount of metal reported in this inventory of materials (more than a ton of gold, almost four tons of silver, and two and a half tons of bronze) reflects the Egyptians’ eagerness to get the Israelites out of Egypt, giving the Israelites anything they asked for in order to hurry them on their way (see 12:35-36).","summary_en":"38:21-29 The immense amount of metal reported in this inventory of materials (more than a ton of gold, almost four tons of silver, and two and a half tons of bronze) reflects the Egyptians’ eagerness to get the Israelites out of Egypt, giving the Israelites anything they asked for in order to hurry them on their way (see 12:35-36).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":99295,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Exodul 38:21","title_en":"Study Note: Exodul 38:21","content_ro":"<p><strong>38:21<\/strong> Since the Tabernacle contained the Ark of the Covenant, it is called the <em>Tabernacle of the Covenant<\/em>.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>38:21<\/strong> Since the Tabernacle contained the Ark of the Covenant, it is called the <em>Tabernacle of the Covenant<\/em>.<\/p>","summary_ro":"38:21 Since the Tabernacle contained the Ark of the Covenant, it is called the Tabernacle of the Covenant.","summary_en":"38:21 Since the Tabernacle contained the Ark of the Covenant, it is called the Tabernacle of the Covenant.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":126920,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Exodul 38:21","title_en":"Study Note: Exodul 38:21","content_ro":"<p><strong>38:21-29<\/strong> The immense amount of metal reported in this inventory of materials (more than a ton of <em>gold<\/em><em>,<\/em> almost four tons of <em>silver<\/em><em>,<\/em> and two and a half tons of <em>bronze<\/em>) reflects the Egyptians’ eagerness to get the Israelites out of Egypt, giving the Israelites anything they asked for in order to hurry them on their way (see 12:35-36).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>38:21-29<\/strong> The immense amount of metal reported in this inventory of materials (more than a ton of <em>gold<\/em><em>,<\/em> almost four tons of <em>silver<\/em><em>,<\/em> and two and a half tons of <em>bronze<\/em>) reflects the Egyptians’ eagerness to get the Israelites out of Egypt, giving the Israelites anything they asked for in order to hurry them on their way (see 12:35-36).<\/p>","summary_ro":"38:21-29 The immense amount of metal reported in this inventory of materials (more than a ton of gold, almost four tons of silver, and two and a half tons of bronze) reflects the Egyptians’ eagerness to get the Israelites out of Egypt, giving the Israelites anything they asked for in order to hurry them on their way (see 12:35-36).","summary_en":"38:21-29 The immense amount of metal reported in this inventory of materials (more than a ton of gold, almost four tons of silver, and two and a half tons of bronze) reflects the Egyptians’ eagerness to get the Israelites out of Egypt, giving the Israelites anything they asked for in order to hurry them on their way (see 12:35-36).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":126921,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Exodul 38:21","title_en":"Study Note: Exodul 38:21","content_ro":"<p><strong>38:21<\/strong> Since the Tabernacle contained the Ark of the Covenant, it is called the <em>Tabernacle of the Covenant<\/em>.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>38:21<\/strong> Since the Tabernacle contained the Ark of the Covenant, it is called the <em>Tabernacle of the Covenant<\/em>.<\/p>","summary_ro":"38:21 Since the Tabernacle contained the Ark of the Covenant, it is called the Tabernacle of the Covenant.","summary_en":"38:21 Since the Tabernacle contained the Ark of the Covenant, it is called the Tabernacle of the Covenant.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":60347,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"The Tabernacle","title_en":"The Tabernacle","content_ro":"<h3>The Tabernacle<\/h3>\n<p>From the very beginning of creation, God’s plan was to share his life with humanity and allow people to enjoy fellowship with him. However, the entry of sin into the world (Gen 3) created a serious obstacle, for if sinful people were to come into the presence of God, his holiness would destroy them. The Tabernacle provided a temporary means by which the Israelites could enjoy God’s presence without being destroyed by it (Exod 25:8). The Tabernacle was a mobile sanctuary where God dwelled with his people and was the place where Israel made sacrifices and offerings in worship of the Lord.<\/p>\n<p>The Tabernacle shows us in tangible ways what is required to enter God’s presence. The altar shows us that sin must be removed through a sacrificial death. The washbasin shows that fellowship with God demands removing uncleanness, that is, anything that conflicts with God’s ethical perfection. In the Holy Place, the lampstand and the table show that we must walk in God’s light and rely on him to provide for our needs. The incense altar represents prayer, and the constantly rising incense reminds those who are forgiven and washed, who are walking in his light and relying constantly on him, that they have unlimited access to him. The curtain between the Holy Place and the Most Holy Place reminds us that the Almighty, the holy God who invites us into fellowship, cannot be approached casually. Behind the curtain is the glorious Ark of the Covenant, over which God’s glory appeared, symbolizing his enthronement as Israel’s king. The centrality of the Ark reflects God’s central purpose for his people—a covenant relationship with the living God.<\/p>\n<p>Our new covenant relationship with God is made possible by Jesus’ perfect sacrifice for sin and his ministry as our high priest before God (see especially Heb 9–10). He has fulfilled the requirements that are illustrated by the ancient Tabernacle, and we can now approach God’s throne with boldness and confidence (see Eph 3:12; Heb 4:14-16).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Exod 25:1-9; 26:1-37; 35:4–36:38; 38:21-31; 39:32–40:35; 2 Chr 3:1–7:22; Heb 9:1-28<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>The Tabernacle<\/h3>\n<p>From the very beginning of creation, God’s plan was to share his life with humanity and allow people to enjoy fellowship with him. However, the entry of sin into the world (Gen 3) created a serious obstacle, for if sinful people were to come into the presence of God, his holiness would destroy them. The Tabernacle provided a temporary means by which the Israelites could enjoy God’s presence without being destroyed by it (Exod 25:8). The Tabernacle was a mobile sanctuary where God dwelled with his people and was the place where Israel made sacrifices and offerings in worship of the Lord.<\/p>\n<p>The Tabernacle shows us in tangible ways what is required to enter God’s presence. The altar shows us that sin must be removed through a sacrificial death. The washbasin shows that fellowship with God demands removing uncleanness, that is, anything that conflicts with God’s ethical perfection. In the Holy Place, the lampstand and the table show that we must walk in God’s light and rely on him to provide for our needs. The incense altar represents prayer, and the constantly rising incense reminds those who are forgiven and washed, who are walking in his light and relying constantly on him, that they have unlimited access to him. The curtain between the Holy Place and the Most Holy Place reminds us that the Almighty, the holy God who invites us into fellowship, cannot be approached casually. Behind the curtain is the glorious Ark of the Covenant, over which God’s glory appeared, symbolizing his enthronement as Israel’s king. The centrality of the Ark reflects God’s central purpose for his people—a covenant relationship with the living God.<\/p>\n<p>Our new covenant relationship with God is made possible by Jesus’ perfect sacrifice for sin and his ministry as our high priest before God (see especially Heb 9–10). He has fulfilled the requirements that are illustrated by the ancient Tabernacle, and we can now approach God’s throne with boldness and confidence (see Eph 3:12; Heb 4:14-16).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Exod 25:1-9; 26:1-37; 35:4–36:38; 38:21-31; 39:32–40:35; 2 Chr 3:1–7:22; Heb 9:1-28<\/p>","summary_ro":"The Tabernacle From the very beginning of creation, God’s plan was to share his life with humanity and allow people to enjoy fellowship with him. However, the entry of sin into the world (Gen 3) created a serious obstacle, for if sinful people were to come into the presence of God, his holiness would destroy them. The Tabernacle provided a temporary means by which the Israelites could enjoy God’s presence without being destroyed by it (Exod 25:8). The Tabernacle was a mobile sanctuary where G...","summary_en":"The Tabernacle From the very beginning of creation, God’s plan was to share his life with humanity and allow people to enjoy fellowship with him. However, the entry of sin into the world (Gen 3) created a serious obstacle, for if sinful people were to come into the presence of God, his holiness would destroy them. The Tabernacle provided a temporary means by which the Israelites could enjoy God’s presence without being destroyed by it (Exod 25:8). The Tabernacle was a mobile sanctuary where G...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":87973,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"The Tabernacle","title_en":"The Tabernacle","content_ro":"<h3>The Tabernacle<\/h3>\n<p>From the very beginning of creation, God’s plan was to share his life with humanity and allow people to enjoy fellowship with him. However, the entry of sin into the world (Gen 3) created a serious obstacle, for if sinful people were to come into the presence of God, his holiness would destroy them. The Tabernacle provided a temporary means by which the Israelites could enjoy God’s presence without being destroyed by it (Exod 25:8). The Tabernacle was a mobile sanctuary where God dwelled with his people and was the place where Israel made sacrifices and offerings in worship of the Lord.<\/p>\n<p>The Tabernacle shows us in tangible ways what is required to enter God’s presence. The altar shows us that sin must be removed through a sacrificial death. The washbasin shows that fellowship with God demands removing uncleanness, that is, anything that conflicts with God’s ethical perfection. In the Holy Place, the lampstand and the table show that we must walk in God’s light and rely on him to provide for our needs. The incense altar represents prayer, and the constantly rising incense reminds those who are forgiven and washed, who are walking in his light and relying constantly on him, that they have unlimited access to him. The curtain between the Holy Place and the Most Holy Place reminds us that the Almighty, the holy God who invites us into fellowship, cannot be approached casually. Behind the curtain is the glorious Ark of the Covenant, over which God’s glory appeared, symbolizing his enthronement as Israel’s king. The centrality of the Ark reflects God’s central purpose for his people—a covenant relationship with the living God.<\/p>\n<p>Our new covenant relationship with God is made possible by Jesus’ perfect sacrifice for sin and his ministry as our high priest before God (see especially Heb 9–10). He has fulfilled the requirements that are illustrated by the ancient Tabernacle, and we can now approach God’s throne with boldness and confidence (see Eph 3:12; Heb 4:14-16).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Exod 25:1-9; 26:1-37; 35:4–36:38; 38:21-31; 39:32–40:35; 2 Chr 3:1–7:22; Heb 9:1-28<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>The Tabernacle<\/h3>\n<p>From the very beginning of creation, God’s plan was to share his life with humanity and allow people to enjoy fellowship with him. However, the entry of sin into the world (Gen 3) created a serious obstacle, for if sinful people were to come into the presence of God, his holiness would destroy them. The Tabernacle provided a temporary means by which the Israelites could enjoy God’s presence without being destroyed by it (Exod 25:8). The Tabernacle was a mobile sanctuary where God dwelled with his people and was the place where Israel made sacrifices and offerings in worship of the Lord.<\/p>\n<p>The Tabernacle shows us in tangible ways what is required to enter God’s presence. The altar shows us that sin must be removed through a sacrificial death. The washbasin shows that fellowship with God demands removing uncleanness, that is, anything that conflicts with God’s ethical perfection. In the Holy Place, the lampstand and the table show that we must walk in God’s light and rely on him to provide for our needs. The incense altar represents prayer, and the constantly rising incense reminds those who are forgiven and washed, who are walking in his light and relying constantly on him, that they have unlimited access to him. The curtain between the Holy Place and the Most Holy Place reminds us that the Almighty, the holy God who invites us into fellowship, cannot be approached casually. Behind the curtain is the glorious Ark of the Covenant, over which God’s glory appeared, symbolizing his enthronement as Israel’s king. The centrality of the Ark reflects God’s central purpose for his people—a covenant relationship with the living God.<\/p>\n<p>Our new covenant relationship with God is made possible by Jesus’ perfect sacrifice for sin and his ministry as our high priest before God (see especially Heb 9–10). He has fulfilled the requirements that are illustrated by the ancient Tabernacle, and we can now approach God’s throne with boldness and confidence (see Eph 3:12; Heb 4:14-16).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Exod 25:1-9; 26:1-37; 35:4–36:38; 38:21-31; 39:32–40:35; 2 Chr 3:1–7:22; Heb 9:1-28<\/p>","summary_ro":"The Tabernacle From the very beginning of creation, God’s plan was to share his life with humanity and allow people to enjoy fellowship with him. However, the entry of sin into the world (Gen 3) created a serious obstacle, for if sinful people were to come into the presence of God, his holiness would destroy them. The Tabernacle provided a temporary means by which the Israelites could enjoy God’s presence without being destroyed by it (Exod 25:8). The Tabernacle was a mobile sanctuary where G...","summary_en":"The Tabernacle From the very beginning of creation, God’s plan was to share his life with humanity and allow people to enjoy fellowship with him. However, the entry of sin into the world (Gen 3) created a serious obstacle, for if sinful people were to come into the presence of God, his holiness would destroy them. The Tabernacle provided a temporary means by which the Israelites could enjoy God’s presence without being destroyed by it (Exod 25:8). The Tabernacle was a mobile sanctuary where G...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":115599,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"The Tabernacle","title_en":"The Tabernacle","content_ro":"<h3>The Tabernacle<\/h3>\n<p>From the very beginning of creation, God’s plan was to share his life with humanity and allow people to enjoy fellowship with him. However, the entry of sin into the world (Gen 3) created a serious obstacle, for if sinful people were to come into the presence of God, his holiness would destroy them. The Tabernacle provided a temporary means by which the Israelites could enjoy God’s presence without being destroyed by it (Exod 25:8). The Tabernacle was a mobile sanctuary where God dwelled with his people and was the place where Israel made sacrifices and offerings in worship of the Lord.<\/p>\n<p>The Tabernacle shows us in tangible ways what is required to enter God’s presence. The altar shows us that sin must be removed through a sacrificial death. The washbasin shows that fellowship with God demands removing uncleanness, that is, anything that conflicts with God’s ethical perfection. In the Holy Place, the lampstand and the table show that we must walk in God’s light and rely on him to provide for our needs. The incense altar represents prayer, and the constantly rising incense reminds those who are forgiven and washed, who are walking in his light and relying constantly on him, that they have unlimited access to him. The curtain between the Holy Place and the Most Holy Place reminds us that the Almighty, the holy God who invites us into fellowship, cannot be approached casually. Behind the curtain is the glorious Ark of the Covenant, over which God’s glory appeared, symbolizing his enthronement as Israel’s king. The centrality of the Ark reflects God’s central purpose for his people—a covenant relationship with the living God.<\/p>\n<p>Our new covenant relationship with God is made possible by Jesus’ perfect sacrifice for sin and his ministry as our high priest before God (see especially Heb 9–10). He has fulfilled the requirements that are illustrated by the ancient Tabernacle, and we can now approach God’s throne with boldness and confidence (see Eph 3:12; Heb 4:14-16).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Exod 25:1-9; 26:1-37; 35:4–36:38; 38:21-31; 39:32–40:35; 2 Chr 3:1–7:22; Heb 9:1-28<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>The Tabernacle<\/h3>\n<p>From the very beginning of creation, God’s plan was to share his life with humanity and allow people to enjoy fellowship with him. However, the entry of sin into the world (Gen 3) created a serious obstacle, for if sinful people were to come into the presence of God, his holiness would destroy them. The Tabernacle provided a temporary means by which the Israelites could enjoy God’s presence without being destroyed by it (Exod 25:8). The Tabernacle was a mobile sanctuary where God dwelled with his people and was the place where Israel made sacrifices and offerings in worship of the Lord.<\/p>\n<p>The Tabernacle shows us in tangible ways what is required to enter God’s presence. The altar shows us that sin must be removed through a sacrificial death. The washbasin shows that fellowship with God demands removing uncleanness, that is, anything that conflicts with God’s ethical perfection. In the Holy Place, the lampstand and the table show that we must walk in God’s light and rely on him to provide for our needs. The incense altar represents prayer, and the constantly rising incense reminds those who are forgiven and washed, who are walking in his light and relying constantly on him, that they have unlimited access to him. The curtain between the Holy Place and the Most Holy Place reminds us that the Almighty, the holy God who invites us into fellowship, cannot be approached casually. Behind the curtain is the glorious Ark of the Covenant, over which God’s glory appeared, symbolizing his enthronement as Israel’s king. The centrality of the Ark reflects God’s central purpose for his people—a covenant relationship with the living God.<\/p>\n<p>Our new covenant relationship with God is made possible by Jesus’ perfect sacrifice for sin and his ministry as our high priest before God (see especially Heb 9–10). He has fulfilled the requirements that are illustrated by the ancient Tabernacle, and we can now approach God’s throne with boldness and confidence (see Eph 3:12; Heb 4:14-16).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Exod 25:1-9; 26:1-37; 35:4–36:38; 38:21-31; 39:32–40:35; 2 Chr 3:1–7:22; Heb 9:1-28<\/p>","summary_ro":"The Tabernacle From the very beginning of creation, God’s plan was to share his life with humanity and allow people to enjoy fellowship with him. However, the entry of sin into the world (Gen 3) created a serious obstacle, for if sinful people were to come into the presence of God, his holiness would destroy them. The Tabernacle provided a temporary means by which the Israelites could enjoy God’s presence without being destroyed by it (Exod 25:8). The Tabernacle was a mobile sanctuary where G...","summary_en":"The Tabernacle From the very beginning of creation, God’s plan was to share his life with humanity and allow people to enjoy fellowship with him. However, the entry of sin into the world (Gen 3) created a serious obstacle, for if sinful people were to come into the presence of God, his holiness would destroy them. The Tabernacle provided a temporary means by which the Israelites could enjoy God’s presence without being destroyed by it (Exod 25:8). The Tabernacle was a mobile sanctuary where G...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":143225,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"The Tabernacle","title_en":"The Tabernacle","content_ro":"<h3>The Tabernacle<\/h3>\n<p>From the very beginning of creation, God’s plan was to share his life with humanity and allow people to enjoy fellowship with him. However, the entry of sin into the world (Gen 3) created a serious obstacle, for if sinful people were to come into the presence of God, his holiness would destroy them. The Tabernacle provided a temporary means by which the Israelites could enjoy God’s presence without being destroyed by it (Exod 25:8). The Tabernacle was a mobile sanctuary where God dwelled with his people and was the place where Israel made sacrifices and offerings in worship of the Lord.<\/p>\n<p>The Tabernacle shows us in tangible ways what is required to enter God’s presence. The altar shows us that sin must be removed through a sacrificial death. The washbasin shows that fellowship with God demands removing uncleanness, that is, anything that conflicts with God’s ethical perfection. In the Holy Place, the lampstand and the table show that we must walk in God’s light and rely on him to provide for our needs. The incense altar represents prayer, and the constantly rising incense reminds those who are forgiven and washed, who are walking in his light and relying constantly on him, that they have unlimited access to him. The curtain between the Holy Place and the Most Holy Place reminds us that the Almighty, the holy God who invites us into fellowship, cannot be approached casually. Behind the curtain is the glorious Ark of the Covenant, over which God’s glory appeared, symbolizing his enthronement as Israel’s king. The centrality of the Ark reflects God’s central purpose for his people—a covenant relationship with the living God.<\/p>\n<p>Our new covenant relationship with God is made possible by Jesus’ perfect sacrifice for sin and his ministry as our high priest before God (see especially Heb 9–10). He has fulfilled the requirements that are illustrated by the ancient Tabernacle, and we can now approach God’s throne with boldness and confidence (see Eph 3:12; Heb 4:14-16).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Exod 25:1-9; 26:1-37; 35:4–36:38; 38:21-31; 39:32–40:35; 2 Chr 3:1–7:22; Heb 9:1-28<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>The Tabernacle<\/h3>\n<p>From the very beginning of creation, God’s plan was to share his life with humanity and allow people to enjoy fellowship with him. However, the entry of sin into the world (Gen 3) created a serious obstacle, for if sinful people were to come into the presence of God, his holiness would destroy them. The Tabernacle provided a temporary means by which the Israelites could enjoy God’s presence without being destroyed by it (Exod 25:8). The Tabernacle was a mobile sanctuary where God dwelled with his people and was the place where Israel made sacrifices and offerings in worship of the Lord.<\/p>\n<p>The Tabernacle shows us in tangible ways what is required to enter God’s presence. The altar shows us that sin must be removed through a sacrificial death. The washbasin shows that fellowship with God demands removing uncleanness, that is, anything that conflicts with God’s ethical perfection. In the Holy Place, the lampstand and the table show that we must walk in God’s light and rely on him to provide for our needs. The incense altar represents prayer, and the constantly rising incense reminds those who are forgiven and washed, who are walking in his light and relying constantly on him, that they have unlimited access to him. The curtain between the Holy Place and the Most Holy Place reminds us that the Almighty, the holy God who invites us into fellowship, cannot be approached casually. Behind the curtain is the glorious Ark of the Covenant, over which God’s glory appeared, symbolizing his enthronement as Israel’s king. The centrality of the Ark reflects God’s central purpose for his people—a covenant relationship with the living God.<\/p>\n<p>Our new covenant relationship with God is made possible by Jesus’ perfect sacrifice for sin and his ministry as our high priest before God (see especially Heb 9–10). He has fulfilled the requirements that are illustrated by the ancient Tabernacle, and we can now approach God’s throne with boldness and confidence (see Eph 3:12; Heb 4:14-16).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Exod 25:1-9; 26:1-37; 35:4–36:38; 38:21-31; 39:32–40:35; 2 Chr 3:1–7:22; Heb 9:1-28<\/p>","summary_ro":"The Tabernacle From the very beginning of creation, God’s plan was to share his life with humanity and allow people to enjoy fellowship with him. However, the entry of sin into the world (Gen 3) created a serious obstacle, for if sinful people were to come into the presence of God, his holiness would destroy them. The Tabernacle provided a temporary means by which the Israelites could enjoy God’s presence without being destroyed by it (Exod 25:8). The Tabernacle was a mobile sanctuary where G...","summary_en":"The Tabernacle From the very beginning of creation, God’s plan was to share his life with humanity and allow people to enjoy fellowship with him. However, the entry of sin into the world (Gen 3) created a serious obstacle, for if sinful people were to come into the presence of God, his holiness would destroy them. The Tabernacle provided a temporary means by which the Israelites could enjoy God’s presence without being destroyed by it (Exod 25:8). The Tabernacle was a mobile sanctuary where G...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"22":[{"id":4610,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Bezaleel*, Bezalel","title_en":"Bezaleel*, Bezalel","content_ro":"<h3>BEZALEEL*, BEZALEL<\/h3>\n<li>1. Uri’s son and the master craftsman from Judah’s tribe who was specially equipped by God to be in charge of the construction and furnishing of the tabernacle (Ex 31:2; 35:30-31; 36:1-2; 37:1; 38:22; 1 Chr 2:20; 2 Chr 1:5) In the <span>kjv<\/span> the name is Bezaleel.<\/li>\n<li>2. Pahath-moab’s son, who obeyed Ezra’s exhortation to divorce his pagan wife after the exile (Ezr 10:30). In the <span>kjv<\/span> the name is Bezaleel.<\/li>","content_en":"<h3>BEZALEEL*, BEZALEL<\/h3>\n<li>1. Uri’s son and the master craftsman from Judah’s tribe who was specially equipped by God to be in charge of the construction and furnishing of the tabernacle (Ex 31:2; 35:30-31; 36:1-2; 37:1; 38:22; 1 Chr 2:20; 2 Chr 1:5) In the <span>kjv<\/span> the name is Bezaleel.<\/li>\n<li>2. Pahath-moab’s son, who obeyed Ezra’s exhortation to divorce his pagan wife after the exile (Ezr 10:30). In the <span>kjv<\/span> the name is Bezaleel.<\/li>","summary_ro":"BEZALEEL*, BEZALEL 1. Uri’s son and the master craftsman from Judah’s tribe who was specially equipped by God to be in charge of the construction and furnishing of the tabernacle (Ex 31:2; 35:30-31; 36:1-2; 37:1; 38:22; 1 Chr 2:20; 2 Chr 1:5) In the kjv the name is Bezaleel. 2. Pahath-moab’s son, who obeyed Ezra’s exhortation to divorce his pagan wife after the exile (Ezr 10:30). In the kjv the name is Bezaleel.","summary_en":"BEZALEEL*, BEZALEL 1. Uri’s son and the master craftsman from Judah’s tribe who was specially equipped by God to be in charge of the construction and furnishing of the tabernacle (Ex 31:2; 35:30-31; 36:1-2; 37:1; 38:22; 1 Chr 2:20; 2 Chr 1:5) In the kjv the name is Bezaleel. 2. Pahath-moab’s son, who obeyed Ezra’s exhortation to divorce his pagan wife after the exile (Ezr 10:30). In the kjv the name is Bezaleel.","source":"Articles\/B.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":17016,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Hur","title_en":"Hur","content_ro":"<h3>HUR<\/h3>\n<li>1. Aaron’s assistant in supporting Moses’ hands until the Amalekites were defeated at Rephidim (Ex 17:8-13). He is mentioned again as assisting Aaron in overseeing Israel while Moses was on Mt Sinai (24:14). According to Josephus, Hur was the husband of Miriam, the sister of Moses (<em>Antiquities<\/em> 3.2.4).<\/li>\n<li>2. Fourth of the five kings of Midian who was killed with Balaam by the Israelites under Moses (Nm 31:8). He is also referred to as one of the “princes of Midian” and “Sihon” (Jos 13:21).<\/li>\n<li>3. Father of one of the 12 officers whom Solomon appointed to provide food for the king’s household (1 Kgs 4:8, <span>kjv<\/span>; <span>nlt<\/span> “Ben-hur”).<\/li>\n<li>4. Son of Caleb and Ephrath and the grandfather of Bezalel (1 Chr 2:19-20; cf. Ex 31:2; 38:22). Although some interpreters regard the Hur discussed in #1 as the grandfather of Bezalel, others think that the Hur who assisted Moses and the Hur who was Bezalel’s grandfather were different men.<\/li>\n<li>5. Father (or perhaps family name) of Rephaiah, a postexilic leader who assisted Nehemiah in rebuilding the Jerusalem wall (Neh 3:9).<\/li>","content_en":"<h3>HUR<\/h3>\n<li>1. Aaron’s assistant in supporting Moses’ hands until the Amalekites were defeated at Rephidim (Ex 17:8-13). He is mentioned again as assisting Aaron in overseeing Israel while Moses was on Mt Sinai (24:14). According to Josephus, Hur was the husband of Miriam, the sister of Moses (<em>Antiquities<\/em> 3.2.4).<\/li>\n<li>2. Fourth of the five kings of Midian who was killed with Balaam by the Israelites under Moses (Nm 31:8). He is also referred to as one of the “princes of Midian” and “Sihon” (Jos 13:21).<\/li>\n<li>3. Father of one of the 12 officers whom Solomon appointed to provide food for the king’s household (1 Kgs 4:8, <span>kjv<\/span>; <span>nlt<\/span> “Ben-hur”).<\/li>\n<li>4. Son of Caleb and Ephrath and the grandfather of Bezalel (1 Chr 2:19-20; cf. Ex 31:2; 38:22). Although some interpreters regard the Hur discussed in #1 as the grandfather of Bezalel, others think that the Hur who assisted Moses and the Hur who was Bezalel’s grandfather were different men.<\/li>\n<li>5. Father (or perhaps family name) of Rephaiah, a postexilic leader who assisted Nehemiah in rebuilding the Jerusalem wall (Neh 3:9).<\/li>","summary_ro":"HUR 1. Aaron’s assistant in supporting Moses’ hands until the Amalekites were defeated at Rephidim (Ex 17:8-13). He is mentioned again as assisting Aaron in overseeing Israel while Moses was on Mt Sinai (24:14). According to Josephus, Hur was the husband of Miriam, the sister of Moses (Antiquities 3.2.4). 2. Fourth of the five kings of Midian who was killed with Balaam by the Israelites under Moses (Nm 31:8). He is also referred to as one of the “princes of Midian” and “Sihon” (Jos 13:21). 3....","summary_en":"HUR 1. Aaron’s assistant in supporting Moses’ hands until the Amalekites were defeated at Rephidim (Ex 17:8-13). He is mentioned again as assisting Aaron in overseeing Israel while Moses was on Mt Sinai (24:14). According to Josephus, Hur was the husband of Miriam, the sister of Moses (Antiquities 3.2.4). 2. Fourth of the five kings of Midian who was killed with Balaam by the Israelites under Moses (Nm 31:8). He is also referred to as one of the “princes of Midian” and “Sihon” (Jos 13:21). 3....","source":"Articles\/H.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":37886,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Uri","title_en":"Uri","content_ro":"<h3>URI<\/h3>\n<li>1. Father of Bezalel from Judah’s tribe, and a builder of the tabernacle (Ex 31:2; 35:30; 38:22; 1 Chr 2:20; 2 Chr 1:5).<\/li>\n<li>2. Father of Geber, one of Solomon’s officers in Gilead (1 Kgs 4:19).<\/li>\n<li>3. One of the temple gatekeepers who put away his foreign wife at Ezra’s request (Ezr 10:24).<\/li>","content_en":"<h3>URI<\/h3>\n<li>1. Father of Bezalel from Judah’s tribe, and a builder of the tabernacle (Ex 31:2; 35:30; 38:22; 1 Chr 2:20; 2 Chr 1:5).<\/li>\n<li>2. Father of Geber, one of Solomon’s officers in Gilead (1 Kgs 4:19).<\/li>\n<li>3. One of the temple gatekeepers who put away his foreign wife at Ezra’s request (Ezr 10:24).<\/li>","summary_ro":"URI 1. Father of Bezalel from Judah’s tribe, and a builder of the tabernacle (Ex 31:2; 35:30; 38:22; 1 Chr 2:20; 2 Chr 1:5). 2. Father of Geber, one of Solomon’s officers in Gilead (1 Kgs 4:19). 3. One of the temple gatekeepers who put away his foreign wife at Ezra’s request (Ezr 10:24).","summary_en":"URI 1. Father of Bezalel from Judah’s tribe, and a builder of the tabernacle (Ex 31:2; 35:30; 38:22; 1 Chr 2:20; 2 Chr 1:5). 2. Father of Geber, one of Solomon’s officers in Gilead (1 Kgs 4:19). 3. One of the temple gatekeepers who put away his foreign wife at Ezra’s request (Ezr 10:24).","source":"Articles\/U.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"23":[{"id":943,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Ahisamach","title_en":"Ahisamach","content_ro":"<h3>AHISAMACH<\/h3>\n<p>Father of the craftsman Oholiab, of Dan’s tribe. Oholiab helped construct the tabernacle and its furnishings (Ex 31:6; 35:34; 38:23).<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>AHISAMACH<\/h3>\n<p>Father of the craftsman Oholiab, of Dan’s tribe. Oholiab helped construct the tabernacle and its furnishings (Ex 31:6; 35:34; 38:23).<\/p>","summary_ro":"AHISAMACH Father of the craftsman Oholiab, of Dan’s tribe. Oholiab helped construct the tabernacle and its furnishings (Ex 31:6; 35:34; 38:23).","summary_en":"AHISAMACH Father of the craftsman Oholiab, of Dan’s tribe. Oholiab helped construct the tabernacle and its furnishings (Ex 31:6; 35:34; 38:23).","source":"Articles\/A.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":8502,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Tribe of Dan","title_en":"Tribe of Dan","content_ro":"<h3>DAN, Tribe of<\/h3>\n<p>Israelite tribe named for the patriarch Jacob’s fifth son. The tribe of Dan, descended from Dan’s only known son, Hushim (cf. “Shuham” in Nm 26:42-43), had little distinction in its early years. Some Danites are mentioned in the wilderness narratives: Oholiab, a craftsman of the tabernacle (Ex 31:6; 35:34; 38:23); another whose mother married an Egyptian and who blasphemed God (Lv 24:11); and Ahiezer, chief prince of Dan during the exodus (Nm 1:12).<\/p>\n<p>Dan was the second largest tribe at the first census taken in the wilderness (62,700 warriors—Nm 1:38-39). They were instructed to encamp on the north side of the Israelites’ camp along with Asher and Naphtali (Nm 2:25-31), and were to bring up the rear in the line of march (Nm 2:31; 10:25). At the second census 40 years later, just before entering the Promised Land, they had grown only to 64,400 (26:42-43), still second in size. The tribe does not stand out in the Conquest narratives (Dt 2:16–3:29; Jos 1–24; Jgs 1). Dan is listed among the tribes who reminded Israel of the covenant curses at Mt Ebal (Dt 27:13; cf. Jos 8:30-33). The tribe is called a “lion’s whelp” in Moses’ blessing (Dt 33:22). Some believe that the reference to “Bashan” in that blessing prefigured the Danites’ migration to the northern territory where they eventually settled.<\/p>\n<p>One of the most significant references to Dan’s tribe is the account of its northward migration (Jos 19:40-48; Jgs 18). The Danites had been allotted a portion of Canaan between Judah and Ephraim bordering the Mediterranean seacoast (Jos 19:40-46; Jgs 5:17), but were unable to occupy their territory except for the valley at Zorah and Eshtaol (Jgs 13:25; 18:2). As a result, a group of Danites, discouraged with their situation, marched north and captured Laish, located about 25 miles (40 kilometers) north of the Sea of Galilee and just below Israel’s northernmost border. Laish was renamed Dan at that time (18:27-29). Their association with that northern territory eventually gave rise to the expression “from Dan to Beersheba” (Jgs 20:1; 2 Sm 3:10) as designating Israel’s northern and southern borders.<\/p>\n<p>Southern Dan continued for some time, as illustrated in the exploits of Samson of the tribe of Dan (Jgs 13–16). Evidently the southern Danites gradually merged into the tribe of Judah, and no historical reference to the southern Danite tribe is made in the rest of the OT. The Danites were mentioned in King David’s time as mustering a considerable army loyal to David (1 Chr 12:35; 27:22).<\/p>\n<p>The Danites were among the tribes who did not drive the Canaanites from their territory (Jos 13:4-5; cf. Jgs 1:34-35). Joshua had to prod them into the task at the Shiloh assembly (Jos 18:1-4; 19:40-48). Eventually the Danites gave up the effort and sought other lands in the north, where conquest was easier. Their disobedience was further manifested in their open sin of setting up a “graven image” and establishing a rival priesthood, even though their priest was a Levite (Jgs 18:30-31). The result of that idolatry was that, at the division of the Israelite kingdom at the end of King Solomon’s reign, King Jeroboam of the northern kingdom of Israel chose the city of Dan as one of the idol shrines in which to set up the golden calves (1 Kgs 12:28-29). The Danites’ apostasy, and that of the other northern tribes, continued throughout their history (2 Kgs 10:29), and because of it they were eventually carried captive to Assyria (2 Kgs 17:1-23).<\/p>\n<p>The tribe name is mentioned in the prophet Ezekiel’s idealized description of the restored land and Jerusalem (Ez 48:1-2, 32). In the NT, the apostle John omitted the tribe from a list of Israel’s tribes (Rv 7:4-8).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Israel, History of; Dan (Person); Dan (Place).<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>DAN, Tribe of<\/h3>\n<p>Israelite tribe named for the patriarch Jacob’s fifth son. The tribe of Dan, descended from Dan’s only known son, Hushim (cf. “Shuham” in Nm 26:42-43), had little distinction in its early years. Some Danites are mentioned in the wilderness narratives: Oholiab, a craftsman of the tabernacle (Ex 31:6; 35:34; 38:23); another whose mother married an Egyptian and who blasphemed God (Lv 24:11); and Ahiezer, chief prince of Dan during the exodus (Nm 1:12).<\/p>\n<p>Dan was the second largest tribe at the first census taken in the wilderness (62,700 warriors—Nm 1:38-39). They were instructed to encamp on the north side of the Israelites’ camp along with Asher and Naphtali (Nm 2:25-31), and were to bring up the rear in the line of march (Nm 2:31; 10:25). At the second census 40 years later, just before entering the Promised Land, they had grown only to 64,400 (26:42-43), still second in size. The tribe does not stand out in the Conquest narratives (Dt 2:16–3:29; Jos 1–24; Jgs 1). Dan is listed among the tribes who reminded Israel of the covenant curses at Mt Ebal (Dt 27:13; cf. Jos 8:30-33). The tribe is called a “lion’s whelp” in Moses’ blessing (Dt 33:22). Some believe that the reference to “Bashan” in that blessing prefigured the Danites’ migration to the northern territory where they eventually settled.<\/p>\n<p>One of the most significant references to Dan’s tribe is the account of its northward migration (Jos 19:40-48; Jgs 18). The Danites had been allotted a portion of Canaan between Judah and Ephraim bordering the Mediterranean seacoast (Jos 19:40-46; Jgs 5:17), but were unable to occupy their territory except for the valley at Zorah and Eshtaol (Jgs 13:25; 18:2). As a result, a group of Danites, discouraged with their situation, marched north and captured Laish, located about 25 miles (40 kilometers) north of the Sea of Galilee and just below Israel’s northernmost border. Laish was renamed Dan at that time (18:27-29). Their association with that northern territory eventually gave rise to the expression “from Dan to Beersheba” (Jgs 20:1; 2 Sm 3:10) as designating Israel’s northern and southern borders.<\/p>\n<p>Southern Dan continued for some time, as illustrated in the exploits of Samson of the tribe of Dan (Jgs 13–16). Evidently the southern Danites gradually merged into the tribe of Judah, and no historical reference to the southern Danite tribe is made in the rest of the OT. The Danites were mentioned in King David’s time as mustering a considerable army loyal to David (1 Chr 12:35; 27:22).<\/p>\n<p>The Danites were among the tribes who did not drive the Canaanites from their territory (Jos 13:4-5; cf. Jgs 1:34-35). Joshua had to prod them into the task at the Shiloh assembly (Jos 18:1-4; 19:40-48). Eventually the Danites gave up the effort and sought other lands in the north, where conquest was easier. Their disobedience was further manifested in their open sin of setting up a “graven image” and establishing a rival priesthood, even though their priest was a Levite (Jgs 18:30-31). The result of that idolatry was that, at the division of the Israelite kingdom at the end of King Solomon’s reign, King Jeroboam of the northern kingdom of Israel chose the city of Dan as one of the idol shrines in which to set up the golden calves (1 Kgs 12:28-29). The Danites’ apostasy, and that of the other northern tribes, continued throughout their history (2 Kgs 10:29), and because of it they were eventually carried captive to Assyria (2 Kgs 17:1-23).<\/p>\n<p>The tribe name is mentioned in the prophet Ezekiel’s idealized description of the restored land and Jerusalem (Ez 48:1-2, 32). In the NT, the apostle John omitted the tribe from a list of Israel’s tribes (Rv 7:4-8).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Israel, History of; Dan (Person); Dan (Place).<\/p>","summary_ro":"DAN, Tribe of Israelite tribe named for the patriarch Jacob’s fifth son. The tribe of Dan, descended from Dan’s only known son, Hushim (cf. “Shuham” in Nm 26:42-43), had little distinction in its early years. Some Danites are mentioned in the wilderness narratives: Oholiab, a craftsman of the tabernacle (Ex 31:6; 35:34; 38:23); another whose mother married an Egyptian and who blasphemed God (Lv 24:11); and Ahiezer, chief prince of Dan during the exodus (Nm 1:12). Dan was the second largest tr...","summary_en":"DAN, Tribe of Israelite tribe named for the patriarch Jacob’s fifth son. The tribe of Dan, descended from Dan’s only known son, Hushim (cf. “Shuham” in Nm 26:42-43), had little distinction in its early years. Some Danites are mentioned in the wilderness narratives: Oholiab, a craftsman of the tabernacle (Ex 31:6; 35:34; 38:23); another whose mother married an Egyptian and who blasphemed God (Lv 24:11); and Ahiezer, chief prince of Dan during the exodus (Nm 1:12). Dan was the second largest tr...","source":"Articles\/D.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":16443,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Hiram","title_en":"Hiram","content_ro":"<h3>HIRAM<\/h3>\n<li>1. King of Tyre during the time of David and Solomon. After David had conquered Jerusalem and moved his capital there, Hiram sent cedarwood, masons, and carpenters to build David’s palace (2 Sm 5:11; 1 Chr 14:1). Hiram remained David’s friend throughout his life (1 Kgs 5:1), and after David’s death, he sought to continue that friendship with Solomon. When Solomon was ready to build the temple, Hiram provided wood from the forests of Lebanon, gold, and skilled craftsmen to help build and furnish the temple; Solomon, in return, gave Hiram wheat and oil for his household. Moreover, Solomon gave Hiram 20 cities in Galilee, although Scripture indicates that Hiram was not pleased with them (1 Kgs 5:1-11; 9:10-14).<\/li>\n<p>Although the Israelites were not a maritime people, Solomon did maintain a fleet of ships at Ezion-geber (1 Kgs 9:26-28). Hiram gave his assistance to Solomon by supplying sailors and perhaps ships to make Solomon’s fleet operable. The Phoenicians were noted sailors, who sailed the Mediterranean Sea as far west as Tarshish in Spain.<\/p>\n<p>Hiram was probably the son of Abibal. Hiram reigned in Tyre for 34 years and died at the age of 53. Phoenician historians record that Solomon married the daughter of Hiram.<\/p>\n\n<li>2. Craftsman from Tyre who worked on Solomon’s temple. He was said to be the son of a man of Tyre and a woman from the tribe of Naphtali (1 Kgs 7:13-14), although 2 Chronicles 2:14 says that his mother was from “the daughters of Dan.” (Possibly her ancestors were from Dan’s tribe; cf. Ex 38:23.) He was responsible for the creation of various furnishings in the temple: 2 bronze pillars, the capitals that adorned the pillars, the molten sea and the 12 oxen on which it stood, the 10 lavers with their bases, as well as shovels, pots, and basins.<\/li>\n<p>His name is also spelled Huram in 2 Chronicles 4:11. He is called Huram-abi (abi meaning “master”) in 2 Chronicles 2:13 and 4:16.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>HIRAM<\/h3>\n<li>1. King of Tyre during the time of David and Solomon. After David had conquered Jerusalem and moved his capital there, Hiram sent cedarwood, masons, and carpenters to build David’s palace (2 Sm 5:11; 1 Chr 14:1). Hiram remained David’s friend throughout his life (1 Kgs 5:1), and after David’s death, he sought to continue that friendship with Solomon. When Solomon was ready to build the temple, Hiram provided wood from the forests of Lebanon, gold, and skilled craftsmen to help build and furnish the temple; Solomon, in return, gave Hiram wheat and oil for his household. Moreover, Solomon gave Hiram 20 cities in Galilee, although Scripture indicates that Hiram was not pleased with them (1 Kgs 5:1-11; 9:10-14).<\/li>\n<p>Although the Israelites were not a maritime people, Solomon did maintain a fleet of ships at Ezion-geber (1 Kgs 9:26-28). Hiram gave his assistance to Solomon by supplying sailors and perhaps ships to make Solomon’s fleet operable. The Phoenicians were noted sailors, who sailed the Mediterranean Sea as far west as Tarshish in Spain.<\/p>\n<p>Hiram was probably the son of Abibal. Hiram reigned in Tyre for 34 years and died at the age of 53. Phoenician historians record that Solomon married the daughter of Hiram.<\/p>\n\n<li>2. Craftsman from Tyre who worked on Solomon’s temple. He was said to be the son of a man of Tyre and a woman from the tribe of Naphtali (1 Kgs 7:13-14), although 2 Chronicles 2:14 says that his mother was from “the daughters of Dan.” (Possibly her ancestors were from Dan’s tribe; cf. Ex 38:23.) He was responsible for the creation of various furnishings in the temple: 2 bronze pillars, the capitals that adorned the pillars, the molten sea and the 12 oxen on which it stood, the 10 lavers with their bases, as well as shovels, pots, and basins.<\/li>\n<p>His name is also spelled Huram in 2 Chronicles 4:11. He is called Huram-abi (abi meaning “master”) in 2 Chronicles 2:13 and 4:16.<\/p>","summary_ro":"HIRAM 1. King of Tyre during the time of David and Solomon. After David had conquered Jerusalem and moved his capital there, Hiram sent cedarwood, masons, and carpenters to build David’s palace (2 Sm 5:11; 1 Chr 14:1). Hiram remained David’s friend throughout his life (1 Kgs 5:1), and after David’s death, he sought to continue that friendship with Solomon. When Solomon was ready to build the temple, Hiram provided wood from the forests of Lebanon, gold, and skilled craftsmen to help build and...","summary_en":"HIRAM 1. King of Tyre during the time of David and Solomon. After David had conquered Jerusalem and moved his capital there, Hiram sent cedarwood, masons, and carpenters to build David’s palace (2 Sm 5:11; 1 Chr 14:1). Hiram remained David’s friend throughout his life (1 Kgs 5:1), and after David’s death, he sought to continue that friendship with Solomon. When Solomon was ready to build the temple, Hiram provided wood from the forests of Lebanon, gold, and skilled craftsmen to help build and...","source":"Articles\/H.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":28358,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Oholiab","title_en":"Oholiab","content_ro":"<h3>OHOLIAB<\/h3>\n<p>Man assigned by Moses to assist Bezalel, the master craftsman, in the construction and ornamentation of the tabernacle. Son of Ahisamach and member of Dan’s tribe, Oholiab was specifically noted as a designer and embroiderer. Along with Bezalel, he taught the skills necessary for the construction of the tabernacle (Ex 31:6; 35:34; 36:1-2; 38:23; <span>kjv<\/span> “Aholiab”).<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>OHOLIAB<\/h3>\n<p>Man assigned by Moses to assist Bezalel, the master craftsman, in the construction and ornamentation of the tabernacle. Son of Ahisamach and member of Dan’s tribe, Oholiab was specifically noted as a designer and embroiderer. Along with Bezalel, he taught the skills necessary for the construction of the tabernacle (Ex 31:6; 35:34; 36:1-2; 38:23; <span>kjv<\/span> “Aholiab”).<\/p>","summary_ro":"OHOLIAB Man assigned by Moses to assist Bezalel, the master craftsman, in the construction and ornamentation of the tabernacle. Son of Ahisamach and member of Dan’s tribe, Oholiab was specifically noted as a designer and embroiderer. Along with Bezalel, he taught the skills necessary for the construction of the tabernacle (Ex 31:6; 35:34; 36:1-2; 38:23; kjv “Aholiab”).","summary_en":"OHOLIAB Man assigned by Moses to assist Bezalel, the master craftsman, in the construction and ornamentation of the tabernacle. Son of Ahisamach and member of Dan’s tribe, Oholiab was specifically noted as a designer and embroiderer. Along with Bezalel, he taught the skills necessary for the construction of the tabernacle (Ex 31:6; 35:34; 36:1-2; 38:23; kjv “Aholiab”).","source":"Articles\/O.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"24":[{"id":36601,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Tabernacle","title_en":"Tabernacle","content_ro":"<h3>TABERNACLE<\/h3>\n<p>Place of worship during the earliest years of the history of Israel.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Introduction<\/p>\n<p>• Names for the Tabernacle<\/p>\n<p>• Background<\/p>\n<p>• The Tabernacle and Its Furniture<\/p>\n<p>• The Tabernacle Proper<\/p>\n<p>• The Outer Court and Its Furnishings<\/p>\n<p>• The Construction and Consecration of the Tabernacle<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Introduction\">Introduction<\/p>\n<p>The tabernacle was the precursor of the temple during most of the period between the formation of Israel at Sinai and its final establishment in the Promised Land in the early period of the monarchy. A portable sanctuary in keeping with the demand for easy mobility, it was the symbol of God’s presence with his people and, therefore, of his availability, as well as a place where his will was communicated. At an early period it was anticipated that, when peace and security had been secured, a permanent national shrine would be established (Dt 12:10-11). This was not realized until the time of Solomon, when the temple was erected (2 Sm 7:10-13; 1 Kgs 5:1-5). Historical events, as well as the similarities in construction and underlying theology, illustrate the close connection between the tabernacle and temple.<\/p>\n\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"NamesfortheTabernacle\">Names for the Tabernacle<\/p>\n<p>Several words and descriptive phrases are used:<\/p>\n<p>1. “Sacred residence,” “sanctuary,“ or “holy place” (Ex 25:8; Lv 10:17-18) derive from the verb “to be holy.”<\/p>\n<li>2. “The tent” occurs 19 times and is also found in expressions such as “the tent of the testimony” (Nm 9:15), “the tent of the Lord” (1 Kgs 2:28-30), “the house of the tent” (1 Chr 9:23), and “the tent of meeting” (e.g., Ex 33:7). The last name appears approximately 130 times. The word involves the concept of meeting by appointment and designates the tabernacle as the place where God met with Moses and his people to make known his will.<\/li>\n<li>3. “Dwelling place” is the literal meaning of “tabernacle.” In Exodus 25:9 the word indicates the whole tabernacle (including the outer court), but in Exodus 26:1 it refers to the tabernacle proper (that included the Holy Place and the Holy of Holies). A variant of this is “the tabernacle of the testimony” (Ex 38:21; <span>nlt<\/span> “Tabernacle of the Covenant”), which, with other expressions like “the tent of the testimony,” stresses the presence of the two tablets of the law.<\/li>\n<li>4. “The house of the <span>Lord<\/span>” (Ex 23:19).<\/li>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Background\">Background<\/p>\n<p>The three-part construction of the tabernacle, composed of a general area and two restricted areas, was not unique. In other developed religions that included an organized priesthood there were three main levels of approach: one for all members of the community; one for the priests generally; and one for the chief religious leaders, which was an inner sanctuary, conceived as the dwelling place of the deity. Excavations of heathen sanctuaries in Palestine and Syria in the pre-Israelite period have revealed this type of divided sanctuary.<\/p>\n<p>There is also widespread evidence of the use of portable, often complex, prefabricated structures during the second millennium <span>BC<\/span>, usually as either staterooms for kings and other high dignitaries, or as sanctuaries. Rulers of settled communities used these structures when traveling to other areas within their kingdoms (e.g., Egypt and, to a lesser extent, Canaan). Also, nomadic or seminomadic peoples, such as the Midianites, used portable sanctuaries. In pre-Mosaic Egypt, craftsmen used techniques similar to those used in the construction of the tabernacle.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheTabernacleandItsFurniture\">The Tabernacle and Its Furniture<\/p>\n<p>The book of Exodus (Ex 25–40) describes the tabernacle and its furnishings in detail. The materials used included items ranging from precious to common materials. Three metals are mentioned in descending order of importance: gold, copper, and silver. Gold alone was employed in the principal sanctuary furnishings. The total amount of metals used was approximately one ton (.9 metric ton) of gold, three of copper, and four of silver (38:24-31). The relatively large amount of silver came from an offering (30:11-16), which augmented the silver and gold already given by the Egyptians (12:35).<\/p>\n<p>Significantly, in God’s building specifications, the starting point was the furniture of the inner sanctuary (the Holy Place and the Holy of Holies). In the actual construction, this furniture was made after the tabernacle itself, presumably so that it could be immediately and adequately housed (Ex 25:9–27:19; cf. 36:8–37:28).<\/p>\n<p>The first item listed was the ark, the only furniture in the Holy of Holies. It was a wooden box sheathed in gold, approximately three and three-quarters feet (1.1 meters) long, with a width and height of two and a quarter feet (.7 meter). The supreme symbol of the covenant relationship between God and Israel, it was often called “the ark of the covenant of the <span>Lord<\/span>” (Dt 10:8). Unlike contemporary arks in some neighboring countries, it contained no representation of the deity, only the Ten Commandments (Ex 25:16), a jar of manna (16:33), and Aaron’s rod (Nm 17:10)—all symbolic of various aspects of God’s provision (see Heb 9:4).<\/p>\n<p>The ark was transported by two poles that passed through rings attached to each lower corner (Ex 25:13-15). These poles, left in place, projected underneath the veil into the Holy Place, serving as a reminder of the presence of the unseen ark.<\/p>\n<p>Resting upon the ark was the mercy seat (<span>nlt<\/span> “atonement cover”), a rectangular slab of solid gold, to which were attached two cherubim. The inward-looking cherubim and the mercy seat formed a throne for the invisible God (Ex 25:22), who is frequently described as enthroned above or upon the cherubim (Pss 80:1; 99:1). The noun “mercy seat” comes from a verb meaning “to make atonement.” The mercy seat was sprinkled with blood at the climax of the annual Day of Atonement (Lv 16:14). The fact that the ark was placed <em>under<\/em> the mercy seat (Ex 25:21) signifies that the law was under God’s protection and explains the references to the ark as his footstool (e.g., Ps 132:7). Like the cherubim in the Garden of Eden (Gn 3:24), those in the Holy of Holies probably had a similar protective function. In the ancient world, symbolic winged creatures like the cherubim were frequently placed as guardians of thrones and important buildings.<\/p>\n<p>Like the ark, the portable table of the bread of the Presence (Ex 25:30) was made of acacia wood overlaid with gold. It was marginally smaller, with a length of three feet (.9 meter), a width of one and a half feet (.5 meter) and a height of two and a quarter feet (.7 meter). The various auxiliary vessels and implements are detailed (v 29); presumably the dishes would be used for carrying the bread. On each Sabbath day, 12 loaves, symbolizing God’s provision for the 12 tribes of Israel, were placed in two rows on the table (Lv 24:5-9). The table was located in the Holy Place, on the north side.<\/p>\n<p>On the south side was the seven-branched golden lampstand (Ex 25:31-39; 37:17-24; 40:24). It was the most impressive item of furniture in the Holy Place; like the cherubim and the mercy seat, it was made of pure gold. Six golden branches, three on either side, extended from a central shaft, and the whole lampstand was ornamented with almond flowers. From the biblical evidence, it is not clear whether the lampstand gave continuous illumination (Ex 27:20; Lv 24:2) or night light only (1 Sm 3:3 in most versions). Leviticus 24:4 strongly supports the former, and the reference in 1 Samuel probably reflects the laxity that had crept in during the period of the judges. In Scripture, the golden lampstand symbolizes the continuing witness of the covenant community (Zec 4:1-7; Rv 2:1). The precise attention to the smallest detail is well illustrated in the listing of the supplementary items, all made of pure gold, required for the servicing of the lamps. Without this precise attention, the light would soon grow dim, and the sanctuary itself be defiled by carbon deposits (Ex 25:38). Moreover, only the best-quality olive oil was used, thus ensuring the brightest possible light (27:20).<\/p>\n<p>The altar of incense (Ex 30:1-10) may have been deliberately played down to give greater prominence to the sacrificial altar in the outer court, which is frequently referred to as <em>“the<\/em> altar.” In order to distinguish the altar of incense from the bronze altar of sacrifice, the former was called “the golden altar” (40:5). The altar of incense was located in the Holy Place, immediately opposite the ark in the Holy of Holies but just outside the veil, between the table of the bread of the Presence and the lampstand. Made of acacia wood overlaid with gold, it was 18 inches (45.7 centimeters) square and 3 feet (.9 meter) high, with horns and a golden molding around the four sides. Like the ark, it was made readily portable by the provision of rings and carrying poles. The altar was used for the offering of incense every morning and evening and for anointing the horns for the yearly atonement (30:7-10). The incense from a special recipe was forbidden for secular use. Originally, incense indicated something that ascended from a sacrifice, a pleasing aroma to God. Incense acknowledged God in worship (Mal 1:11) and at an early date signified the prayers of the godly (Ps 141:2). It also concealed God from human eyes (Lv 16:13).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheTabernacleProper\">The Tabernacle Proper<\/p>\n<p>The tabernacle was fundamentally a tent structure supported on a rigid framework. As with most of the other items, a triplication of detail underlines the importance of the tabernacle proper. The specifications are given in Exodus 26, the construction in Exodus 36:8-38, and the final erection in Exodus 40:16-19. The overall dimensions were approximately 45 feet (13.7 meters) long, 15 feet (4.6 meters) wide, and 15 feet high.<\/p>\n<p>The basic framework was a series of upright supports, each 15 feet (4.6 meters) high and 2½ feet (.7 meters) wide, and each standing on two silver bases (Ex 26:15-25). Scholars used to think these supports or frames were solid planks of acacia wood, but most modern scholars accept that each comprised two upright sides connected by horizontal pieces like a ladder. Such sections would be considerably stronger, would keep their shape better, and would allow a view of the beautiful inner layer of curtains from within the sanctuary. On the south and north sides were 20 such frames, with 6 more at the western end. In addition, on the western side were two corner pieces to which all the walls were attached by clasps (vv 23-25). A series of bars, which passed through gold rings attached to each upright frame, provided further security and alignment (vv 26-29). There were five such bars on each of the three sides. The central one on both the south and the north sides extended the entire length; the other four probably extended halfway, so that each frame was effectively secured by three bars. All the wooden sections were sheathed in gold.<\/p>\n<p>Over this framework several layers of coverings formed the top, sides, and back of the tabernacle. The first layer of ten linen curtains was dyed blue, purple, and scarlet, and embroidered with cherubim (Ex 26:1-6; 36:8-13). Each measured 42 feet by 6 feet (12.8 meters by 1.8 meters). Pairs joined along their length formed five sets of curtains. The two large curtains were themselves attached with 50 golden clasps that passed through a similar number of loops in each. Probably the curtains were stretched over the structure like a tablecloth.<\/p>\n<p>Eleven curtains or tarpaulins of goat hair, each 45 feet by 6 feet (13.7 meters by 1.8 meters), formed the next layer. These were divided into two sets by joining together five and six curtains respectively, and were linked using a similar method as the under curtain, except that bronze clasps instead of gold were used. The extra length of the goat-hair tarpaulins provided an overlap to protect the under curtain, and the larger tarpaulin overlapped at both the front and the rear of the tabernacle (Ex 26:7-9, 12-13). Two further layers ensured complete weatherproofing, one of ram’s skins dyed red and one of goatskins.<\/p>\n<p>A veil made of the same material as the under curtaining divided the sanctuary and hung under the golden clasps that joined the two curtains, supported by four pillars of acacia wood plated with gold and resting in silver bases. The cherubim on both the veil and the curtains were symbolic guardians of the sanctuary. The positioning of the veil made the Holy of Holies a perfect cube of 15 feet (4.6 meters). The layers of overlapping material and the attention given to the joints emphasizes the darkness of the innermost shrine. God was surrounded by darkness, carefully isolated from any unauthorized sight (Ps 97:2). The Holy Place occupied an area 30 feet by 15 feet (9.1 meters by 4.6 meters), exactly twice the area of the Holy of Holies. A screen made from the same fabric as the main curtain stood between the Holy Place and the outer court and hung from golden hooks on five posts of acacia wood, overlaid with gold and resting on bronze sockets. There is no mention of embroidered seraphim on this section, which formed the tabernacle’s eastern wall.<\/p>\n<p>The tabernacle, while probably having a somewhat squat appearance suggestive of strength, could be easily dismantled, transported, and reassembled. By the standards of that age, it was a fit dwelling place for God, constructed by the best human skills and the highest quality materials.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheOuterCourtandItsFurnishings\">The Outer Court and Its Furnishings<\/p>\n<p>The court of the tabernacle was a rectangle 150 feet (45.7 meters) long on the north and south sides and 75 feet (22.9 meters) wide on the east and west (Ex 27:9-18; 38:9-19). The tabernacle itself was at the western end. Curtains of fine-twined linen 7½ feet (2.3 meters) high screened the entire tabernacle area. In the eastern section, there was a central entrance, 30 feet (9.1 meters) wide. An embroidered curtain of the same height screened this doorway, which was probably recessed to facilitate entrance on either side. Silver rods supported all the curtains. These rods passed through silver hooks attached to the silver-plated posts that rested on bronze bases (38:17).<\/p>\n<p>The altar of burnt offering (Ex 27:1-8; 38:1-7), at the eastern end of the court adjacent to the entrance (40:29), was a reminder that there could be no approach to God except by the place of sacrifice. Seven feet (2.1 meters) square and four and a half feet (1.4 meters) high, it was small in comparison to the gigantic altar in Solomon’s temple (2 Chr 4:1). Basically, it was a hollow wooden framework overlaid with bronze, light enough to be carried on bronze-plated poles that passed through bronze rings at each corner. The grating (Ex 27:4-5) was probably inside the altar at the middle, although some scholars believe that it extended around the lower, outer sides of the altar, to provide draft and to allow the sacrificial blood to flow to the base of the altar. The horns, possibly symbolizing the sacrificial victims, could be used to tether the animals about to be sacrificed. In Israel, a person could claim sanctuary by clinging to the horns of the altar (e.g., 1 Kgs 1:50), with the possible symbolism that he was offering himself as a sacrifice to God and so claiming his protection. The lower part of the altar may have been partly filled with earth to absorb the blood (Ex 20:24). All the accessories were bronze: ash buckets, shovels for removing the ashes and filling the base with earth, basins for the blood, carcass hooks, and fire pans (27:3).<\/p>\n<p>No specifications concerning the size of the laver (<span>nlt<\/span> “washbasin”) have survived (Ex 30:17-20; 38:8). It was made from the mirrors of the women who served at the entrance to the court. The laver stood between the altar of sacrifice and the tabernacle. Failure to wash at the laver prior to ministering was punishable by death—a solemn reminder of the need for cleanliness and obedience before undertaking any task for God. The bronze pedestal may have been merely a support for the laver, but possibly it incorporated a lower basin in which the priests could wash their feet.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheConstructionandConsecrationoftheTabernacle\">The Construction and Consecration of the Tabernacle<\/p>\n<p>The God-given specifications required skills beyond the capabilities of Moses and Aaron. Prominent in the construction were Bezalel and Oholiab (Ex 30:1-11), with a large supporting group of experts, who must have learned their craftsmanship in Egypt. In a remarkable community effort, the Israelites gave so generously that the flow of gifts had to be stopped (35:20-24; 36:4-7). In addition, many gave of their special skills (35:25-29).<\/p>\n<p>When all the items had been completed and placed in position (Ex 40:1-33), every piece except the mercy seat and the cherubim was anointed with special oil (30:22-33; 40:9-11) and symbolically consecrated for its particular function. The climax came when the glory of the Lord filled the tabernacle (40:34). He came to be present among his people, and thereafter the cloud by day and fire by night provided reassurance concerning his presence and guidance. Yet there could be no laxity in approaching him, and even Moses was excluded from the Holy of Holies. The tabernacle was erected exactly one year after the deliverance from Egypt and a mere nine months after the Sinai revelation.<\/p>\n<p>Thereafter, when Israel camped, the Levites surrounded the tabernacle on three sides (Nm 1:53), with the families of Moses and Aaron occupying the remaining eastern side (Nm 3:14-38). This prevented any unauthorized intrusion into the sacred area. When the tabernacle was moved, the dismantlement was carefully regulated (4:5-15). The Kohathites were responsible for transporting the more sacred items, using the carrying poles; the Gershonites dealt with all the soft furnishings, the altar of sacrifice, and its accessories; and the Merarites carried the hard furnishings, such as the frames, bars, and bases. Even on the march, the tabernacle remained central, with six tribes preceding and the remaining six following (Nm 2).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Temple.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>TABERNACLE<\/h3>\n<p>Place of worship during the earliest years of the history of Israel.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Introduction<\/p>\n<p>• Names for the Tabernacle<\/p>\n<p>• Background<\/p>\n<p>• The Tabernacle and Its Furniture<\/p>\n<p>• The Tabernacle Proper<\/p>\n<p>• The Outer Court and Its Furnishings<\/p>\n<p>• The Construction and Consecration of the Tabernacle<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Introduction\">Introduction<\/p>\n<p>The tabernacle was the precursor of the temple during most of the period between the formation of Israel at Sinai and its final establishment in the Promised Land in the early period of the monarchy. A portable sanctuary in keeping with the demand for easy mobility, it was the symbol of God’s presence with his people and, therefore, of his availability, as well as a place where his will was communicated. At an early period it was anticipated that, when peace and security had been secured, a permanent national shrine would be established (Dt 12:10-11). This was not realized until the time of Solomon, when the temple was erected (2 Sm 7:10-13; 1 Kgs 5:1-5). Historical events, as well as the similarities in construction and underlying theology, illustrate the close connection between the tabernacle and temple.<\/p>\n\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"NamesfortheTabernacle\">Names for the Tabernacle<\/p>\n<p>Several words and descriptive phrases are used:<\/p>\n<p>1. “Sacred residence,” “sanctuary,“ or “holy place” (Ex 25:8; Lv 10:17-18) derive from the verb “to be holy.”<\/p>\n<li>2. “The tent” occurs 19 times and is also found in expressions such as “the tent of the testimony” (Nm 9:15), “the tent of the Lord” (1 Kgs 2:28-30), “the house of the tent” (1 Chr 9:23), and “the tent of meeting” (e.g., Ex 33:7). The last name appears approximately 130 times. The word involves the concept of meeting by appointment and designates the tabernacle as the place where God met with Moses and his people to make known his will.<\/li>\n<li>3. “Dwelling place” is the literal meaning of “tabernacle.” In Exodus 25:9 the word indicates the whole tabernacle (including the outer court), but in Exodus 26:1 it refers to the tabernacle proper (that included the Holy Place and the Holy of Holies). A variant of this is “the tabernacle of the testimony” (Ex 38:21; <span>nlt<\/span> “Tabernacle of the Covenant”), which, with other expressions like “the tent of the testimony,” stresses the presence of the two tablets of the law.<\/li>\n<li>4. “The house of the <span>Lord<\/span>” (Ex 23:19).<\/li>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Background\">Background<\/p>\n<p>The three-part construction of the tabernacle, composed of a general area and two restricted areas, was not unique. In other developed religions that included an organized priesthood there were three main levels of approach: one for all members of the community; one for the priests generally; and one for the chief religious leaders, which was an inner sanctuary, conceived as the dwelling place of the deity. Excavations of heathen sanctuaries in Palestine and Syria in the pre-Israelite period have revealed this type of divided sanctuary.<\/p>\n<p>There is also widespread evidence of the use of portable, often complex, prefabricated structures during the second millennium <span>BC<\/span>, usually as either staterooms for kings and other high dignitaries, or as sanctuaries. Rulers of settled communities used these structures when traveling to other areas within their kingdoms (e.g., Egypt and, to a lesser extent, Canaan). Also, nomadic or seminomadic peoples, such as the Midianites, used portable sanctuaries. In pre-Mosaic Egypt, craftsmen used techniques similar to those used in the construction of the tabernacle.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheTabernacleandItsFurniture\">The Tabernacle and Its Furniture<\/p>\n<p>The book of Exodus (Ex 25–40) describes the tabernacle and its furnishings in detail. The materials used included items ranging from precious to common materials. Three metals are mentioned in descending order of importance: gold, copper, and silver. Gold alone was employed in the principal sanctuary furnishings. The total amount of metals used was approximately one ton (.9 metric ton) of gold, three of copper, and four of silver (38:24-31). The relatively large amount of silver came from an offering (30:11-16), which augmented the silver and gold already given by the Egyptians (12:35).<\/p>\n<p>Significantly, in God’s building specifications, the starting point was the furniture of the inner sanctuary (the Holy Place and the Holy of Holies). In the actual construction, this furniture was made after the tabernacle itself, presumably so that it could be immediately and adequately housed (Ex 25:9–27:19; cf. 36:8–37:28).<\/p>\n<p>The first item listed was the ark, the only furniture in the Holy of Holies. It was a wooden box sheathed in gold, approximately three and three-quarters feet (1.1 meters) long, with a width and height of two and a quarter feet (.7 meter). The supreme symbol of the covenant relationship between God and Israel, it was often called “the ark of the covenant of the <span>Lord<\/span>” (Dt 10:8). Unlike contemporary arks in some neighboring countries, it contained no representation of the deity, only the Ten Commandments (Ex 25:16), a jar of manna (16:33), and Aaron’s rod (Nm 17:10)—all symbolic of various aspects of God’s provision (see Heb 9:4).<\/p>\n<p>The ark was transported by two poles that passed through rings attached to each lower corner (Ex 25:13-15). These poles, left in place, projected underneath the veil into the Holy Place, serving as a reminder of the presence of the unseen ark.<\/p>\n<p>Resting upon the ark was the mercy seat (<span>nlt<\/span> “atonement cover”), a rectangular slab of solid gold, to which were attached two cherubim. The inward-looking cherubim and the mercy seat formed a throne for the invisible God (Ex 25:22), who is frequently described as enthroned above or upon the cherubim (Pss 80:1; 99:1). The noun “mercy seat” comes from a verb meaning “to make atonement.” The mercy seat was sprinkled with blood at the climax of the annual Day of Atonement (Lv 16:14). The fact that the ark was placed <em>under<\/em> the mercy seat (Ex 25:21) signifies that the law was under God’s protection and explains the references to the ark as his footstool (e.g., Ps 132:7). Like the cherubim in the Garden of Eden (Gn 3:24), those in the Holy of Holies probably had a similar protective function. In the ancient world, symbolic winged creatures like the cherubim were frequently placed as guardians of thrones and important buildings.<\/p>\n<p>Like the ark, the portable table of the bread of the Presence (Ex 25:30) was made of acacia wood overlaid with gold. It was marginally smaller, with a length of three feet (.9 meter), a width of one and a half feet (.5 meter) and a height of two and a quarter feet (.7 meter). The various auxiliary vessels and implements are detailed (v 29); presumably the dishes would be used for carrying the bread. On each Sabbath day, 12 loaves, symbolizing God’s provision for the 12 tribes of Israel, were placed in two rows on the table (Lv 24:5-9). The table was located in the Holy Place, on the north side.<\/p>\n<p>On the south side was the seven-branched golden lampstand (Ex 25:31-39; 37:17-24; 40:24). It was the most impressive item of furniture in the Holy Place; like the cherubim and the mercy seat, it was made of pure gold. Six golden branches, three on either side, extended from a central shaft, and the whole lampstand was ornamented with almond flowers. From the biblical evidence, it is not clear whether the lampstand gave continuous illumination (Ex 27:20; Lv 24:2) or night light only (1 Sm 3:3 in most versions). Leviticus 24:4 strongly supports the former, and the reference in 1 Samuel probably reflects the laxity that had crept in during the period of the judges. In Scripture, the golden lampstand symbolizes the continuing witness of the covenant community (Zec 4:1-7; Rv 2:1). The precise attention to the smallest detail is well illustrated in the listing of the supplementary items, all made of pure gold, required for the servicing of the lamps. Without this precise attention, the light would soon grow dim, and the sanctuary itself be defiled by carbon deposits (Ex 25:38). Moreover, only the best-quality olive oil was used, thus ensuring the brightest possible light (27:20).<\/p>\n<p>The altar of incense (Ex 30:1-10) may have been deliberately played down to give greater prominence to the sacrificial altar in the outer court, which is frequently referred to as <em>“the<\/em> altar.” In order to distinguish the altar of incense from the bronze altar of sacrifice, the former was called “the golden altar” (40:5). The altar of incense was located in the Holy Place, immediately opposite the ark in the Holy of Holies but just outside the veil, between the table of the bread of the Presence and the lampstand. Made of acacia wood overlaid with gold, it was 18 inches (45.7 centimeters) square and 3 feet (.9 meter) high, with horns and a golden molding around the four sides. Like the ark, it was made readily portable by the provision of rings and carrying poles. The altar was used for the offering of incense every morning and evening and for anointing the horns for the yearly atonement (30:7-10). The incense from a special recipe was forbidden for secular use. Originally, incense indicated something that ascended from a sacrifice, a pleasing aroma to God. Incense acknowledged God in worship (Mal 1:11) and at an early date signified the prayers of the godly (Ps 141:2). It also concealed God from human eyes (Lv 16:13).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheTabernacleProper\">The Tabernacle Proper<\/p>\n<p>The tabernacle was fundamentally a tent structure supported on a rigid framework. As with most of the other items, a triplication of detail underlines the importance of the tabernacle proper. The specifications are given in Exodus 26, the construction in Exodus 36:8-38, and the final erection in Exodus 40:16-19. The overall dimensions were approximately 45 feet (13.7 meters) long, 15 feet (4.6 meters) wide, and 15 feet high.<\/p>\n<p>The basic framework was a series of upright supports, each 15 feet (4.6 meters) high and 2½ feet (.7 meters) wide, and each standing on two silver bases (Ex 26:15-25). Scholars used to think these supports or frames were solid planks of acacia wood, but most modern scholars accept that each comprised two upright sides connected by horizontal pieces like a ladder. Such sections would be considerably stronger, would keep their shape better, and would allow a view of the beautiful inner layer of curtains from within the sanctuary. On the south and north sides were 20 such frames, with 6 more at the western end. In addition, on the western side were two corner pieces to which all the walls were attached by clasps (vv 23-25). A series of bars, which passed through gold rings attached to each upright frame, provided further security and alignment (vv 26-29). There were five such bars on each of the three sides. The central one on both the south and the north sides extended the entire length; the other four probably extended halfway, so that each frame was effectively secured by three bars. All the wooden sections were sheathed in gold.<\/p>\n<p>Over this framework several layers of coverings formed the top, sides, and back of the tabernacle. The first layer of ten linen curtains was dyed blue, purple, and scarlet, and embroidered with cherubim (Ex 26:1-6; 36:8-13). Each measured 42 feet by 6 feet (12.8 meters by 1.8 meters). Pairs joined along their length formed five sets of curtains. The two large curtains were themselves attached with 50 golden clasps that passed through a similar number of loops in each. Probably the curtains were stretched over the structure like a tablecloth.<\/p>\n<p>Eleven curtains or tarpaulins of goat hair, each 45 feet by 6 feet (13.7 meters by 1.8 meters), formed the next layer. These were divided into two sets by joining together five and six curtains respectively, and were linked using a similar method as the under curtain, except that bronze clasps instead of gold were used. The extra length of the goat-hair tarpaulins provided an overlap to protect the under curtain, and the larger tarpaulin overlapped at both the front and the rear of the tabernacle (Ex 26:7-9, 12-13). Two further layers ensured complete weatherproofing, one of ram’s skins dyed red and one of goatskins.<\/p>\n<p>A veil made of the same material as the under curtaining divided the sanctuary and hung under the golden clasps that joined the two curtains, supported by four pillars of acacia wood plated with gold and resting in silver bases. The cherubim on both the veil and the curtains were symbolic guardians of the sanctuary. The positioning of the veil made the Holy of Holies a perfect cube of 15 feet (4.6 meters). The layers of overlapping material and the attention given to the joints emphasizes the darkness of the innermost shrine. God was surrounded by darkness, carefully isolated from any unauthorized sight (Ps 97:2). The Holy Place occupied an area 30 feet by 15 feet (9.1 meters by 4.6 meters), exactly twice the area of the Holy of Holies. A screen made from the same fabric as the main curtain stood between the Holy Place and the outer court and hung from golden hooks on five posts of acacia wood, overlaid with gold and resting on bronze sockets. There is no mention of embroidered seraphim on this section, which formed the tabernacle’s eastern wall.<\/p>\n<p>The tabernacle, while probably having a somewhat squat appearance suggestive of strength, could be easily dismantled, transported, and reassembled. By the standards of that age, it was a fit dwelling place for God, constructed by the best human skills and the highest quality materials.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheOuterCourtandItsFurnishings\">The Outer Court and Its Furnishings<\/p>\n<p>The court of the tabernacle was a rectangle 150 feet (45.7 meters) long on the north and south sides and 75 feet (22.9 meters) wide on the east and west (Ex 27:9-18; 38:9-19). The tabernacle itself was at the western end. Curtains of fine-twined linen 7½ feet (2.3 meters) high screened the entire tabernacle area. In the eastern section, there was a central entrance, 30 feet (9.1 meters) wide. An embroidered curtain of the same height screened this doorway, which was probably recessed to facilitate entrance on either side. Silver rods supported all the curtains. These rods passed through silver hooks attached to the silver-plated posts that rested on bronze bases (38:17).<\/p>\n<p>The altar of burnt offering (Ex 27:1-8; 38:1-7), at the eastern end of the court adjacent to the entrance (40:29), was a reminder that there could be no approach to God except by the place of sacrifice. Seven feet (2.1 meters) square and four and a half feet (1.4 meters) high, it was small in comparison to the gigantic altar in Solomon’s temple (2 Chr 4:1). Basically, it was a hollow wooden framework overlaid with bronze, light enough to be carried on bronze-plated poles that passed through bronze rings at each corner. The grating (Ex 27:4-5) was probably inside the altar at the middle, although some scholars believe that it extended around the lower, outer sides of the altar, to provide draft and to allow the sacrificial blood to flow to the base of the altar. The horns, possibly symbolizing the sacrificial victims, could be used to tether the animals about to be sacrificed. In Israel, a person could claim sanctuary by clinging to the horns of the altar (e.g., 1 Kgs 1:50), with the possible symbolism that he was offering himself as a sacrifice to God and so claiming his protection. The lower part of the altar may have been partly filled with earth to absorb the blood (Ex 20:24). All the accessories were bronze: ash buckets, shovels for removing the ashes and filling the base with earth, basins for the blood, carcass hooks, and fire pans (27:3).<\/p>\n<p>No specifications concerning the size of the laver (<span>nlt<\/span> “washbasin”) have survived (Ex 30:17-20; 38:8). It was made from the mirrors of the women who served at the entrance to the court. The laver stood between the altar of sacrifice and the tabernacle. Failure to wash at the laver prior to ministering was punishable by death—a solemn reminder of the need for cleanliness and obedience before undertaking any task for God. The bronze pedestal may have been merely a support for the laver, but possibly it incorporated a lower basin in which the priests could wash their feet.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheConstructionandConsecrationoftheTabernacle\">The Construction and Consecration of the Tabernacle<\/p>\n<p>The God-given specifications required skills beyond the capabilities of Moses and Aaron. Prominent in the construction were Bezalel and Oholiab (Ex 30:1-11), with a large supporting group of experts, who must have learned their craftsmanship in Egypt. In a remarkable community effort, the Israelites gave so generously that the flow of gifts had to be stopped (35:20-24; 36:4-7). In addition, many gave of their special skills (35:25-29).<\/p>\n<p>When all the items had been completed and placed in position (Ex 40:1-33), every piece except the mercy seat and the cherubim was anointed with special oil (30:22-33; 40:9-11) and symbolically consecrated for its particular function. The climax came when the glory of the Lord filled the tabernacle (40:34). He came to be present among his people, and thereafter the cloud by day and fire by night provided reassurance concerning his presence and guidance. Yet there could be no laxity in approaching him, and even Moses was excluded from the Holy of Holies. The tabernacle was erected exactly one year after the deliverance from Egypt and a mere nine months after the Sinai revelation.<\/p>\n<p>Thereafter, when Israel camped, the Levites surrounded the tabernacle on three sides (Nm 1:53), with the families of Moses and Aaron occupying the remaining eastern side (Nm 3:14-38). This prevented any unauthorized intrusion into the sacred area. When the tabernacle was moved, the dismantlement was carefully regulated (4:5-15). The Kohathites were responsible for transporting the more sacred items, using the carrying poles; the Gershonites dealt with all the soft furnishings, the altar of sacrifice, and its accessories; and the Merarites carried the hard furnishings, such as the frames, bars, and bases. Even on the march, the tabernacle remained central, with six tribes preceding and the remaining six following (Nm 2).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Temple.<\/p>","summary_ro":"TABERNACLE Place of worship during the earliest years of the history of Israel. Preview • Introduction • Names for the Tabernacle • Background • The Tabernacle and Its Furniture • The Tabernacle Proper • The Outer Court and Its Furnishings • The Construction and Consecration of the Tabernacle Introduction The tabernacle was the precursor of the temple during most of the period between the formation of Israel at Sinai and its final establishment in the Promised Land in the early period of the ...","summary_en":"TABERNACLE Place of worship during the earliest years of the history of Israel. Preview • Introduction • Names for the Tabernacle • Background • The Tabernacle and Its Furniture • The Tabernacle Proper • The Outer Court and Its Furnishings • The Construction and Consecration of the Tabernacle Introduction The tabernacle was the precursor of the temple during most of the period between the formation of Israel at Sinai and its final establishment in the Promised Land in the early period of the ...","source":"Articles\/T.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"25":[{"id":38277,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Weights and Measures","title_en":"Weights and Measures","content_ro":"<h3>WEIGHTS AND MEASURES<\/h3>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Introduction<\/p>\n<p>• Weight Measures<\/p>\n<p>• Linear Measures in the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>• Linear Measures in the New Testament<\/p>\n<p>• Capacity (Dry Measure) in the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>• Capacity (Dry Measure) in the New Testament<\/p>\n<p>• Liquid Measures in the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>• Liquid Measures in the New Testament<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Introduction\">Introduction<\/p>\n<p>Units of measure in the ancient world were largely based on practical standards: the length of an arm, a day’s journey, how much a donkey could carry, and so forth. While this was a convenient system, it also suffered from a lack of standardization. Some arms were longer than others, and some donkeys could carry more than others. The history of weights and measures, therefore, becomes the story of seeking standards. This was not achieved in the OT but began to take place under Greek and Roman influences in NT times.<\/p>\n<p>In the OT the measures that were used are frequently attested to in Mesopotamian, Egyptian, and Canaanite literature as well. The Israelites did not have their own unique set of measurements. Yet while the terms are shared, it is not unusual to find a particular term having one value in Israel and a noticeably different value in one of the other cultures.<\/p>\n<p>By the time of the NT, other variables were added. The Israelites of this period were still using many of the measures that had been used and developed throughout the OT period. But added to that were the Greek and Roman systems of measurement. Sometimes these terms were adopted wholesale, while at other times Hebrew terms were adapted to Greco-Roman standards. On still other occasions, the Roman terms were apparently used when dealing with the government, whereas Hebrew terms were still used in everyday practice.<\/p>\n<p>In most of the kinds of measurement, the base unit (i.e., the one that all of the others are fractions or multiples of) is the one about which there is the most uncertainty. So the cubit (length), the shekel (weight), the homer (dry volume), and the bath (liquid volume) are all to some degree uncertain. This makes all of the other measures based on them equally uncertain.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"WeightMeasures\">Weight Measures<\/p>\n<p>The terms used for weights have benefited most from archaeological discoveries. Excavations provide stone weights that are occasionally inscribed with the unit they represent. When the stones are weighed, they frequently give a range of weights that have only a general consistency. However, comparing this data with that provided by the text has given the basis for fairly accurate determinations. The relative scale in any given location is more important than absolute values.<\/p>\n\n<p>There was standardization of weight measures, but precision was difficult to attain. The Israelite system is similar to that used by the Mesopotamians and the Canaanites. For most of the OT period, the weights system provided the monetary system. Minted coinage was the invention of the Persians. Up until that time, silver or gold or any other trading commodity had to be weighed out so that bartering or purchasing could take place. This made the weights system the core of the ancient economy. It also explains why the Scriptures speak so seriously against the use of false weights (Lv 19:36; Dt 25:13; Prv 16:11; 20:10, 23; Mi 6:11; Hos 12:7; Am 8:5).<\/p>\n<p>Stone weights were used on a set of balances for conducting business in the ancient marketplace. Scales or balances are mentioned half a dozen times in the OT, but none of those are in actual economic contexts (Jb 6:2; 31:6; Ps 62:9; Is 40:12; Ez 5:1; Dn 5:27). The scales used were generally of the beam-balance type with dishes on each end.<\/p>\n<h5>Talent<\/h5>\n<p>According to Exodus 38:25-26 the talent must have been equal to 3,000 shekels. (A hundred talents would then have been equal to 300,000 shekels, and if that is added to the 1,175 shekels in verse 25, the total is 301,775, or half a shekel for each of the 603,550 men—as verse 26 states.) Excavated talents weigh from about 65 to 80 pounds (29.5 to 36.3 kilograms). In the OT the talent is used only for precious metals, usually silver or gold. According to 1 Kings 10:14, the annual tribute income of Solomon’s kingdom was 666 talents, which apparently was considered quite extravagant. David bequeathed 100,000 talents of gold and 1,000,000 talents of silver to Solomon for the building of the temple (1 Chr 22:14).<\/p>\n<h5>Mina<\/h5>\n<p>In the Canaanite material from Ugarit the mina equals 50 shekels, while in Babylon the mina equals 60 shekels. In Ezekiel 45:12, the mina is set at 60 shekels, but it is unclear whether this represents a change from previous standards.<\/p>\n<h5>Shekel<\/h5>\n<p>The shekel was the basic unit of weight. Besides the regular shekel, there was a “royal” shekel (2 Sm 14:26). Calculating by weights that have been excavated and found labeled as “beka” (one-half shekel), the shekel has been estimated to be about .4 ounce (11.4 grams).<\/p>\n<p>The shekel is used in Scripture almost exclusively in contexts dealing with monetary value. Whether silver, gold, barley, or flour, the shekel valuation assigns the commodity a relative value in the economy. Exceptions to this are Goliath’s armor and spear (1 Sm 17:5-7), which are described in terms of their shekel weight.<\/p>\n<h5>Pim<\/h5>\n<p>The only reference to this unit is in 1 Samuel 13:21, where it is the price charged to the Israelites by the Philistines for sharpening a plowshare. Excavated weights range from .25 to .3 ounce (7.1 to 8.5 grams), suggesting that the pim was two-thirds of a shekel.<\/p>\n<h5>Beka<\/h5>\n<p>Seven stones inscribed with this label range in weight from .2 to .23 ounce (5.7 to 6.5 grams). In Exodus 38:26 it is the amount levied on each individual for the census tax. There it is the equivalent of one-half shekel.<\/p>\n<h5>Gerah<\/h5>\n<p>Equal to one-twentieth of a shekel, or .02 ounce (.6 gram). The term is used five times (Ex 30:13; Lv 27:25; Nm 3:47; 18:16; Ez 45:12) and on each occasion is used to give a valuation to the shekel. Its use is strictly monetary in these contexts.<\/p>\n<h5>Litra<\/h5>\n<p>The NT uses the same weights that have already been identified in the OT usage, particularly the shekel, mina, and talent. There is one additional unit used: the litra, which is used in John 12:3 and 19:39 with regard to spices. In Greek literature one litra is approximately 12 ounces (327 grams).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"LinearMeasuresintheOldTestament\">Linear Measures in the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>Measurements of length and depth generally were derived from a part of the body used to make the measurement. The basic unit was the cubit, and most others were related to it. Precise measurements of geographic distance are lacking in the OT and was most frequently stated in terms of the number of days it would take to arrive at a destination. A single day’s journey was mostly likely 20 to 25 miles (32.2 to 40.2 kilometers). A “pace” was equal to a “step”—about a yard (2 Sm 6:13).<\/p>\n<h5>Cubit<\/h5>\n<p>The length from the tip of the forefinger to the elbow. There are both long and short cubits, which are used not only in Israel but in Mesopotamia and Egypt as well. Ezekiel 40:5 identifies the long cubit as being the equivalent of a cubit plus a handbreadth (about 20 to 21 inches, or 50.8 to 53.3 centimeters). The inscription found inside the Siloam tunnel built by Hezekiah (715–686 <span>BC<\/span>) indicates that the tunnel is 1,200 cubits long. The actual length of the tunnel was determined to be 1,749 feet (533.1 meters). This would yield a cubit of 17.49 inches (44.4 centimeters). All things considered, 17.5 inches (44.5 centimeters) is a good estimation of the length of the cubit in Israel. This would set the long cubit at approximately 20.5 inches (52.1 centimeters). The cubit was most frequently used to give the dimensions of buildings or objects (e.g., curtains, pillars, pieces of furniture, etc.). The largest structure measured in cubits was the ark that Noah built, which was 300 cubits long (Gn 6:15).<\/p>\n<h5>Span<\/h5>\n<p>The distance measured by the stretch of the hand from fingertip to fingertip, equal to one-half a cubit, or eight and three-quarters inches (22.2 centimeters). It is used only seven times in the OT, and four of those are to describe the dimensions of the high priest’s breastplate (Ex 28:15-16; 39:8-9).<\/p>\n<h5>Handbreadth<\/h5>\n<p>The width of the hand at the base, equal to one-sixth of a cubit, one-third of a span, or just under three inches (7.6 centimeters). The term is used only five times and gives the width of the rim around the table of showbread (Ex 25:25) and Solomon’s molten sea (1 Kgs 7:26).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"LinearMeasuresintheNewTestament\">Linear Measures in the New Testament<\/p>\n<p>In the NT some of the units of length and depth represent Greco-Roman standards, while others are those used in the OT. Like the OT, the NT frequently uses imprecise designations for distance, such as a stone’s throw or a day’s journey. There are, however, a few occurrences of precise terms borrowed from Roman culture.<\/p>\n<h5>Cubit<\/h5>\n<p>For the Romans, the cubit was set at one and a half times their standard foot of 11.66 inches, equaling 17.5 inches (44.5 centimeters), just as the OT cubit.<\/p>\n<h5>Fathom<\/h5>\n<p>The distance between the fingertips of the left and right hand when the arms were outstretched. It is used only in Acts 27:28 and is considered to be about six feet (1.8 meters).<\/p>\n<h5>Furlong\/Stadium<\/h5>\n<p>The length of the ancient Greek racecourse, equal to one-eighth of a Roman mile, or a little over 200 yards (182.9 meters). It is usually used to give approximate distance, but in Revelation 21:16 it is used to give the dimensions of the New Jerusalem and is measured with a measuring rod.<\/p>\n<h5>Mile<\/h5>\n<p>The only occurrence of this term, Matthew 5:41, has reference to the Roman mile of 1,620 yards, about nine-tenths of a modern mile (1.4 kilometers).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"CapacityDryMeasureintheOldTestament\">Capacity (Dry Measure) in the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>Amounts of dry goods were oriented toward practical matters such as typical donkey loads, how much seed could be sown in a day, or how much seed would be needed to sow a certain size plot. As with the other types of measures, these then became standardized.<\/p>\n<h5>Cor\/Homer<\/h5>\n<p>The most common dry commodity measure and the equivalent of one donkey load. Estimates of its standard size vary greatly, ranging from 3.8 bushels to 7.5 bushels (133.9 to 264.3 liters). Other than the seven occurrences in Ezekiel 45:11-14, the term occurs only four times in the OT. Three of these contexts feature seed or barley (Lv 27:16; Is 5:10; Hos 3:2), while the fourth is in the context of Israelites gathering quail in the wilderness. A cor is used nine times and occurs with a variety of commodities, including oil, flour, wheat, and barley, in multiples all the way up to 20,000 (1 Kgs 5:11).<\/p>\n<h5>Lethek<\/h5>\n<p>Unit occurring only in Hosea 3:2. The early versions of the Bible identified it as one-half of a cor, or homer.<\/p>\n<h5>Ephah<\/h5>\n<p>This is equal to one-tenth of a homer (Ez 45:11), or one-half of a bushel (17.6 liters). The term occurs dozens of times with all sorts of agricultural products. It seems to have been the unit most used in trading and selling. According to Zechariah 5:6-10, the ephah refers to a container that would hold an ephah of produce, much like the modern-day bushel basket.<\/p>\n<h5>Seah<\/h5>\n<p>A fraction of the homer, which has a very wide range. The term measures flour, seed, barley, and grain, and is roughly one-third of an ephah. A bushel was about five seahs (1 Sm 25:18, <span>nlt<\/span> mg).<\/p>\n<h5>Omer\/Issaron<\/h5>\n<p>The omer occurs only in the account of the collecting of manna by the Israelites (Ex 16:22). It represents a day’s ration of manna and is identified as one-tenth of an ephah (Ex 16:36). The issaron is a term that means a tenth. Its 25 occurrences are all in Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers (mostly in Nm 28–29); it refers only to measures of fine flour.<\/p>\n<h5>Cab, Kab<\/h5>\n<p>This unit occurs only in 2 Kings 6:25. The estimate given by Josephus, one-eighteenth of an ephah (or about one-half of an omer), is usually accepted.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"CapacityDryMeasureintheNewTestament\">Capacity (Dry Measure) in the New Testament<\/p>\n<p>The following dry measures are used in the NT.<\/p>\n<h5>Choinix<\/h5>\n<p>Occurring only in Revelation 6:6 (see <span>nlt<\/span> mg), the choinix is a little more than a quart (1.1 liters). In Greek literature it was considered the amount of one man’s daily allowance of corn.<\/p>\n<h5>Modius<\/h5>\n<p>This is the “bushel” under which one’s lamp should not be hid (Mt 5:15; Mk 4:21; Lk 11:33). It is actually equal to about a peck, 7.68 dry quarts (8.5 liters).<\/p>\n<h5>Saton<\/h5>\n<p>This is the equivalent of the OT seah and can therefore also be approximated at about a peck. It is used only twice in the NT in parallel passages of the parable of the leaven, which is like the kingdom of God (Mt 13:33; Lk 13:21).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"LiquidMeasuresintheOldTestament\">Liquid Measures in the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>Three basic measures were used for liquids in the OT.<\/p>\n<h5>Bath<\/h5>\n<p>The base unit for the measurement of liquids. The biblical data (Ez 45:11-14) sets it as the liquid equivalent to the dry measure, the ephah. It is one-tenth of a homer. Archaeology has also been able to provide some data for this determination. Jars inscribed as “bath of the king” were found at Lachish and Tell en-Nasbeh, and jars marked “bath” were found at Tell Beit Mirsim. The jars are not complete, so their capacity must be calculated based on a reconstruction. Using this data, the bath was approximately 5.5 gallons (20.8 liters). This estimate would provide acceptable results when factored into the information given in 1 Kings 7:23-26, where the “molten sea” of Solomon’s temple is described as being 30 cubits in circumference, 10 cubits in diameter, 5 cubits deep, and capable of holding 2,000 baths of water.<\/p>\n<h5>Hin<\/h5>\n<p>One-sixth of a hin of water was considered a person’s minimum daily requirement (Ez 4:11). A hin is equal to one-sixth of a bath, approximately one gallon (3.8 liters). It is used for a measure of oil, wine, and water, but no context ever mentions more than one hin. Rather, fractions of a hin are used. Occurrences are limited to Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Ezekiel and are therefore most commonly attested in the context of sacrificial libations.<\/p>\n<h5>Log<\/h5>\n<p>This unit occurs only in Leviticus 14:10-24 and equals one-twelfth of a hin, so about .3 quart or .3 liter.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"LiquidMeasuresintheNewTestament\">Liquid Measures in the New Testament<\/p>\n<p>The following liquid measures occur in the NT.<\/p>\n<h5>Bath<\/h5>\n<p>This is used only once (Lk 16:6) and is the same as the OT bath.<\/p>\n<h5>Metretes<\/h5>\n<p>This is used only in John 2:6, where it describes the containers in which water was turned to wine. Josephus identifies it as equivalent to a Hebrew bath, but in Greek usage it was the equivalent of about ten gallons (37.9 liters).<\/p>\n<h5>Sextarius\/Xestes<\/h5>\n<p>A measure of capacity equal to about one and one-sixth pints (552 milliliters). In Mark 7:4 the word is translated “pitcher” (<span>nlt<\/span>) or “pot” (<span>kjv<\/span>, see mg).<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>WEIGHTS AND MEASURES<\/h3>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Introduction<\/p>\n<p>• Weight Measures<\/p>\n<p>• Linear Measures in the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>• Linear Measures in the New Testament<\/p>\n<p>• Capacity (Dry Measure) in the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>• Capacity (Dry Measure) in the New Testament<\/p>\n<p>• Liquid Measures in the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>• Liquid Measures in the New Testament<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Introduction\">Introduction<\/p>\n<p>Units of measure in the ancient world were largely based on practical standards: the length of an arm, a day’s journey, how much a donkey could carry, and so forth. While this was a convenient system, it also suffered from a lack of standardization. Some arms were longer than others, and some donkeys could carry more than others. The history of weights and measures, therefore, becomes the story of seeking standards. This was not achieved in the OT but began to take place under Greek and Roman influences in NT times.<\/p>\n<p>In the OT the measures that were used are frequently attested to in Mesopotamian, Egyptian, and Canaanite literature as well. The Israelites did not have their own unique set of measurements. Yet while the terms are shared, it is not unusual to find a particular term having one value in Israel and a noticeably different value in one of the other cultures.<\/p>\n<p>By the time of the NT, other variables were added. The Israelites of this period were still using many of the measures that had been used and developed throughout the OT period. But added to that were the Greek and Roman systems of measurement. Sometimes these terms were adopted wholesale, while at other times Hebrew terms were adapted to Greco-Roman standards. On still other occasions, the Roman terms were apparently used when dealing with the government, whereas Hebrew terms were still used in everyday practice.<\/p>\n<p>In most of the kinds of measurement, the base unit (i.e., the one that all of the others are fractions or multiples of) is the one about which there is the most uncertainty. So the cubit (length), the shekel (weight), the homer (dry volume), and the bath (liquid volume) are all to some degree uncertain. This makes all of the other measures based on them equally uncertain.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"WeightMeasures\">Weight Measures<\/p>\n<p>The terms used for weights have benefited most from archaeological discoveries. Excavations provide stone weights that are occasionally inscribed with the unit they represent. When the stones are weighed, they frequently give a range of weights that have only a general consistency. However, comparing this data with that provided by the text has given the basis for fairly accurate determinations. The relative scale in any given location is more important than absolute values.<\/p>\n\n<p>There was standardization of weight measures, but precision was difficult to attain. The Israelite system is similar to that used by the Mesopotamians and the Canaanites. For most of the OT period, the weights system provided the monetary system. Minted coinage was the invention of the Persians. Up until that time, silver or gold or any other trading commodity had to be weighed out so that bartering or purchasing could take place. This made the weights system the core of the ancient economy. It also explains why the Scriptures speak so seriously against the use of false weights (Lv 19:36; Dt 25:13; Prv 16:11; 20:10, 23; Mi 6:11; Hos 12:7; Am 8:5).<\/p>\n<p>Stone weights were used on a set of balances for conducting business in the ancient marketplace. Scales or balances are mentioned half a dozen times in the OT, but none of those are in actual economic contexts (Jb 6:2; 31:6; Ps 62:9; Is 40:12; Ez 5:1; Dn 5:27). The scales used were generally of the beam-balance type with dishes on each end.<\/p>\n<h5>Talent<\/h5>\n<p>According to Exodus 38:25-26 the talent must have been equal to 3,000 shekels. (A hundred talents would then have been equal to 300,000 shekels, and if that is added to the 1,175 shekels in verse 25, the total is 301,775, or half a shekel for each of the 603,550 men—as verse 26 states.) Excavated talents weigh from about 65 to 80 pounds (29.5 to 36.3 kilograms). In the OT the talent is used only for precious metals, usually silver or gold. According to 1 Kings 10:14, the annual tribute income of Solomon’s kingdom was 666 talents, which apparently was considered quite extravagant. David bequeathed 100,000 talents of gold and 1,000,000 talents of silver to Solomon for the building of the temple (1 Chr 22:14).<\/p>\n<h5>Mina<\/h5>\n<p>In the Canaanite material from Ugarit the mina equals 50 shekels, while in Babylon the mina equals 60 shekels. In Ezekiel 45:12, the mina is set at 60 shekels, but it is unclear whether this represents a change from previous standards.<\/p>\n<h5>Shekel<\/h5>\n<p>The shekel was the basic unit of weight. Besides the regular shekel, there was a “royal” shekel (2 Sm 14:26). Calculating by weights that have been excavated and found labeled as “beka” (one-half shekel), the shekel has been estimated to be about .4 ounce (11.4 grams).<\/p>\n<p>The shekel is used in Scripture almost exclusively in contexts dealing with monetary value. Whether silver, gold, barley, or flour, the shekel valuation assigns the commodity a relative value in the economy. Exceptions to this are Goliath’s armor and spear (1 Sm 17:5-7), which are described in terms of their shekel weight.<\/p>\n<h5>Pim<\/h5>\n<p>The only reference to this unit is in 1 Samuel 13:21, where it is the price charged to the Israelites by the Philistines for sharpening a plowshare. Excavated weights range from .25 to .3 ounce (7.1 to 8.5 grams), suggesting that the pim was two-thirds of a shekel.<\/p>\n<h5>Beka<\/h5>\n<p>Seven stones inscribed with this label range in weight from .2 to .23 ounce (5.7 to 6.5 grams). In Exodus 38:26 it is the amount levied on each individual for the census tax. There it is the equivalent of one-half shekel.<\/p>\n<h5>Gerah<\/h5>\n<p>Equal to one-twentieth of a shekel, or .02 ounce (.6 gram). The term is used five times (Ex 30:13; Lv 27:25; Nm 3:47; 18:16; Ez 45:12) and on each occasion is used to give a valuation to the shekel. Its use is strictly monetary in these contexts.<\/p>\n<h5>Litra<\/h5>\n<p>The NT uses the same weights that have already been identified in the OT usage, particularly the shekel, mina, and talent. There is one additional unit used: the litra, which is used in John 12:3 and 19:39 with regard to spices. In Greek literature one litra is approximately 12 ounces (327 grams).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"LinearMeasuresintheOldTestament\">Linear Measures in the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>Measurements of length and depth generally were derived from a part of the body used to make the measurement. The basic unit was the cubit, and most others were related to it. Precise measurements of geographic distance are lacking in the OT and was most frequently stated in terms of the number of days it would take to arrive at a destination. A single day’s journey was mostly likely 20 to 25 miles (32.2 to 40.2 kilometers). A “pace” was equal to a “step”—about a yard (2 Sm 6:13).<\/p>\n<h5>Cubit<\/h5>\n<p>The length from the tip of the forefinger to the elbow. There are both long and short cubits, which are used not only in Israel but in Mesopotamia and Egypt as well. Ezekiel 40:5 identifies the long cubit as being the equivalent of a cubit plus a handbreadth (about 20 to 21 inches, or 50.8 to 53.3 centimeters). The inscription found inside the Siloam tunnel built by Hezekiah (715–686 <span>BC<\/span>) indicates that the tunnel is 1,200 cubits long. The actual length of the tunnel was determined to be 1,749 feet (533.1 meters). This would yield a cubit of 17.49 inches (44.4 centimeters). All things considered, 17.5 inches (44.5 centimeters) is a good estimation of the length of the cubit in Israel. This would set the long cubit at approximately 20.5 inches (52.1 centimeters). The cubit was most frequently used to give the dimensions of buildings or objects (e.g., curtains, pillars, pieces of furniture, etc.). The largest structure measured in cubits was the ark that Noah built, which was 300 cubits long (Gn 6:15).<\/p>\n<h5>Span<\/h5>\n<p>The distance measured by the stretch of the hand from fingertip to fingertip, equal to one-half a cubit, or eight and three-quarters inches (22.2 centimeters). It is used only seven times in the OT, and four of those are to describe the dimensions of the high priest’s breastplate (Ex 28:15-16; 39:8-9).<\/p>\n<h5>Handbreadth<\/h5>\n<p>The width of the hand at the base, equal to one-sixth of a cubit, one-third of a span, or just under three inches (7.6 centimeters). The term is used only five times and gives the width of the rim around the table of showbread (Ex 25:25) and Solomon’s molten sea (1 Kgs 7:26).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"LinearMeasuresintheNewTestament\">Linear Measures in the New Testament<\/p>\n<p>In the NT some of the units of length and depth represent Greco-Roman standards, while others are those used in the OT. Like the OT, the NT frequently uses imprecise designations for distance, such as a stone’s throw or a day’s journey. There are, however, a few occurrences of precise terms borrowed from Roman culture.<\/p>\n<h5>Cubit<\/h5>\n<p>For the Romans, the cubit was set at one and a half times their standard foot of 11.66 inches, equaling 17.5 inches (44.5 centimeters), just as the OT cubit.<\/p>\n<h5>Fathom<\/h5>\n<p>The distance between the fingertips of the left and right hand when the arms were outstretched. It is used only in Acts 27:28 and is considered to be about six feet (1.8 meters).<\/p>\n<h5>Furlong\/Stadium<\/h5>\n<p>The length of the ancient Greek racecourse, equal to one-eighth of a Roman mile, or a little over 200 yards (182.9 meters). It is usually used to give approximate distance, but in Revelation 21:16 it is used to give the dimensions of the New Jerusalem and is measured with a measuring rod.<\/p>\n<h5>Mile<\/h5>\n<p>The only occurrence of this term, Matthew 5:41, has reference to the Roman mile of 1,620 yards, about nine-tenths of a modern mile (1.4 kilometers).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"CapacityDryMeasureintheOldTestament\">Capacity (Dry Measure) in the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>Amounts of dry goods were oriented toward practical matters such as typical donkey loads, how much seed could be sown in a day, or how much seed would be needed to sow a certain size plot. As with the other types of measures, these then became standardized.<\/p>\n<h5>Cor\/Homer<\/h5>\n<p>The most common dry commodity measure and the equivalent of one donkey load. Estimates of its standard size vary greatly, ranging from 3.8 bushels to 7.5 bushels (133.9 to 264.3 liters). Other than the seven occurrences in Ezekiel 45:11-14, the term occurs only four times in the OT. Three of these contexts feature seed or barley (Lv 27:16; Is 5:10; Hos 3:2), while the fourth is in the context of Israelites gathering quail in the wilderness. A cor is used nine times and occurs with a variety of commodities, including oil, flour, wheat, and barley, in multiples all the way up to 20,000 (1 Kgs 5:11).<\/p>\n<h5>Lethek<\/h5>\n<p>Unit occurring only in Hosea 3:2. The early versions of the Bible identified it as one-half of a cor, or homer.<\/p>\n<h5>Ephah<\/h5>\n<p>This is equal to one-tenth of a homer (Ez 45:11), or one-half of a bushel (17.6 liters). The term occurs dozens of times with all sorts of agricultural products. It seems to have been the unit most used in trading and selling. According to Zechariah 5:6-10, the ephah refers to a container that would hold an ephah of produce, much like the modern-day bushel basket.<\/p>\n<h5>Seah<\/h5>\n<p>A fraction of the homer, which has a very wide range. The term measures flour, seed, barley, and grain, and is roughly one-third of an ephah. A bushel was about five seahs (1 Sm 25:18, <span>nlt<\/span> mg).<\/p>\n<h5>Omer\/Issaron<\/h5>\n<p>The omer occurs only in the account of the collecting of manna by the Israelites (Ex 16:22). It represents a day’s ration of manna and is identified as one-tenth of an ephah (Ex 16:36). The issaron is a term that means a tenth. Its 25 occurrences are all in Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers (mostly in Nm 28–29); it refers only to measures of fine flour.<\/p>\n<h5>Cab, Kab<\/h5>\n<p>This unit occurs only in 2 Kings 6:25. The estimate given by Josephus, one-eighteenth of an ephah (or about one-half of an omer), is usually accepted.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"CapacityDryMeasureintheNewTestament\">Capacity (Dry Measure) in the New Testament<\/p>\n<p>The following dry measures are used in the NT.<\/p>\n<h5>Choinix<\/h5>\n<p>Occurring only in Revelation 6:6 (see <span>nlt<\/span> mg), the choinix is a little more than a quart (1.1 liters). In Greek literature it was considered the amount of one man’s daily allowance of corn.<\/p>\n<h5>Modius<\/h5>\n<p>This is the “bushel” under which one’s lamp should not be hid (Mt 5:15; Mk 4:21; Lk 11:33). It is actually equal to about a peck, 7.68 dry quarts (8.5 liters).<\/p>\n<h5>Saton<\/h5>\n<p>This is the equivalent of the OT seah and can therefore also be approximated at about a peck. It is used only twice in the NT in parallel passages of the parable of the leaven, which is like the kingdom of God (Mt 13:33; Lk 13:21).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"LiquidMeasuresintheOldTestament\">Liquid Measures in the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>Three basic measures were used for liquids in the OT.<\/p>\n<h5>Bath<\/h5>\n<p>The base unit for the measurement of liquids. The biblical data (Ez 45:11-14) sets it as the liquid equivalent to the dry measure, the ephah. It is one-tenth of a homer. Archaeology has also been able to provide some data for this determination. Jars inscribed as “bath of the king” were found at Lachish and Tell en-Nasbeh, and jars marked “bath” were found at Tell Beit Mirsim. The jars are not complete, so their capacity must be calculated based on a reconstruction. Using this data, the bath was approximately 5.5 gallons (20.8 liters). This estimate would provide acceptable results when factored into the information given in 1 Kings 7:23-26, where the “molten sea” of Solomon’s temple is described as being 30 cubits in circumference, 10 cubits in diameter, 5 cubits deep, and capable of holding 2,000 baths of water.<\/p>\n<h5>Hin<\/h5>\n<p>One-sixth of a hin of water was considered a person’s minimum daily requirement (Ez 4:11). A hin is equal to one-sixth of a bath, approximately one gallon (3.8 liters). It is used for a measure of oil, wine, and water, but no context ever mentions more than one hin. Rather, fractions of a hin are used. Occurrences are limited to Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Ezekiel and are therefore most commonly attested in the context of sacrificial libations.<\/p>\n<h5>Log<\/h5>\n<p>This unit occurs only in Leviticus 14:10-24 and equals one-twelfth of a hin, so about .3 quart or .3 liter.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"LiquidMeasuresintheNewTestament\">Liquid Measures in the New Testament<\/p>\n<p>The following liquid measures occur in the NT.<\/p>\n<h5>Bath<\/h5>\n<p>This is used only once (Lk 16:6) and is the same as the OT bath.<\/p>\n<h5>Metretes<\/h5>\n<p>This is used only in John 2:6, where it describes the containers in which water was turned to wine. Josephus identifies it as equivalent to a Hebrew bath, but in Greek usage it was the equivalent of about ten gallons (37.9 liters).<\/p>\n<h5>Sextarius\/Xestes<\/h5>\n<p>A measure of capacity equal to about one and one-sixth pints (552 milliliters). In Mark 7:4 the word is translated “pitcher” (<span>nlt<\/span>) or “pot” (<span>kjv<\/span>, see mg).<\/p>","summary_ro":"WEIGHTS AND MEASURES Preview • Introduction • Weight Measures • Linear Measures in the Old Testament • Linear Measures in the New Testament • Capacity (Dry Measure) in the Old Testament • Capacity (Dry Measure) in the New Testament • Liquid Measures in the Old Testament • Liquid Measures in the New Testament Introduction Units of measure in the ancient world were largely based on practical standards: the length of an arm, a day’s journey, how much a donkey could carry, and so forth. While thi...","summary_en":"WEIGHTS AND MEASURES Preview • Introduction • Weight Measures • Linear Measures in the Old Testament • Linear Measures in the New Testament • Capacity (Dry Measure) in the Old Testament • Capacity (Dry Measure) in the New Testament • Liquid Measures in the Old Testament • Liquid Measures in the New Testament Introduction Units of measure in the ancient world were largely based on practical standards: the length of an arm, a day’s journey, how much a donkey could carry, and so forth. While thi...","source":"Articles\/W.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"26":[{"id":4164,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Beka*, Bekah*","title_en":"Beka*, Bekah*","content_ro":"<h3>BEKA*, BEKAH*<\/h3>\n<p>Six-gram weight called “half a shekel, by the shekel of the sanctuary” (Ex 38:26). <em>See<\/em> Weights and Measures.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>BEKA*, BEKAH*<\/h3>\n<p>Six-gram weight called “half a shekel, by the shekel of the sanctuary” (Ex 38:26). <em>See<\/em> Weights and Measures.<\/p>","summary_ro":"BEKA*, BEKAH* Six-gram weight called “half a shekel, by the shekel of the sanctuary” (Ex 38:26). See Weights and Measures.","summary_en":"BEKA*, BEKAH* Six-gram weight called “half a shekel, by the shekel of the sanctuary” (Ex 38:26). See Weights and Measures.","source":"Articles\/B.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":38278,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Weights and Measures","title_en":"Weights and Measures","content_ro":"<h3>WEIGHTS AND MEASURES<\/h3>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Introduction<\/p>\n<p>• Weight Measures<\/p>\n<p>• Linear Measures in the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>• Linear Measures in the New Testament<\/p>\n<p>• Capacity (Dry Measure) in the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>• Capacity (Dry Measure) in the New Testament<\/p>\n<p>• Liquid Measures in the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>• Liquid Measures in the New Testament<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Introduction\">Introduction<\/p>\n<p>Units of measure in the ancient world were largely based on practical standards: the length of an arm, a day’s journey, how much a donkey could carry, and so forth. While this was a convenient system, it also suffered from a lack of standardization. Some arms were longer than others, and some donkeys could carry more than others. The history of weights and measures, therefore, becomes the story of seeking standards. This was not achieved in the OT but began to take place under Greek and Roman influences in NT times.<\/p>\n<p>In the OT the measures that were used are frequently attested to in Mesopotamian, Egyptian, and Canaanite literature as well. The Israelites did not have their own unique set of measurements. Yet while the terms are shared, it is not unusual to find a particular term having one value in Israel and a noticeably different value in one of the other cultures.<\/p>\n<p>By the time of the NT, other variables were added. The Israelites of this period were still using many of the measures that had been used and developed throughout the OT period. But added to that were the Greek and Roman systems of measurement. Sometimes these terms were adopted wholesale, while at other times Hebrew terms were adapted to Greco-Roman standards. On still other occasions, the Roman terms were apparently used when dealing with the government, whereas Hebrew terms were still used in everyday practice.<\/p>\n<p>In most of the kinds of measurement, the base unit (i.e., the one that all of the others are fractions or multiples of) is the one about which there is the most uncertainty. So the cubit (length), the shekel (weight), the homer (dry volume), and the bath (liquid volume) are all to some degree uncertain. This makes all of the other measures based on them equally uncertain.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"WeightMeasures\">Weight Measures<\/p>\n<p>The terms used for weights have benefited most from archaeological discoveries. Excavations provide stone weights that are occasionally inscribed with the unit they represent. When the stones are weighed, they frequently give a range of weights that have only a general consistency. However, comparing this data with that provided by the text has given the basis for fairly accurate determinations. The relative scale in any given location is more important than absolute values.<\/p>\n\n<p>There was standardization of weight measures, but precision was difficult to attain. The Israelite system is similar to that used by the Mesopotamians and the Canaanites. For most of the OT period, the weights system provided the monetary system. Minted coinage was the invention of the Persians. Up until that time, silver or gold or any other trading commodity had to be weighed out so that bartering or purchasing could take place. This made the weights system the core of the ancient economy. It also explains why the Scriptures speak so seriously against the use of false weights (Lv 19:36; Dt 25:13; Prv 16:11; 20:10, 23; Mi 6:11; Hos 12:7; Am 8:5).<\/p>\n<p>Stone weights were used on a set of balances for conducting business in the ancient marketplace. Scales or balances are mentioned half a dozen times in the OT, but none of those are in actual economic contexts (Jb 6:2; 31:6; Ps 62:9; Is 40:12; Ez 5:1; Dn 5:27). The scales used were generally of the beam-balance type with dishes on each end.<\/p>\n<h5>Talent<\/h5>\n<p>According to Exodus 38:25-26 the talent must have been equal to 3,000 shekels. (A hundred talents would then have been equal to 300,000 shekels, and if that is added to the 1,175 shekels in verse 25, the total is 301,775, or half a shekel for each of the 603,550 men—as verse 26 states.) Excavated talents weigh from about 65 to 80 pounds (29.5 to 36.3 kilograms). In the OT the talent is used only for precious metals, usually silver or gold. According to 1 Kings 10:14, the annual tribute income of Solomon’s kingdom was 666 talents, which apparently was considered quite extravagant. David bequeathed 100,000 talents of gold and 1,000,000 talents of silver to Solomon for the building of the temple (1 Chr 22:14).<\/p>\n<h5>Mina<\/h5>\n<p>In the Canaanite material from Ugarit the mina equals 50 shekels, while in Babylon the mina equals 60 shekels. In Ezekiel 45:12, the mina is set at 60 shekels, but it is unclear whether this represents a change from previous standards.<\/p>\n<h5>Shekel<\/h5>\n<p>The shekel was the basic unit of weight. Besides the regular shekel, there was a “royal” shekel (2 Sm 14:26). Calculating by weights that have been excavated and found labeled as “beka” (one-half shekel), the shekel has been estimated to be about .4 ounce (11.4 grams).<\/p>\n<p>The shekel is used in Scripture almost exclusively in contexts dealing with monetary value. Whether silver, gold, barley, or flour, the shekel valuation assigns the commodity a relative value in the economy. Exceptions to this are Goliath’s armor and spear (1 Sm 17:5-7), which are described in terms of their shekel weight.<\/p>\n<h5>Pim<\/h5>\n<p>The only reference to this unit is in 1 Samuel 13:21, where it is the price charged to the Israelites by the Philistines for sharpening a plowshare. Excavated weights range from .25 to .3 ounce (7.1 to 8.5 grams), suggesting that the pim was two-thirds of a shekel.<\/p>\n<h5>Beka<\/h5>\n<p>Seven stones inscribed with this label range in weight from .2 to .23 ounce (5.7 to 6.5 grams). In Exodus 38:26 it is the amount levied on each individual for the census tax. There it is the equivalent of one-half shekel.<\/p>\n<h5>Gerah<\/h5>\n<p>Equal to one-twentieth of a shekel, or .02 ounce (.6 gram). The term is used five times (Ex 30:13; Lv 27:25; Nm 3:47; 18:16; Ez 45:12) and on each occasion is used to give a valuation to the shekel. Its use is strictly monetary in these contexts.<\/p>\n<h5>Litra<\/h5>\n<p>The NT uses the same weights that have already been identified in the OT usage, particularly the shekel, mina, and talent. There is one additional unit used: the litra, which is used in John 12:3 and 19:39 with regard to spices. In Greek literature one litra is approximately 12 ounces (327 grams).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"LinearMeasuresintheOldTestament\">Linear Measures in the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>Measurements of length and depth generally were derived from a part of the body used to make the measurement. The basic unit was the cubit, and most others were related to it. Precise measurements of geographic distance are lacking in the OT and was most frequently stated in terms of the number of days it would take to arrive at a destination. A single day’s journey was mostly likely 20 to 25 miles (32.2 to 40.2 kilometers). A “pace” was equal to a “step”—about a yard (2 Sm 6:13).<\/p>\n<h5>Cubit<\/h5>\n<p>The length from the tip of the forefinger to the elbow. There are both long and short cubits, which are used not only in Israel but in Mesopotamia and Egypt as well. Ezekiel 40:5 identifies the long cubit as being the equivalent of a cubit plus a handbreadth (about 20 to 21 inches, or 50.8 to 53.3 centimeters). The inscription found inside the Siloam tunnel built by Hezekiah (715–686 <span>BC<\/span>) indicates that the tunnel is 1,200 cubits long. The actual length of the tunnel was determined to be 1,749 feet (533.1 meters). This would yield a cubit of 17.49 inches (44.4 centimeters). All things considered, 17.5 inches (44.5 centimeters) is a good estimation of the length of the cubit in Israel. This would set the long cubit at approximately 20.5 inches (52.1 centimeters). The cubit was most frequently used to give the dimensions of buildings or objects (e.g., curtains, pillars, pieces of furniture, etc.). The largest structure measured in cubits was the ark that Noah built, which was 300 cubits long (Gn 6:15).<\/p>\n<h5>Span<\/h5>\n<p>The distance measured by the stretch of the hand from fingertip to fingertip, equal to one-half a cubit, or eight and three-quarters inches (22.2 centimeters). It is used only seven times in the OT, and four of those are to describe the dimensions of the high priest’s breastplate (Ex 28:15-16; 39:8-9).<\/p>\n<h5>Handbreadth<\/h5>\n<p>The width of the hand at the base, equal to one-sixth of a cubit, one-third of a span, or just under three inches (7.6 centimeters). The term is used only five times and gives the width of the rim around the table of showbread (Ex 25:25) and Solomon’s molten sea (1 Kgs 7:26).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"LinearMeasuresintheNewTestament\">Linear Measures in the New Testament<\/p>\n<p>In the NT some of the units of length and depth represent Greco-Roman standards, while others are those used in the OT. Like the OT, the NT frequently uses imprecise designations for distance, such as a stone’s throw or a day’s journey. There are, however, a few occurrences of precise terms borrowed from Roman culture.<\/p>\n<h5>Cubit<\/h5>\n<p>For the Romans, the cubit was set at one and a half times their standard foot of 11.66 inches, equaling 17.5 inches (44.5 centimeters), just as the OT cubit.<\/p>\n<h5>Fathom<\/h5>\n<p>The distance between the fingertips of the left and right hand when the arms were outstretched. It is used only in Acts 27:28 and is considered to be about six feet (1.8 meters).<\/p>\n<h5>Furlong\/Stadium<\/h5>\n<p>The length of the ancient Greek racecourse, equal to one-eighth of a Roman mile, or a little over 200 yards (182.9 meters). It is usually used to give approximate distance, but in Revelation 21:16 it is used to give the dimensions of the New Jerusalem and is measured with a measuring rod.<\/p>\n<h5>Mile<\/h5>\n<p>The only occurrence of this term, Matthew 5:41, has reference to the Roman mile of 1,620 yards, about nine-tenths of a modern mile (1.4 kilometers).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"CapacityDryMeasureintheOldTestament\">Capacity (Dry Measure) in the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>Amounts of dry goods were oriented toward practical matters such as typical donkey loads, how much seed could be sown in a day, or how much seed would be needed to sow a certain size plot. As with the other types of measures, these then became standardized.<\/p>\n<h5>Cor\/Homer<\/h5>\n<p>The most common dry commodity measure and the equivalent of one donkey load. Estimates of its standard size vary greatly, ranging from 3.8 bushels to 7.5 bushels (133.9 to 264.3 liters). Other than the seven occurrences in Ezekiel 45:11-14, the term occurs only four times in the OT. Three of these contexts feature seed or barley (Lv 27:16; Is 5:10; Hos 3:2), while the fourth is in the context of Israelites gathering quail in the wilderness. A cor is used nine times and occurs with a variety of commodities, including oil, flour, wheat, and barley, in multiples all the way up to 20,000 (1 Kgs 5:11).<\/p>\n<h5>Lethek<\/h5>\n<p>Unit occurring only in Hosea 3:2. The early versions of the Bible identified it as one-half of a cor, or homer.<\/p>\n<h5>Ephah<\/h5>\n<p>This is equal to one-tenth of a homer (Ez 45:11), or one-half of a bushel (17.6 liters). The term occurs dozens of times with all sorts of agricultural products. It seems to have been the unit most used in trading and selling. According to Zechariah 5:6-10, the ephah refers to a container that would hold an ephah of produce, much like the modern-day bushel basket.<\/p>\n<h5>Seah<\/h5>\n<p>A fraction of the homer, which has a very wide range. The term measures flour, seed, barley, and grain, and is roughly one-third of an ephah. A bushel was about five seahs (1 Sm 25:18, <span>nlt<\/span> mg).<\/p>\n<h5>Omer\/Issaron<\/h5>\n<p>The omer occurs only in the account of the collecting of manna by the Israelites (Ex 16:22). It represents a day’s ration of manna and is identified as one-tenth of an ephah (Ex 16:36). The issaron is a term that means a tenth. Its 25 occurrences are all in Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers (mostly in Nm 28–29); it refers only to measures of fine flour.<\/p>\n<h5>Cab, Kab<\/h5>\n<p>This unit occurs only in 2 Kings 6:25. The estimate given by Josephus, one-eighteenth of an ephah (or about one-half of an omer), is usually accepted.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"CapacityDryMeasureintheNewTestament\">Capacity (Dry Measure) in the New Testament<\/p>\n<p>The following dry measures are used in the NT.<\/p>\n<h5>Choinix<\/h5>\n<p>Occurring only in Revelation 6:6 (see <span>nlt<\/span> mg), the choinix is a little more than a quart (1.1 liters). In Greek literature it was considered the amount of one man’s daily allowance of corn.<\/p>\n<h5>Modius<\/h5>\n<p>This is the “bushel” under which one’s lamp should not be hid (Mt 5:15; Mk 4:21; Lk 11:33). It is actually equal to about a peck, 7.68 dry quarts (8.5 liters).<\/p>\n<h5>Saton<\/h5>\n<p>This is the equivalent of the OT seah and can therefore also be approximated at about a peck. It is used only twice in the NT in parallel passages of the parable of the leaven, which is like the kingdom of God (Mt 13:33; Lk 13:21).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"LiquidMeasuresintheOldTestament\">Liquid Measures in the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>Three basic measures were used for liquids in the OT.<\/p>\n<h5>Bath<\/h5>\n<p>The base unit for the measurement of liquids. The biblical data (Ez 45:11-14) sets it as the liquid equivalent to the dry measure, the ephah. It is one-tenth of a homer. Archaeology has also been able to provide some data for this determination. Jars inscribed as “bath of the king” were found at Lachish and Tell en-Nasbeh, and jars marked “bath” were found at Tell Beit Mirsim. The jars are not complete, so their capacity must be calculated based on a reconstruction. Using this data, the bath was approximately 5.5 gallons (20.8 liters). This estimate would provide acceptable results when factored into the information given in 1 Kings 7:23-26, where the “molten sea” of Solomon’s temple is described as being 30 cubits in circumference, 10 cubits in diameter, 5 cubits deep, and capable of holding 2,000 baths of water.<\/p>\n<h5>Hin<\/h5>\n<p>One-sixth of a hin of water was considered a person’s minimum daily requirement (Ez 4:11). A hin is equal to one-sixth of a bath, approximately one gallon (3.8 liters). It is used for a measure of oil, wine, and water, but no context ever mentions more than one hin. Rather, fractions of a hin are used. Occurrences are limited to Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Ezekiel and are therefore most commonly attested in the context of sacrificial libations.<\/p>\n<h5>Log<\/h5>\n<p>This unit occurs only in Leviticus 14:10-24 and equals one-twelfth of a hin, so about .3 quart or .3 liter.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"LiquidMeasuresintheNewTestament\">Liquid Measures in the New Testament<\/p>\n<p>The following liquid measures occur in the NT.<\/p>\n<h5>Bath<\/h5>\n<p>This is used only once (Lk 16:6) and is the same as the OT bath.<\/p>\n<h5>Metretes<\/h5>\n<p>This is used only in John 2:6, where it describes the containers in which water was turned to wine. Josephus identifies it as equivalent to a Hebrew bath, but in Greek usage it was the equivalent of about ten gallons (37.9 liters).<\/p>\n<h5>Sextarius\/Xestes<\/h5>\n<p>A measure of capacity equal to about one and one-sixth pints (552 milliliters). In Mark 7:4 the word is translated “pitcher” (<span>nlt<\/span>) or “pot” (<span>kjv<\/span>, see mg).<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>WEIGHTS AND MEASURES<\/h3>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Introduction<\/p>\n<p>• Weight Measures<\/p>\n<p>• Linear Measures in the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>• Linear Measures in the New Testament<\/p>\n<p>• Capacity (Dry Measure) in the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>• Capacity (Dry Measure) in the New Testament<\/p>\n<p>• Liquid Measures in the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>• Liquid Measures in the New Testament<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Introduction\">Introduction<\/p>\n<p>Units of measure in the ancient world were largely based on practical standards: the length of an arm, a day’s journey, how much a donkey could carry, and so forth. While this was a convenient system, it also suffered from a lack of standardization. Some arms were longer than others, and some donkeys could carry more than others. The history of weights and measures, therefore, becomes the story of seeking standards. This was not achieved in the OT but began to take place under Greek and Roman influences in NT times.<\/p>\n<p>In the OT the measures that were used are frequently attested to in Mesopotamian, Egyptian, and Canaanite literature as well. The Israelites did not have their own unique set of measurements. Yet while the terms are shared, it is not unusual to find a particular term having one value in Israel and a noticeably different value in one of the other cultures.<\/p>\n<p>By the time of the NT, other variables were added. The Israelites of this period were still using many of the measures that had been used and developed throughout the OT period. But added to that were the Greek and Roman systems of measurement. Sometimes these terms were adopted wholesale, while at other times Hebrew terms were adapted to Greco-Roman standards. On still other occasions, the Roman terms were apparently used when dealing with the government, whereas Hebrew terms were still used in everyday practice.<\/p>\n<p>In most of the kinds of measurement, the base unit (i.e., the one that all of the others are fractions or multiples of) is the one about which there is the most uncertainty. So the cubit (length), the shekel (weight), the homer (dry volume), and the bath (liquid volume) are all to some degree uncertain. This makes all of the other measures based on them equally uncertain.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"WeightMeasures\">Weight Measures<\/p>\n<p>The terms used for weights have benefited most from archaeological discoveries. Excavations provide stone weights that are occasionally inscribed with the unit they represent. When the stones are weighed, they frequently give a range of weights that have only a general consistency. However, comparing this data with that provided by the text has given the basis for fairly accurate determinations. The relative scale in any given location is more important than absolute values.<\/p>\n\n<p>There was standardization of weight measures, but precision was difficult to attain. The Israelite system is similar to that used by the Mesopotamians and the Canaanites. For most of the OT period, the weights system provided the monetary system. Minted coinage was the invention of the Persians. Up until that time, silver or gold or any other trading commodity had to be weighed out so that bartering or purchasing could take place. This made the weights system the core of the ancient economy. It also explains why the Scriptures speak so seriously against the use of false weights (Lv 19:36; Dt 25:13; Prv 16:11; 20:10, 23; Mi 6:11; Hos 12:7; Am 8:5).<\/p>\n<p>Stone weights were used on a set of balances for conducting business in the ancient marketplace. Scales or balances are mentioned half a dozen times in the OT, but none of those are in actual economic contexts (Jb 6:2; 31:6; Ps 62:9; Is 40:12; Ez 5:1; Dn 5:27). The scales used were generally of the beam-balance type with dishes on each end.<\/p>\n<h5>Talent<\/h5>\n<p>According to Exodus 38:25-26 the talent must have been equal to 3,000 shekels. (A hundred talents would then have been equal to 300,000 shekels, and if that is added to the 1,175 shekels in verse 25, the total is 301,775, or half a shekel for each of the 603,550 men—as verse 26 states.) Excavated talents weigh from about 65 to 80 pounds (29.5 to 36.3 kilograms). In the OT the talent is used only for precious metals, usually silver or gold. According to 1 Kings 10:14, the annual tribute income of Solomon’s kingdom was 666 talents, which apparently was considered quite extravagant. David bequeathed 100,000 talents of gold and 1,000,000 talents of silver to Solomon for the building of the temple (1 Chr 22:14).<\/p>\n<h5>Mina<\/h5>\n<p>In the Canaanite material from Ugarit the mina equals 50 shekels, while in Babylon the mina equals 60 shekels. In Ezekiel 45:12, the mina is set at 60 shekels, but it is unclear whether this represents a change from previous standards.<\/p>\n<h5>Shekel<\/h5>\n<p>The shekel was the basic unit of weight. Besides the regular shekel, there was a “royal” shekel (2 Sm 14:26). Calculating by weights that have been excavated and found labeled as “beka” (one-half shekel), the shekel has been estimated to be about .4 ounce (11.4 grams).<\/p>\n<p>The shekel is used in Scripture almost exclusively in contexts dealing with monetary value. Whether silver, gold, barley, or flour, the shekel valuation assigns the commodity a relative value in the economy. Exceptions to this are Goliath’s armor and spear (1 Sm 17:5-7), which are described in terms of their shekel weight.<\/p>\n<h5>Pim<\/h5>\n<p>The only reference to this unit is in 1 Samuel 13:21, where it is the price charged to the Israelites by the Philistines for sharpening a plowshare. Excavated weights range from .25 to .3 ounce (7.1 to 8.5 grams), suggesting that the pim was two-thirds of a shekel.<\/p>\n<h5>Beka<\/h5>\n<p>Seven stones inscribed with this label range in weight from .2 to .23 ounce (5.7 to 6.5 grams). In Exodus 38:26 it is the amount levied on each individual for the census tax. There it is the equivalent of one-half shekel.<\/p>\n<h5>Gerah<\/h5>\n<p>Equal to one-twentieth of a shekel, or .02 ounce (.6 gram). The term is used five times (Ex 30:13; Lv 27:25; Nm 3:47; 18:16; Ez 45:12) and on each occasion is used to give a valuation to the shekel. Its use is strictly monetary in these contexts.<\/p>\n<h5>Litra<\/h5>\n<p>The NT uses the same weights that have already been identified in the OT usage, particularly the shekel, mina, and talent. There is one additional unit used: the litra, which is used in John 12:3 and 19:39 with regard to spices. In Greek literature one litra is approximately 12 ounces (327 grams).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"LinearMeasuresintheOldTestament\">Linear Measures in the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>Measurements of length and depth generally were derived from a part of the body used to make the measurement. The basic unit was the cubit, and most others were related to it. Precise measurements of geographic distance are lacking in the OT and was most frequently stated in terms of the number of days it would take to arrive at a destination. A single day’s journey was mostly likely 20 to 25 miles (32.2 to 40.2 kilometers). A “pace” was equal to a “step”—about a yard (2 Sm 6:13).<\/p>\n<h5>Cubit<\/h5>\n<p>The length from the tip of the forefinger to the elbow. There are both long and short cubits, which are used not only in Israel but in Mesopotamia and Egypt as well. Ezekiel 40:5 identifies the long cubit as being the equivalent of a cubit plus a handbreadth (about 20 to 21 inches, or 50.8 to 53.3 centimeters). The inscription found inside the Siloam tunnel built by Hezekiah (715–686 <span>BC<\/span>) indicates that the tunnel is 1,200 cubits long. The actual length of the tunnel was determined to be 1,749 feet (533.1 meters). This would yield a cubit of 17.49 inches (44.4 centimeters). All things considered, 17.5 inches (44.5 centimeters) is a good estimation of the length of the cubit in Israel. This would set the long cubit at approximately 20.5 inches (52.1 centimeters). The cubit was most frequently used to give the dimensions of buildings or objects (e.g., curtains, pillars, pieces of furniture, etc.). The largest structure measured in cubits was the ark that Noah built, which was 300 cubits long (Gn 6:15).<\/p>\n<h5>Span<\/h5>\n<p>The distance measured by the stretch of the hand from fingertip to fingertip, equal to one-half a cubit, or eight and three-quarters inches (22.2 centimeters). It is used only seven times in the OT, and four of those are to describe the dimensions of the high priest’s breastplate (Ex 28:15-16; 39:8-9).<\/p>\n<h5>Handbreadth<\/h5>\n<p>The width of the hand at the base, equal to one-sixth of a cubit, one-third of a span, or just under three inches (7.6 centimeters). The term is used only five times and gives the width of the rim around the table of showbread (Ex 25:25) and Solomon’s molten sea (1 Kgs 7:26).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"LinearMeasuresintheNewTestament\">Linear Measures in the New Testament<\/p>\n<p>In the NT some of the units of length and depth represent Greco-Roman standards, while others are those used in the OT. Like the OT, the NT frequently uses imprecise designations for distance, such as a stone’s throw or a day’s journey. There are, however, a few occurrences of precise terms borrowed from Roman culture.<\/p>\n<h5>Cubit<\/h5>\n<p>For the Romans, the cubit was set at one and a half times their standard foot of 11.66 inches, equaling 17.5 inches (44.5 centimeters), just as the OT cubit.<\/p>\n<h5>Fathom<\/h5>\n<p>The distance between the fingertips of the left and right hand when the arms were outstretched. It is used only in Acts 27:28 and is considered to be about six feet (1.8 meters).<\/p>\n<h5>Furlong\/Stadium<\/h5>\n<p>The length of the ancient Greek racecourse, equal to one-eighth of a Roman mile, or a little over 200 yards (182.9 meters). It is usually used to give approximate distance, but in Revelation 21:16 it is used to give the dimensions of the New Jerusalem and is measured with a measuring rod.<\/p>\n<h5>Mile<\/h5>\n<p>The only occurrence of this term, Matthew 5:41, has reference to the Roman mile of 1,620 yards, about nine-tenths of a modern mile (1.4 kilometers).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"CapacityDryMeasureintheOldTestament\">Capacity (Dry Measure) in the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>Amounts of dry goods were oriented toward practical matters such as typical donkey loads, how much seed could be sown in a day, or how much seed would be needed to sow a certain size plot. As with the other types of measures, these then became standardized.<\/p>\n<h5>Cor\/Homer<\/h5>\n<p>The most common dry commodity measure and the equivalent of one donkey load. Estimates of its standard size vary greatly, ranging from 3.8 bushels to 7.5 bushels (133.9 to 264.3 liters). Other than the seven occurrences in Ezekiel 45:11-14, the term occurs only four times in the OT. Three of these contexts feature seed or barley (Lv 27:16; Is 5:10; Hos 3:2), while the fourth is in the context of Israelites gathering quail in the wilderness. A cor is used nine times and occurs with a variety of commodities, including oil, flour, wheat, and barley, in multiples all the way up to 20,000 (1 Kgs 5:11).<\/p>\n<h5>Lethek<\/h5>\n<p>Unit occurring only in Hosea 3:2. The early versions of the Bible identified it as one-half of a cor, or homer.<\/p>\n<h5>Ephah<\/h5>\n<p>This is equal to one-tenth of a homer (Ez 45:11), or one-half of a bushel (17.6 liters). The term occurs dozens of times with all sorts of agricultural products. It seems to have been the unit most used in trading and selling. According to Zechariah 5:6-10, the ephah refers to a container that would hold an ephah of produce, much like the modern-day bushel basket.<\/p>\n<h5>Seah<\/h5>\n<p>A fraction of the homer, which has a very wide range. The term measures flour, seed, barley, and grain, and is roughly one-third of an ephah. A bushel was about five seahs (1 Sm 25:18, <span>nlt<\/span> mg).<\/p>\n<h5>Omer\/Issaron<\/h5>\n<p>The omer occurs only in the account of the collecting of manna by the Israelites (Ex 16:22). It represents a day’s ration of manna and is identified as one-tenth of an ephah (Ex 16:36). The issaron is a term that means a tenth. Its 25 occurrences are all in Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers (mostly in Nm 28–29); it refers only to measures of fine flour.<\/p>\n<h5>Cab, Kab<\/h5>\n<p>This unit occurs only in 2 Kings 6:25. The estimate given by Josephus, one-eighteenth of an ephah (or about one-half of an omer), is usually accepted.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"CapacityDryMeasureintheNewTestament\">Capacity (Dry Measure) in the New Testament<\/p>\n<p>The following dry measures are used in the NT.<\/p>\n<h5>Choinix<\/h5>\n<p>Occurring only in Revelation 6:6 (see <span>nlt<\/span> mg), the choinix is a little more than a quart (1.1 liters). In Greek literature it was considered the amount of one man’s daily allowance of corn.<\/p>\n<h5>Modius<\/h5>\n<p>This is the “bushel” under which one’s lamp should not be hid (Mt 5:15; Mk 4:21; Lk 11:33). It is actually equal to about a peck, 7.68 dry quarts (8.5 liters).<\/p>\n<h5>Saton<\/h5>\n<p>This is the equivalent of the OT seah and can therefore also be approximated at about a peck. It is used only twice in the NT in parallel passages of the parable of the leaven, which is like the kingdom of God (Mt 13:33; Lk 13:21).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"LiquidMeasuresintheOldTestament\">Liquid Measures in the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>Three basic measures were used for liquids in the OT.<\/p>\n<h5>Bath<\/h5>\n<p>The base unit for the measurement of liquids. The biblical data (Ez 45:11-14) sets it as the liquid equivalent to the dry measure, the ephah. It is one-tenth of a homer. Archaeology has also been able to provide some data for this determination. Jars inscribed as “bath of the king” were found at Lachish and Tell en-Nasbeh, and jars marked “bath” were found at Tell Beit Mirsim. The jars are not complete, so their capacity must be calculated based on a reconstruction. Using this data, the bath was approximately 5.5 gallons (20.8 liters). This estimate would provide acceptable results when factored into the information given in 1 Kings 7:23-26, where the “molten sea” of Solomon’s temple is described as being 30 cubits in circumference, 10 cubits in diameter, 5 cubits deep, and capable of holding 2,000 baths of water.<\/p>\n<h5>Hin<\/h5>\n<p>One-sixth of a hin of water was considered a person’s minimum daily requirement (Ez 4:11). A hin is equal to one-sixth of a bath, approximately one gallon (3.8 liters). It is used for a measure of oil, wine, and water, but no context ever mentions more than one hin. Rather, fractions of a hin are used. Occurrences are limited to Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Ezekiel and are therefore most commonly attested in the context of sacrificial libations.<\/p>\n<h5>Log<\/h5>\n<p>This unit occurs only in Leviticus 14:10-24 and equals one-twelfth of a hin, so about .3 quart or .3 liter.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"LiquidMeasuresintheNewTestament\">Liquid Measures in the New Testament<\/p>\n<p>The following liquid measures occur in the NT.<\/p>\n<h5>Bath<\/h5>\n<p>This is used only once (Lk 16:6) and is the same as the OT bath.<\/p>\n<h5>Metretes<\/h5>\n<p>This is used only in John 2:6, where it describes the containers in which water was turned to wine. Josephus identifies it as equivalent to a Hebrew bath, but in Greek usage it was the equivalent of about ten gallons (37.9 liters).<\/p>\n<h5>Sextarius\/Xestes<\/h5>\n<p>A measure of capacity equal to about one and one-sixth pints (552 milliliters). In Mark 7:4 the word is translated “pitcher” (<span>nlt<\/span>) or “pot” (<span>kjv<\/span>, see mg).<\/p>","summary_ro":"WEIGHTS AND MEASURES Preview • Introduction • Weight Measures • Linear Measures in the Old Testament • Linear Measures in the New Testament • Capacity (Dry Measure) in the Old Testament • Capacity (Dry Measure) in the New Testament • Liquid Measures in the Old Testament • Liquid Measures in the New Testament Introduction Units of measure in the ancient world were largely based on practical standards: the length of an arm, a day’s journey, how much a donkey could carry, and so forth. While thi...","summary_en":"WEIGHTS AND MEASURES Preview • Introduction • Weight Measures • Linear Measures in the Old Testament • Linear Measures in the New Testament • Capacity (Dry Measure) in the Old Testament • Capacity (Dry Measure) in the New Testament • Liquid Measures in the Old Testament • Liquid Measures in the New Testament Introduction Units of measure in the ancient world were largely based on practical standards: the length of an arm, a day’s journey, how much a donkey could carry, and so forth. While thi...","source":"Articles\/W.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":44044,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Exodul 38:26","title_en":"Study Note: Exodul 38:26","content_ro":"<p><strong>38:26<\/strong> For the earlier discussion of this <em>tax<\/em><em>,<\/em> see 30:11-16. The <em>sanctuary shekel<\/em> was evidently the standard against which other weights were measured for accuracy. • <em>603,550:<\/em> See study note on 12:37.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>38:26<\/strong> For the earlier discussion of this <em>tax<\/em><em>,<\/em> see 30:11-16. The <em>sanctuary shekel<\/em> was evidently the standard against which other weights were measured for accuracy. • <em>603,550:<\/em> See study note on 12:37.<\/p>","summary_ro":"38:26 For the earlier discussion of this tax, see 30:11-16. The sanctuary shekel was evidently the standard against which other weights were measured for accuracy. • 603,550: See study note on 12:37.","summary_en":"38:26 For the earlier discussion of this tax, see 30:11-16. The sanctuary shekel was evidently the standard against which other weights were measured for accuracy. • 603,550: See study note on 12:37.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":71670,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Exodul 38:26","title_en":"Study Note: Exodul 38:26","content_ro":"<p><strong>38:26<\/strong> For the earlier discussion of this <em>tax<\/em><em>,<\/em> see 30:11-16. The <em>sanctuary shekel<\/em> was evidently the standard against which other weights were measured for accuracy. • <em>603,550:<\/em> See study note on 12:37.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>38:26<\/strong> For the earlier discussion of this <em>tax<\/em><em>,<\/em> see 30:11-16. The <em>sanctuary shekel<\/em> was evidently the standard against which other weights were measured for accuracy. • <em>603,550:<\/em> See study note on 12:37.<\/p>","summary_ro":"38:26 For the earlier discussion of this tax, see 30:11-16. The sanctuary shekel was evidently the standard against which other weights were measured for accuracy. • 603,550: See study note on 12:37.","summary_en":"38:26 For the earlier discussion of this tax, see 30:11-16. The sanctuary shekel was evidently the standard against which other weights were measured for accuracy. • 603,550: See study note on 12:37.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":99296,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Exodul 38:26","title_en":"Study Note: Exodul 38:26","content_ro":"<p><strong>38:26<\/strong> For the earlier discussion of this <em>tax<\/em><em>,<\/em> see 30:11-16. The <em>sanctuary shekel<\/em> was evidently the standard against which other weights were measured for accuracy. • <em>603,550:<\/em> See study note on 12:37.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>38:26<\/strong> For the earlier discussion of this <em>tax<\/em><em>,<\/em> see 30:11-16. The <em>sanctuary shekel<\/em> was evidently the standard against which other weights were measured for accuracy. • <em>603,550:<\/em> See study note on 12:37.<\/p>","summary_ro":"38:26 For the earlier discussion of this tax, see 30:11-16. The sanctuary shekel was evidently the standard against which other weights were measured for accuracy. • 603,550: See study note on 12:37.","summary_en":"38:26 For the earlier discussion of this tax, see 30:11-16. The sanctuary shekel was evidently the standard against which other weights were measured for accuracy. • 603,550: See study note on 12:37.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":126922,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Exodul 38:26","title_en":"Study Note: Exodul 38:26","content_ro":"<p><strong>38:26<\/strong> For the earlier discussion of this <em>tax<\/em><em>,<\/em> see 30:11-16. The <em>sanctuary shekel<\/em> was evidently the standard against which other weights were measured for accuracy. • <em>603,550:<\/em> See study note on 12:37.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>38:26<\/strong> For the earlier discussion of this <em>tax<\/em><em>,<\/em> see 30:11-16. The <em>sanctuary shekel<\/em> was evidently the standard against which other weights were measured for accuracy. • <em>603,550:<\/em> See study note on 12:37.<\/p>","summary_ro":"38:26 For the earlier discussion of this tax, see 30:11-16. The sanctuary shekel was evidently the standard against which other weights were measured for accuracy. • 603,550: See study note on 12:37.","summary_en":"38:26 For the earlier discussion of this tax, see 30:11-16. The sanctuary shekel was evidently the standard against which other weights were measured for accuracy. • 603,550: See study note on 12:37.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"29":[{"id":28323,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Offerings and Sacrifices","title_en":"Offerings and Sacrifices","content_ro":"<h3>OFFERINGS AND SACRIFICES<\/h3>\n<p>Major ritual expressions of religious life with accompanying rites, such as libations, effusions, and sacred meals. The ideology expressed in Israel’s ritual complex made its religion unique in the ancient Near East. The concepts of OT ritual also underlie NT theology with regard to sin and reconciliation to God through the atoning death of Jesus Christ.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"PerformanceandOrderofSacrifices\">Performance and Order of Sacrifices<\/p>\n<p>The main source for a description of the correct performance of sacrificial ritual is the opening section of Leviticus (Lv 1–7). It consists of two separate parts. The first (1:1–6:7) is didactic, dealing with two categories of sacrifice: those of a “pleasing odor,” namely, the burnt (1:1-17), the grain (2:1-16), and the peace offerings (3:1-17); and the expiatory sacrifices, namely, the sin (4:1–5:13) and the guilt or trespass offerings (5:14–6:7). Attention is paid to the minute details of each ritual, and they are grouped according to their logical or conceptual associations.<\/p>\n<p>The grain (or cereal) offering follows the burnt offering because it always accompanied it in actual practice (Nm 15:1-21; chs 28–29); it also went with the peace offering (Lv 7:12-14; Nm 15:3-4). Special emphasis is placed on burning the inward parts of a sacrifice on the altar to make a “pleasing odor to the Lord” (Lv 1:9, 17; 2:2, 9, 12; 3:5, 11, 16). When the Lord smelled the pleasing odor (Gn 8:21), it was a sign of divine favor; refusal indicated God’s displeasure (Lv 26:31). The officiating priest evidently knew how to read the signs and would tell the offerer whether his sacrifice had been accepted (1 Sm 26:19; cf. Am 5:21-23).<\/p>\n<p>The sin and guilt offerings were expiatory (Lv 4:1–6:7, 20). The situations requiring such offerings are listed, and special emphasis is laid on the handling of the blood in the ritual.<\/p>\n<p>The second major section in this passage (Lv 6:8–7:38) stresses the administrative details for the various offerings. This section consists of a series of “instructions” for each type of offering pertaining to the distribution of the sacrificial materials. Some went to the priest(s), some went to the offerer, and others were burned on the altar or disposed of outside the camp. Those sacrifices designated as “most holy” were to be eaten only by qualified members of the priesthood (Lv 2:3, 10; 10:12-17; 14:13; Nm 18:9).<\/p>\n<p>The burnt offering is discussed first because it was entirely consumed on the altar (and thus not eaten by anyone). After it, there follow the sacrifices distributed to the officiants (Lv 6:17, 26, 29; 7:1, 6), and at the end come the peace offerings, a significant portion of which was returned to the offender.<\/p>\n<p>The order in which the sacrifices are treated in this passage also corresponds to their relative frequency in the rituals of the sacred calendar (Nm 28:19; 2 Chr 31:3; Ez 45:17). This would be particularly important for the priests and Levites on duty at the temple because they were responsible for the logistics of the daily sacrificial ritual, especially on the high holidays; management of the temple storehouse was a formidable task (1 Chr 23:28-32; 26:15, 20-22; 2 Chr 13:10-11; 30:3-19; 34:9-11).<\/p>\n<p>Each section concerning a particular offering concludes with the logistic or administrative details peculiar to it. There then follows a summary of the matters treated thus far (Lv 7:7-10), and the section concludes with a treatment of the peace offerings (vv 11-36). The latter did not play a role in the sacred calendar except during the Feast of Weeks (23:19-20); on all other occasions, with the two exceptions of the Nazirite vow and the installation of the priesthood, peace offerings were purely voluntary sacrifices and thus not subject to any fixed bookkeeping.<\/p>\n<p>In other biblical contexts, the sacrifices are listed according to the same “bookkeeping” or “administrative” order: burnt, grain, and drink; sin (or guilt); and sometimes peace offerings. An example is the roster of donations made by the tribal leaders for dedication of the altar (Nm 7). The information is organized like an everyday ledger from the temple storehouse; the summary classifies the animals as burnt, grain, sin, and peace offerings (vv 87-88) in accordance with the respective entries from each donor (vv 15-17). The Levitical scribe had two purposes for such a record: to credit the offerers and to record the treasures and food supplies coming in. Much of the foodstuffs being given as offerings was actually apportioned to the officiating priests (Nm 18:8-11; 2 Chr 31:4-19).<\/p>\n<p>When prescriptions were made as to the type and number of offerings to be brought (e.g., Nm 15:24), the “bookkeeping” order is generally followed. This was true of the calendarial sacrifices; burnt and grain offerings and libations were listed, followed by a sin offering for each of the following: New Moon (Nm 28:11-15), each day of Passover (vv 19-22), the Festival of Weeks (Lv 23:18-19; Nm 28:27-30), Trumpets (29:2-5), Day of Atonement (vv 8-11), and each day of the Feast of Tabernacles (vv 12-16).<\/p>\n<p>For sacrifices required in specific cases, the instructions as to what offerings to bring follow this sequence (e.g., the purification of a woman after giving birth, Lv 12:6-8). Note also the offerings given at the successful termination of a Nazirite vow; the Nazirite brought burnt, sin, and peace offerings (with some special grain offerings, Nm 6:14-15). However, the priest conducted the actual ritual according to a different order; the sin offering was made first, followed by the burnt offering and finally the peace offering (vv 16-17). In the case of an incomplete vow, the first step was to offer a sin offering and then a burnt offering to renew the vow (v 11). The reconsecration of the Nazirite required a separate guilt offering—a distinct ritual act (v 12).<\/p>\n<p>The description of the offerings made by the prince of Israel in the latter days presents the same contrast between the two orders of sacrifices. On festival holidays the prince brought burnt, grain, and drink offerings, but he offered them as sin, grain, burnt, and peace offerings (Ez 45:17). This second order of sacrifices in which the sin offering precedes the burnt offering was also followed in the rededication of the altar (43:18-27).<\/p>\n<p>The same “procedural” sequence of sacrifices appears in other instances: the purification of the leper—guilt and sin offerings (Lv 14:19), followed by a burnt offering (vv 12-20); the man with a discharge—sin and burnt offerings (15:15); likewise the woman with a discharge (v 30). The same order is followed for the sacrifices on the Day of Atonement (16:3-6, 11, 15, 24).<\/p>\n<p>The book of Leviticus furnishes two examples of the proper order in which sacrifices were offered. One is the ordination of Aaron and his sons. The sin offering came first and then the burnt offering (Ex 29:10-18; Lv 8:14-21). The focal point in this ritual was the sacrifice of ordination, or literally “installation,” a special form of peace offering (Ex 29:19-34; Lv 8:22-29). The second passage is the formal inauguration of the sacrificial system at the tabernacle (Lv 9). The sacrifices for Aaron were sin and burnt offerings, followed by those for the people: sin, burnt, grain, and peace offerings (9:7-22).<\/p>\n<p>The same sequence is followed at the cleansing and restoration of the temple in Jerusalem conducted by King Hezekiah (2 Chr 29:20-36). A great sin offering was first, followed by the burnt offerings accompanied by music and song. Then the king proclaimed that the people had committed themselves to the Lord; in this new state of purity they could now share in the sacrifices of devotion (burnt offerings) and thanksgiving (peace offerings).<\/p>\n<p>The procedural order of the sacrifices embodies the OT ideology of how God may be approached. First, atonement for sin had to be made and then total consecration of self; these are symbolized by the sin and\/or guilt offerings and the burnt and grain offerings, respectively. When these conditions were met, the offerer could express his continued devotion by more burnt offerings and also take part in the fellowship sacrifices (peace offerings) in which he himself got a large portion of the slaughtered animal (to share with his friends and the poor in his community; Dt 12:17-19).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"DescriptionofSacrifices\">Description of Sacrifices<\/p>\n<p>The ensuing description of the different types of sacrifice will treat them in accordance with the “procedural” order, that is, as symbolic stages in one’s approach to God.<\/p>\n<h5>Expiation<\/h5>\n<p>These two offerings were required for making atonement for sins and trespasses:<\/p>\n<p>1. Sin offering (Lv 4:1–5:13; 6:24-30). Different animals were specified in accordance with the rank of the offerer. A high priest had to bring a young bull (4:3), as did the congregation as a whole (v 14), except when the matter was a ritual infraction (Nm 15:24). A ruler would bring a male goat (Lv 4:23), but a commoner could provide a female goat (v 28; Nm 15:27) or a lamb (Lv 4:32). If he was indigent, he could offer two turtledoves or two young pigeons (one of which would be a burnt offering; 5:7), or if he was extremely poor, he might even substitute a tenth of an ephah of fine flour (Lv 5:11-13; cf. Heb 9:22).<\/p>\n\n<p>The offerer brought the animal to the entrance of the temple court and laid his hand on it (Lv 4:4). He did not confess his sin in this act because the animal was not being sent away (cf. the goat for Azazel, 16:21); rather, he was identifying himself with the sacrifice. The offerer had to kill the animal on the north side of the altar (4:24, 29). The animals were never slaughtered on the altar proper. The officiating priest collected the blood; when it was a bull for himself or for the congregation, he sprinkled some of the blood before the veil inside the tent of meeting and put some on the horns of the incense altar (vv 5-7, 16-18). On the Day of Atonement he brought the sacrificial blood for himself and for the people into the Holy of Holies (16:14-15). From all other animals, the blood was applied to the horns of the altar of burnt offering (4:25, 30, 34); the blood of fowl was sprinkled on the side of the altar (5:9). Finally, the remaining blood from any offering was poured or drained out at the base of the altar (4:7).<\/p>\n<p>The choicest of the internal organs, namely, the fatty tissue over and on the entrails, the two kidneys and their fat, and the appendage to the liver, were all offered to the Lord on the altar (Lv 4:8-10). The carcass and the other entrails were burned outside the camp when it was a bull for the priest or for the people. This was also true of the bull for the ordination of the priests (Ex 29:10-14; Lv 8:14-17). Otherwise, the priest who conducted the rites received the edible flesh as his portion. He had to eat it within the temple area, and its preparation was governed by strict rules of ritual purity (Lv 6:25-30; cf. 10:16-20). A sin offering of one male goat was presented at each of the sacred holidays: the New Moon (Nm 28:15), each day of Passover (vv 22-24), the Festival of Weeks (v 30), the Festival of Trumpets (29:5), the Day of Atonement (v 11), and each day of the Feast of Tabernacles (vv 16, 19). The high priest also offered a bull for himself and then sacrificed one of the two goats on the Day of Atonement. Certain purification rites required lesser sin offerings, namely, lambs or birds: childbirth (Lv 12:6-8), cleansing from leprosy (14:12-14, 19-22), and abscesses and hemorrhages (15:14-15, 29-30) or after defilement while under a vow (Nm 6:10-11).<\/p>\n<li>2. Guilt offering (Lv 5:14–6:7; 7:1-7). The guilt or trespass offering was a special kind of sin offering (cf. 5:7) required whenever someone had been denied his rightful due. Reparation of the valued amount that had been defrauded had to be made, plus a fine of one-fifth (5:16; 6:5). The animal was usually a ram (5:15, 18; 6:6). The cleansed leper and the defiled Nazirite had to bring a male lamb (Lv 14:12, 21; Nm 6:12). The offerer apparently handled the sacrifice as he would a sin offering, but the priest had to sprinkle the blood around the altar (Lv 7:2). Viscera were burned on the altar as usual (vv 3-5). Some of the blood was then applied to the tip of the cleansed leper’s right ear and to his right thumb and big toe (14:14). Again the priest received most of the animal’s flesh for food (7:6-7; 14:13). A guilt offering was required whenever another party had suffered some loss. Ritual infractions, such as eating the “holy things” without proper authorization (5:14-19; 22:14), called for payment of the sum that should have gone to the Lord plus the fine of one-fifth that went to the priest (Lv 5:16; 2 Kgs 12:16). The leper belongs in this category, since during the time of his infection he was unable to render service to God (Lv 14:12-18). The same applies to the Nazirite who had suffered defilement while he was set apart to God by the vow; thus a guilt offering was required (Nm 6:12). Violation of another person’s property rights could be expiated only by the guilt offering and its additional one-fifth. Such matters included cheating on deposits or security, robbery or oppression, failing to report the find of some lost property, or false swearing or failing to testify (Lv 6:1-5). Intercourse with a betrothed slave girl was also a violation of property rights (19:20-22). If the offended party was no longer living and had no surviving kinsmen, the payment went to the priest (Nm 5:5-10).<\/li>\n<h5>Consecration Offerings<\/h5>\n<p>These rituals usually come to mind when one hears the word “offering.” They represent acts of personal commitment that must accompany the repentance expressed in the sin and guilt offerings. They were also a prerequisite for the fellowship or communal sacrifices that might follow.<\/p>\n<p>1. Burnt offering (Lv 1:3-17; 6:8-13). The burnt offering could be a bull, a sheep, or a bird. The offerer presented the animal, laid his hand on it, and killed it on the north side of the altar. The bird was simply given to the priest. The latter collected the blood, presented it before God, and then sprinkled it around the altar. When the offering was a bird, he wrung off its head and drained the blood at the side of the altar. Though the slaughtering and sprinkling of the blood relates the burnt offering to the expiatory sacrifices of the previous section, the main emphasis here is on killing the animal, washing its unclean parts, and then carefully arranging all of the pieces on the altar. All of this was then consumed on the altar as a pleasing odor to the Lord. Since burnt offerings were offered morning and evening, a good supply of wood by the altar was necessary. The officiating priest, dressed in proper garments, had to keep the fire burning continuously (6:8-13).<\/p>\n<p>Burnt offerings played a prominent role in the sacrifices of the ritual calendar. The continual burnt offering was made twice a day, a male lamb morning and evening (Ex 29:38-42; Nm 28:1-8). Two additional lambs were sacrificed each Sabbath (Nm 28:9-10).<\/p>\n<p>Except for these daily offerings, a sin offering of one goat was usually made along with the burnt offerings on the following holidays: For the New Moon at the beginning of each month, two young bulls, one ram, and seven male lambs were offered (Nm 28:11-14). The same were required for each day of the Passover festival (vv 19-24) and again on the Feast of Weeks (vv 6-29). On the Festival of Trumpets and the Day of Atonement, the requirement was one bull, one ram, and seven lambs (29:2-4).<\/p>\n<p>The great Feast of Tabernacles was characterized by a series of elaborate burnt offerings, plus one goat per day as a sin offering. On the first day, 13 young bulls, 2 rams, and 14 male lambs were offered (Nm 29:12-16). Each successive day, the number of bulls was decreased by one until on the seventh day there were only seven (the rams and lambs remained the same; 29:17-25). On the eighth day the animals required for Trumpets and Atonement were offered, namely, one bull, one ram, and seven lambs.<\/p>\n<p>Certain rituals of purification also required burnt offerings in addition to sin offerings: after childbirth (Lv 12:6-8), abscesses (15:14-15), and discharges (vv 29-30); or after defilement while under a Nazirite vow (Nm 6:10-11). Though it is not stated that grain offerings were required in these cases, they certainly were for the cleansing from leprosy (Lv 14:10, 19-22, 31) and the completion of the Nazirite vow (Nm 6:14-16).<\/p>\n<li>2. Grain (Cereal) offering (Lv 2; 6:14-23). The Hebrew term referring to this particular offering means “gift,” or “offering,” including animals (Gn 4:3-5; Jgs 6:18; 1 Sm 2:17). But in the specific sacrificial context it signifies a combination of fine flour, olive oil, and frankincense that could be made up in the form of baked loaves, wafers, or morsels. The offering of firstfruits was to be crushed heads of new grain (Lv 2:14). No leaven or honey was permitted on the cakes, although those same commodities could be accepted as a firstfruit offering. They would not go to the altar but were given to the priest. The offerer had to bring the prepared loaves or wafers to the temple. The priest would burn one handful on the altar as its “memorial portion” (v 2), keeping the remainder for his own food (6:16; 7:9). But when the priest was making a grain offering on his own behalf, he burnt it all on the altar (6:22-23).<\/li>\n<p>A grain offering was usually given with every burnt offering, especially those pertaining to the sacred calendar (Nm 28–29). The amounts of flour and oil were set according to the animal being sacrificed: three-tenths of an ephah of flour and one-half a hin of oil for a bull, two-tenths ephah and one-third hin for a ram, and one-tenth ephah plus one-fourth hin for a lamb (15:2-10). Other happy occasions for a grain offering included the cleansing of a leper (Lv 14:10, 20-21, 31; unspecified quantity of grain with a bird) and the successful consummation of a Nazirite vow (Nm 6:13-15).<\/p>\n<p>Peace offerings were invariably followed by grain offerings (Lv 7:12-14; Nm 15:4). The priest received one of each pair of cakes or wafers. The remainder was returned to the offerer to be eaten with the flesh of the sacrificial animal at a place of his choice.<\/p>\n<p>A special case where such offering was used was the one-tenth of an ephah of barley meal required in the jealousy ritual. It was to have no oil or frankincense (Nm 5:15, 18, 25-26). A very poor individual was permitted to bring one-tenth of an ephah of fine flour without oil or frankincense as a sin offering (Lv 5:11-13).<\/p>\n<li>3. Drink offering (Nm 15:1-10). The standard libation was one-fourth of a hin of wine for a lamb, one-third for a ram, and one-half for a bull. The wine (Ex 29:40), also called “strong drink” (Nm 28:7), is probably an intentional substitute for the blood used by other nations (Ps 16:4). The libation was classed as a “pleasing odor” offering (Nm 15:7). As with the burnt offering, the entire drink offering was expended; nothing was given to the priest (28:7).<\/li>\n<p>Drink offerings accompanied the daily offering (Ex 29:40-41; Nm 28:7) and the Sabbath offering (Nm 28:9), as well as the New Moon festival. Reference is also made to them in connection with the second and following days of the Feast of Tabernacles (29:18, 21); for the first day their absence is probably unintentional. The same might hold true for the Passover, Firstfruits, and Feast of Trumpets (Nm 28:16–29:11; cf. Ez 45:11). A libation was required for the rites concluding a Nazirite vow (Nm 6:17) but not for cleansing a leper (Lv 14:10-20).<\/p>\n<h5>Fellowship Offerings<\/h5>\n<p>These sacrifices were voluntary on the part of the offerer and generally not imposed by regulations except for the Nazirite (Nm 6:17) and the Feast of Weeks (Lv 23:19-20). An offerer who had already fulfilled the ritual requirements for atonement and personal consecration was permitted to make a fellowship offering. Burnt offerings often accompanied the fellowship sacrifices as a further expression of devotion.<\/p>\n<p>1. Peace offering (Lv 3; 7:11-36; Am 5:22). This is the basic class of all fellowship or communal offerings; the others are simply subclasses of the peace offering. In terms of holiness, or restrictedness, they were not so rigidly confined as the other offerings. Animals from the herd or flock, male or female (Lv 3:1, 6, 12), were permitted. The usual stipulation of freedom from blemish was in force, except in the case of the freewill offering, in which the animal could have one limb longer than the other (22:23). Unleavened cakes were also required, at least for the thank (7:12-13) and Nazirite (Nm 6:15-19) offerings. Each of these three types of peace offerings will be discussed below, with their special features.<\/p>\n<p>The first parts of the ritual—the presentation and laying on of the hand—were identical to those of the other sacrifices. However, the animal was slaughtered at the door of the sanctuary courtyard and not on the north side of the altar (Lv 3:1-2, 7-8, 12-13; 7:29-30). The priest collected the blood and tossed it against the altar as he did with the burnt offering (3:2, 8, 13). The choice viscera were offered up as a “pleasing odor” (3:3-5, 6-11, 14-16).<\/p>\n<p>The priest also received a certain portion of the offering. He was allowed to eat it in any ritually clean place and to share it with his family (Lv 7:14, 30-36; Nm 6:20), in contrast to his portion of other sacrifices, which he had to eat somewhere in the temple compound (Nm 18:10-11). He received one of the cakes and the breast as a wave offering and the right thigh as a contribution for the offerer. This latter is the so-called “heave offering”; the technical term developed from a root signifying “to be high” and meaning “that which is lifted up.” The heave offering did not really represent a special kind of ritual ceremony.<\/p>\n<p>The ritual act of the peace offering culminated with a fellowship meal. Except for those parts on the altar or given to the priest, the body of the animal was returned to the man who offered it. He had to prepare it as a communal meal for himself, for his family, and for the Levite in his community (Dt 12:12, 18-19). This would have to be at the official sanctuary (Dt 12:6-7, 11-12, 15-19; cf. 1 Sm 1:3-4) and the participants had to observe strict rules of purity (Lv 7:19-21; 19:5-8). It may be contrasted with the ritual slaughtering of animals for a banquet that was permitted at any local altar (Dt 12:16, 20-22). The flesh of the thank offering had to be eaten on the same day of the sacrifice (Lv 7:15), while that of the votive or freewill offerings could be finished off on the following day (vv 16-18). Whatever remained then had to be burned before the time limit expired.<\/p>\n<p>Only three times is there a specific demand for a peace offering: in the Feast of Weeks (Lv 23:19-20), upon completion of a Nazirite vow (Nm 6:17-20), and at the installation of the priesthood (Ex 29:19-22, 28). Other public ritual occasions included the inauguration of the temple (1 Kgs 8:63; 2 Chr 7:5). Events on a national level that evoked the peace offering were the successful conclusion of a military campaign (1 Sm 11:15), the end of a famine or pestilence (2 Sm 24:25), confirmation of a candidate to the throne (1 Kgs 1:9, 19), or a time of religious revival (2 Chr 29:31-36). On the local level, they were offered at the annual family reunion (1 Sm 20:6) or other festive occasions, such as the harvest of the firstfruits (Ex 22:29-31; 1 Sm 9:11-14, 22-24; 16:4-5).<\/p>\n<li>2. Wave offering. The first portion of the peace offering was “waved” before the Lord to signify that the priest was eating it as a representative of God (the actual motion evidently resembled the wielding of a saw or a staff, Is 10:15). The same technical term, “wave offering,” was also used for other kinds of offering: precious metals donated for making the cultic artifacts (Ex 35:22; 38:29) and the guilt offering of the cleansed leper (Lv 14:12).<\/li>\n<li>3. Freewill offering. These gifts, brought to the holy convocations that took place three times per year (Ex 23:16; 34:20; Dt 16:10, 16-17; 2 Chr 35:8; Ezr 3:5), were voluntary (Lv 7:16; 22:18, 21-23; 23:28; Nm 15:3; 29:39; Dt 12:6, 17). Like the voluntary offering, the freewill offering could be a burnt rather than a peace offering (Lv 22:17-24; Ez 46:12). If it was the latter, the flesh could be eaten on the second day but must be burned before the third (Lv 7:16-17). Unlike some other peace offerings, the animal being sacrificed could have one limb longer than the other (22:23).<\/li>\n<li>4. Installation offering. This Hebrew term refers to the settings of precious stones (Ex 25:7; 35:9, 27; 1 Chr 29:2), so “installation” seems an appropriate translation. It had to do with “filling the hand,” a ritual act that consecrated someone to divine service (Ex 28:41; cf. 32:29) and required ritual purity and spiritual devotion (2 Chr 29:31). The details of the original ceremony at the installation of the first priest is described in two passages (Ex 29:19-34; Lv 8:22-32).<\/li>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Atonement; Cleanness and Uncleanness, Regulations Concerning; Feasts and Festivals of Israel; Tabernacle; Temple.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>OFFERINGS AND SACRIFICES<\/h3>\n<p>Major ritual expressions of religious life with accompanying rites, such as libations, effusions, and sacred meals. The ideology expressed in Israel’s ritual complex made its religion unique in the ancient Near East. The concepts of OT ritual also underlie NT theology with regard to sin and reconciliation to God through the atoning death of Jesus Christ.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"PerformanceandOrderofSacrifices\">Performance and Order of Sacrifices<\/p>\n<p>The main source for a description of the correct performance of sacrificial ritual is the opening section of Leviticus (Lv 1–7). It consists of two separate parts. The first (1:1–6:7) is didactic, dealing with two categories of sacrifice: those of a “pleasing odor,” namely, the burnt (1:1-17), the grain (2:1-16), and the peace offerings (3:1-17); and the expiatory sacrifices, namely, the sin (4:1–5:13) and the guilt or trespass offerings (5:14–6:7). Attention is paid to the minute details of each ritual, and they are grouped according to their logical or conceptual associations.<\/p>\n<p>The grain (or cereal) offering follows the burnt offering because it always accompanied it in actual practice (Nm 15:1-21; chs 28–29); it also went with the peace offering (Lv 7:12-14; Nm 15:3-4). Special emphasis is placed on burning the inward parts of a sacrifice on the altar to make a “pleasing odor to the Lord” (Lv 1:9, 17; 2:2, 9, 12; 3:5, 11, 16). When the Lord smelled the pleasing odor (Gn 8:21), it was a sign of divine favor; refusal indicated God’s displeasure (Lv 26:31). The officiating priest evidently knew how to read the signs and would tell the offerer whether his sacrifice had been accepted (1 Sm 26:19; cf. Am 5:21-23).<\/p>\n<p>The sin and guilt offerings were expiatory (Lv 4:1–6:7, 20). The situations requiring such offerings are listed, and special emphasis is laid on the handling of the blood in the ritual.<\/p>\n<p>The second major section in this passage (Lv 6:8–7:38) stresses the administrative details for the various offerings. This section consists of a series of “instructions” for each type of offering pertaining to the distribution of the sacrificial materials. Some went to the priest(s), some went to the offerer, and others were burned on the altar or disposed of outside the camp. Those sacrifices designated as “most holy” were to be eaten only by qualified members of the priesthood (Lv 2:3, 10; 10:12-17; 14:13; Nm 18:9).<\/p>\n<p>The burnt offering is discussed first because it was entirely consumed on the altar (and thus not eaten by anyone). After it, there follow the sacrifices distributed to the officiants (Lv 6:17, 26, 29; 7:1, 6), and at the end come the peace offerings, a significant portion of which was returned to the offender.<\/p>\n<p>The order in which the sacrifices are treated in this passage also corresponds to their relative frequency in the rituals of the sacred calendar (Nm 28:19; 2 Chr 31:3; Ez 45:17). This would be particularly important for the priests and Levites on duty at the temple because they were responsible for the logistics of the daily sacrificial ritual, especially on the high holidays; management of the temple storehouse was a formidable task (1 Chr 23:28-32; 26:15, 20-22; 2 Chr 13:10-11; 30:3-19; 34:9-11).<\/p>\n<p>Each section concerning a particular offering concludes with the logistic or administrative details peculiar to it. There then follows a summary of the matters treated thus far (Lv 7:7-10), and the section concludes with a treatment of the peace offerings (vv 11-36). The latter did not play a role in the sacred calendar except during the Feast of Weeks (23:19-20); on all other occasions, with the two exceptions of the Nazirite vow and the installation of the priesthood, peace offerings were purely voluntary sacrifices and thus not subject to any fixed bookkeeping.<\/p>\n<p>In other biblical contexts, the sacrifices are listed according to the same “bookkeeping” or “administrative” order: burnt, grain, and drink; sin (or guilt); and sometimes peace offerings. An example is the roster of donations made by the tribal leaders for dedication of the altar (Nm 7). The information is organized like an everyday ledger from the temple storehouse; the summary classifies the animals as burnt, grain, sin, and peace offerings (vv 87-88) in accordance with the respective entries from each donor (vv 15-17). The Levitical scribe had two purposes for such a record: to credit the offerers and to record the treasures and food supplies coming in. Much of the foodstuffs being given as offerings was actually apportioned to the officiating priests (Nm 18:8-11; 2 Chr 31:4-19).<\/p>\n<p>When prescriptions were made as to the type and number of offerings to be brought (e.g., Nm 15:24), the “bookkeeping” order is generally followed. This was true of the calendarial sacrifices; burnt and grain offerings and libations were listed, followed by a sin offering for each of the following: New Moon (Nm 28:11-15), each day of Passover (vv 19-22), the Festival of Weeks (Lv 23:18-19; Nm 28:27-30), Trumpets (29:2-5), Day of Atonement (vv 8-11), and each day of the Feast of Tabernacles (vv 12-16).<\/p>\n<p>For sacrifices required in specific cases, the instructions as to what offerings to bring follow this sequence (e.g., the purification of a woman after giving birth, Lv 12:6-8). Note also the offerings given at the successful termination of a Nazirite vow; the Nazirite brought burnt, sin, and peace offerings (with some special grain offerings, Nm 6:14-15). However, the priest conducted the actual ritual according to a different order; the sin offering was made first, followed by the burnt offering and finally the peace offering (vv 16-17). In the case of an incomplete vow, the first step was to offer a sin offering and then a burnt offering to renew the vow (v 11). The reconsecration of the Nazirite required a separate guilt offering—a distinct ritual act (v 12).<\/p>\n<p>The description of the offerings made by the prince of Israel in the latter days presents the same contrast between the two orders of sacrifices. On festival holidays the prince brought burnt, grain, and drink offerings, but he offered them as sin, grain, burnt, and peace offerings (Ez 45:17). This second order of sacrifices in which the sin offering precedes the burnt offering was also followed in the rededication of the altar (43:18-27).<\/p>\n<p>The same “procedural” sequence of sacrifices appears in other instances: the purification of the leper—guilt and sin offerings (Lv 14:19), followed by a burnt offering (vv 12-20); the man with a discharge—sin and burnt offerings (15:15); likewise the woman with a discharge (v 30). The same order is followed for the sacrifices on the Day of Atonement (16:3-6, 11, 15, 24).<\/p>\n<p>The book of Leviticus furnishes two examples of the proper order in which sacrifices were offered. One is the ordination of Aaron and his sons. The sin offering came first and then the burnt offering (Ex 29:10-18; Lv 8:14-21). The focal point in this ritual was the sacrifice of ordination, or literally “installation,” a special form of peace offering (Ex 29:19-34; Lv 8:22-29). The second passage is the formal inauguration of the sacrificial system at the tabernacle (Lv 9). The sacrifices for Aaron were sin and burnt offerings, followed by those for the people: sin, burnt, grain, and peace offerings (9:7-22).<\/p>\n<p>The same sequence is followed at the cleansing and restoration of the temple in Jerusalem conducted by King Hezekiah (2 Chr 29:20-36). A great sin offering was first, followed by the burnt offerings accompanied by music and song. Then the king proclaimed that the people had committed themselves to the Lord; in this new state of purity they could now share in the sacrifices of devotion (burnt offerings) and thanksgiving (peace offerings).<\/p>\n<p>The procedural order of the sacrifices embodies the OT ideology of how God may be approached. First, atonement for sin had to be made and then total consecration of self; these are symbolized by the sin and\/or guilt offerings and the burnt and grain offerings, respectively. When these conditions were met, the offerer could express his continued devotion by more burnt offerings and also take part in the fellowship sacrifices (peace offerings) in which he himself got a large portion of the slaughtered animal (to share with his friends and the poor in his community; Dt 12:17-19).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"DescriptionofSacrifices\">Description of Sacrifices<\/p>\n<p>The ensuing description of the different types of sacrifice will treat them in accordance with the “procedural” order, that is, as symbolic stages in one’s approach to God.<\/p>\n<h5>Expiation<\/h5>\n<p>These two offerings were required for making atonement for sins and trespasses:<\/p>\n<p>1. Sin offering (Lv 4:1–5:13; 6:24-30). Different animals were specified in accordance with the rank of the offerer. A high priest had to bring a young bull (4:3), as did the congregation as a whole (v 14), except when the matter was a ritual infraction (Nm 15:24). A ruler would bring a male goat (Lv 4:23), but a commoner could provide a female goat (v 28; Nm 15:27) or a lamb (Lv 4:32). If he was indigent, he could offer two turtledoves or two young pigeons (one of which would be a burnt offering; 5:7), or if he was extremely poor, he might even substitute a tenth of an ephah of fine flour (Lv 5:11-13; cf. Heb 9:22).<\/p>\n\n<p>The offerer brought the animal to the entrance of the temple court and laid his hand on it (Lv 4:4). He did not confess his sin in this act because the animal was not being sent away (cf. the goat for Azazel, 16:21); rather, he was identifying himself with the sacrifice. The offerer had to kill the animal on the north side of the altar (4:24, 29). The animals were never slaughtered on the altar proper. The officiating priest collected the blood; when it was a bull for himself or for the congregation, he sprinkled some of the blood before the veil inside the tent of meeting and put some on the horns of the incense altar (vv 5-7, 16-18). On the Day of Atonement he brought the sacrificial blood for himself and for the people into the Holy of Holies (16:14-15). From all other animals, the blood was applied to the horns of the altar of burnt offering (4:25, 30, 34); the blood of fowl was sprinkled on the side of the altar (5:9). Finally, the remaining blood from any offering was poured or drained out at the base of the altar (4:7).<\/p>\n<p>The choicest of the internal organs, namely, the fatty tissue over and on the entrails, the two kidneys and their fat, and the appendage to the liver, were all offered to the Lord on the altar (Lv 4:8-10). The carcass and the other entrails were burned outside the camp when it was a bull for the priest or for the people. This was also true of the bull for the ordination of the priests (Ex 29:10-14; Lv 8:14-17). Otherwise, the priest who conducted the rites received the edible flesh as his portion. He had to eat it within the temple area, and its preparation was governed by strict rules of ritual purity (Lv 6:25-30; cf. 10:16-20). A sin offering of one male goat was presented at each of the sacred holidays: the New Moon (Nm 28:15), each day of Passover (vv 22-24), the Festival of Weeks (v 30), the Festival of Trumpets (29:5), the Day of Atonement (v 11), and each day of the Feast of Tabernacles (vv 16, 19). The high priest also offered a bull for himself and then sacrificed one of the two goats on the Day of Atonement. Certain purification rites required lesser sin offerings, namely, lambs or birds: childbirth (Lv 12:6-8), cleansing from leprosy (14:12-14, 19-22), and abscesses and hemorrhages (15:14-15, 29-30) or after defilement while under a vow (Nm 6:10-11).<\/p>\n<li>2. Guilt offering (Lv 5:14–6:7; 7:1-7). The guilt or trespass offering was a special kind of sin offering (cf. 5:7) required whenever someone had been denied his rightful due. Reparation of the valued amount that had been defrauded had to be made, plus a fine of one-fifth (5:16; 6:5). The animal was usually a ram (5:15, 18; 6:6). The cleansed leper and the defiled Nazirite had to bring a male lamb (Lv 14:12, 21; Nm 6:12). The offerer apparently handled the sacrifice as he would a sin offering, but the priest had to sprinkle the blood around the altar (Lv 7:2). Viscera were burned on the altar as usual (vv 3-5). Some of the blood was then applied to the tip of the cleansed leper’s right ear and to his right thumb and big toe (14:14). Again the priest received most of the animal’s flesh for food (7:6-7; 14:13). A guilt offering was required whenever another party had suffered some loss. Ritual infractions, such as eating the “holy things” without proper authorization (5:14-19; 22:14), called for payment of the sum that should have gone to the Lord plus the fine of one-fifth that went to the priest (Lv 5:16; 2 Kgs 12:16). The leper belongs in this category, since during the time of his infection he was unable to render service to God (Lv 14:12-18). The same applies to the Nazirite who had suffered defilement while he was set apart to God by the vow; thus a guilt offering was required (Nm 6:12). Violation of another person’s property rights could be expiated only by the guilt offering and its additional one-fifth. Such matters included cheating on deposits or security, robbery or oppression, failing to report the find of some lost property, or false swearing or failing to testify (Lv 6:1-5). Intercourse with a betrothed slave girl was also a violation of property rights (19:20-22). If the offended party was no longer living and had no surviving kinsmen, the payment went to the priest (Nm 5:5-10).<\/li>\n<h5>Consecration Offerings<\/h5>\n<p>These rituals usually come to mind when one hears the word “offering.” They represent acts of personal commitment that must accompany the repentance expressed in the sin and guilt offerings. They were also a prerequisite for the fellowship or communal sacrifices that might follow.<\/p>\n<p>1. Burnt offering (Lv 1:3-17; 6:8-13). The burnt offering could be a bull, a sheep, or a bird. The offerer presented the animal, laid his hand on it, and killed it on the north side of the altar. The bird was simply given to the priest. The latter collected the blood, presented it before God, and then sprinkled it around the altar. When the offering was a bird, he wrung off its head and drained the blood at the side of the altar. Though the slaughtering and sprinkling of the blood relates the burnt offering to the expiatory sacrifices of the previous section, the main emphasis here is on killing the animal, washing its unclean parts, and then carefully arranging all of the pieces on the altar. All of this was then consumed on the altar as a pleasing odor to the Lord. Since burnt offerings were offered morning and evening, a good supply of wood by the altar was necessary. The officiating priest, dressed in proper garments, had to keep the fire burning continuously (6:8-13).<\/p>\n<p>Burnt offerings played a prominent role in the sacrifices of the ritual calendar. The continual burnt offering was made twice a day, a male lamb morning and evening (Ex 29:38-42; Nm 28:1-8). Two additional lambs were sacrificed each Sabbath (Nm 28:9-10).<\/p>\n<p>Except for these daily offerings, a sin offering of one goat was usually made along with the burnt offerings on the following holidays: For the New Moon at the beginning of each month, two young bulls, one ram, and seven male lambs were offered (Nm 28:11-14). The same were required for each day of the Passover festival (vv 19-24) and again on the Feast of Weeks (vv 6-29). On the Festival of Trumpets and the Day of Atonement, the requirement was one bull, one ram, and seven lambs (29:2-4).<\/p>\n<p>The great Feast of Tabernacles was characterized by a series of elaborate burnt offerings, plus one goat per day as a sin offering. On the first day, 13 young bulls, 2 rams, and 14 male lambs were offered (Nm 29:12-16). Each successive day, the number of bulls was decreased by one until on the seventh day there were only seven (the rams and lambs remained the same; 29:17-25). On the eighth day the animals required for Trumpets and Atonement were offered, namely, one bull, one ram, and seven lambs.<\/p>\n<p>Certain rituals of purification also required burnt offerings in addition to sin offerings: after childbirth (Lv 12:6-8), abscesses (15:14-15), and discharges (vv 29-30); or after defilement while under a Nazirite vow (Nm 6:10-11). Though it is not stated that grain offerings were required in these cases, they certainly were for the cleansing from leprosy (Lv 14:10, 19-22, 31) and the completion of the Nazirite vow (Nm 6:14-16).<\/p>\n<li>2. Grain (Cereal) offering (Lv 2; 6:14-23). The Hebrew term referring to this particular offering means “gift,” or “offering,” including animals (Gn 4:3-5; Jgs 6:18; 1 Sm 2:17). But in the specific sacrificial context it signifies a combination of fine flour, olive oil, and frankincense that could be made up in the form of baked loaves, wafers, or morsels. The offering of firstfruits was to be crushed heads of new grain (Lv 2:14). No leaven or honey was permitted on the cakes, although those same commodities could be accepted as a firstfruit offering. They would not go to the altar but were given to the priest. The offerer had to bring the prepared loaves or wafers to the temple. The priest would burn one handful on the altar as its “memorial portion” (v 2), keeping the remainder for his own food (6:16; 7:9). But when the priest was making a grain offering on his own behalf, he burnt it all on the altar (6:22-23).<\/li>\n<p>A grain offering was usually given with every burnt offering, especially those pertaining to the sacred calendar (Nm 28–29). The amounts of flour and oil were set according to the animal being sacrificed: three-tenths of an ephah of flour and one-half a hin of oil for a bull, two-tenths ephah and one-third hin for a ram, and one-tenth ephah plus one-fourth hin for a lamb (15:2-10). Other happy occasions for a grain offering included the cleansing of a leper (Lv 14:10, 20-21, 31; unspecified quantity of grain with a bird) and the successful consummation of a Nazirite vow (Nm 6:13-15).<\/p>\n<p>Peace offerings were invariably followed by grain offerings (Lv 7:12-14; Nm 15:4). The priest received one of each pair of cakes or wafers. The remainder was returned to the offerer to be eaten with the flesh of the sacrificial animal at a place of his choice.<\/p>\n<p>A special case where such offering was used was the one-tenth of an ephah of barley meal required in the jealousy ritual. It was to have no oil or frankincense (Nm 5:15, 18, 25-26). A very poor individual was permitted to bring one-tenth of an ephah of fine flour without oil or frankincense as a sin offering (Lv 5:11-13).<\/p>\n<li>3. Drink offering (Nm 15:1-10). The standard libation was one-fourth of a hin of wine for a lamb, one-third for a ram, and one-half for a bull. The wine (Ex 29:40), also called “strong drink” (Nm 28:7), is probably an intentional substitute for the blood used by other nations (Ps 16:4). The libation was classed as a “pleasing odor” offering (Nm 15:7). As with the burnt offering, the entire drink offering was expended; nothing was given to the priest (28:7).<\/li>\n<p>Drink offerings accompanied the daily offering (Ex 29:40-41; Nm 28:7) and the Sabbath offering (Nm 28:9), as well as the New Moon festival. Reference is also made to them in connection with the second and following days of the Feast of Tabernacles (29:18, 21); for the first day their absence is probably unintentional. The same might hold true for the Passover, Firstfruits, and Feast of Trumpets (Nm 28:16–29:11; cf. Ez 45:11). A libation was required for the rites concluding a Nazirite vow (Nm 6:17) but not for cleansing a leper (Lv 14:10-20).<\/p>\n<h5>Fellowship Offerings<\/h5>\n<p>These sacrifices were voluntary on the part of the offerer and generally not imposed by regulations except for the Nazirite (Nm 6:17) and the Feast of Weeks (Lv 23:19-20). An offerer who had already fulfilled the ritual requirements for atonement and personal consecration was permitted to make a fellowship offering. Burnt offerings often accompanied the fellowship sacrifices as a further expression of devotion.<\/p>\n<p>1. Peace offering (Lv 3; 7:11-36; Am 5:22). This is the basic class of all fellowship or communal offerings; the others are simply subclasses of the peace offering. In terms of holiness, or restrictedness, they were not so rigidly confined as the other offerings. Animals from the herd or flock, male or female (Lv 3:1, 6, 12), were permitted. The usual stipulation of freedom from blemish was in force, except in the case of the freewill offering, in which the animal could have one limb longer than the other (22:23). Unleavened cakes were also required, at least for the thank (7:12-13) and Nazirite (Nm 6:15-19) offerings. Each of these three types of peace offerings will be discussed below, with their special features.<\/p>\n<p>The first parts of the ritual—the presentation and laying on of the hand—were identical to those of the other sacrifices. However, the animal was slaughtered at the door of the sanctuary courtyard and not on the north side of the altar (Lv 3:1-2, 7-8, 12-13; 7:29-30). The priest collected the blood and tossed it against the altar as he did with the burnt offering (3:2, 8, 13). The choice viscera were offered up as a “pleasing odor” (3:3-5, 6-11, 14-16).<\/p>\n<p>The priest also received a certain portion of the offering. He was allowed to eat it in any ritually clean place and to share it with his family (Lv 7:14, 30-36; Nm 6:20), in contrast to his portion of other sacrifices, which he had to eat somewhere in the temple compound (Nm 18:10-11). He received one of the cakes and the breast as a wave offering and the right thigh as a contribution for the offerer. This latter is the so-called “heave offering”; the technical term developed from a root signifying “to be high” and meaning “that which is lifted up.” The heave offering did not really represent a special kind of ritual ceremony.<\/p>\n<p>The ritual act of the peace offering culminated with a fellowship meal. Except for those parts on the altar or given to the priest, the body of the animal was returned to the man who offered it. He had to prepare it as a communal meal for himself, for his family, and for the Levite in his community (Dt 12:12, 18-19). This would have to be at the official sanctuary (Dt 12:6-7, 11-12, 15-19; cf. 1 Sm 1:3-4) and the participants had to observe strict rules of purity (Lv 7:19-21; 19:5-8). It may be contrasted with the ritual slaughtering of animals for a banquet that was permitted at any local altar (Dt 12:16, 20-22). The flesh of the thank offering had to be eaten on the same day of the sacrifice (Lv 7:15), while that of the votive or freewill offerings could be finished off on the following day (vv 16-18). Whatever remained then had to be burned before the time limit expired.<\/p>\n<p>Only three times is there a specific demand for a peace offering: in the Feast of Weeks (Lv 23:19-20), upon completion of a Nazirite vow (Nm 6:17-20), and at the installation of the priesthood (Ex 29:19-22, 28). Other public ritual occasions included the inauguration of the temple (1 Kgs 8:63; 2 Chr 7:5). Events on a national level that evoked the peace offering were the successful conclusion of a military campaign (1 Sm 11:15), the end of a famine or pestilence (2 Sm 24:25), confirmation of a candidate to the throne (1 Kgs 1:9, 19), or a time of religious revival (2 Chr 29:31-36). On the local level, they were offered at the annual family reunion (1 Sm 20:6) or other festive occasions, such as the harvest of the firstfruits (Ex 22:29-31; 1 Sm 9:11-14, 22-24; 16:4-5).<\/p>\n<li>2. Wave offering. The first portion of the peace offering was “waved” before the Lord to signify that the priest was eating it as a representative of God (the actual motion evidently resembled the wielding of a saw or a staff, Is 10:15). The same technical term, “wave offering,” was also used for other kinds of offering: precious metals donated for making the cultic artifacts (Ex 35:22; 38:29) and the guilt offering of the cleansed leper (Lv 14:12).<\/li>\n<li>3. Freewill offering. These gifts, brought to the holy convocations that took place three times per year (Ex 23:16; 34:20; Dt 16:10, 16-17; 2 Chr 35:8; Ezr 3:5), were voluntary (Lv 7:16; 22:18, 21-23; 23:28; Nm 15:3; 29:39; Dt 12:6, 17). Like the voluntary offering, the freewill offering could be a burnt rather than a peace offering (Lv 22:17-24; Ez 46:12). If it was the latter, the flesh could be eaten on the second day but must be burned before the third (Lv 7:16-17). Unlike some other peace offerings, the animal being sacrificed could have one limb longer than the other (22:23).<\/li>\n<li>4. Installation offering. This Hebrew term refers to the settings of precious stones (Ex 25:7; 35:9, 27; 1 Chr 29:2), so “installation” seems an appropriate translation. It had to do with “filling the hand,” a ritual act that consecrated someone to divine service (Ex 28:41; cf. 32:29) and required ritual purity and spiritual devotion (2 Chr 29:31). The details of the original ceremony at the installation of the first priest is described in two passages (Ex 29:19-34; Lv 8:22-32).<\/li>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Atonement; Cleanness and Uncleanness, Regulations Concerning; Feasts and Festivals of Israel; Tabernacle; Temple.<\/p>","summary_ro":"OFFERINGS AND SACRIFICES Major ritual expressions of religious life with accompanying rites, such as libations, effusions, and sacred meals. The ideology expressed in Israel’s ritual complex made its religion unique in the ancient Near East. The concepts of OT ritual also underlie NT theology with regard to sin and reconciliation to God through the atoning death of Jesus Christ. Performance and Order of Sacrifices The main source for a description of the correct performance of sacrificial rit...","summary_en":"OFFERINGS AND SACRIFICES Major ritual expressions of religious life with accompanying rites, such as libations, effusions, and sacred meals. The ideology expressed in Israel’s ritual complex made its religion unique in the ancient Near East. The concepts of OT ritual also underlie NT theology with regard to sin and reconciliation to God through the atoning death of Jesus Christ. Performance and Order of Sacrifices The main source for a description of the correct performance of sacrificial rit...","source":"Articles\/O.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}]},"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.
Exod 38
📘 Info carte
Se încarcă...
📖 Resurse
Muzică de relaxareSelectează o piesă
0:00
Redare audio
0 piese
🍪 Folosim cookie-uri
Folosim cookie-uri esențiale pentru funcționarea platformei și cookie-uri de analiză pentru a îmbunătăți experiența ta.
Află mai multe
✝️
Logosasistentul Biserica Online
✝️
Bine ai venit! 👋
Sunt Logos, prietenul tău spiritual. Începe conversația — te ascult cu drag! ✨