Ezechiel 44
1 M-a adus înapoi la poarta de afară a sfântului Locaş, dinspre răsărit. Dar era închisă.
2 Şi Domnul mi-a zis: ,,Poarta aceasta va sta închisă, nu se va deschide, şi nimeni nu va trece pe ea; căci Domnul, Dumnezeul lui Israel, a intrat pe ea. De aceea va rămânea închisă!
3 În ce priveşte pe voivod, voivodul va putea să şadă supt ea, ca să mănânce pânea de jertfă înaintea Domnului. El va intra pe drumul care dă în tinda porţii, şi va ieşi pe acelaş drum.``
4 M-a dus apoi la poarta de miază noapte, înaintea casei Templului. M-am uitat şi iată că slava Domnului umplea Casa Domnului! Şi am căzut cu faţa la pământ.
5 Domnul mi-a zis: ,,Fiul omului, fii cu luare aminte, uită-te cu ochii tăi şi ascultă cu urechile tale tot ce-ţi voi spune cu privire la toate rânduielile Casei Domnului şi cu privire la toate legile ei; priveşte cu băgare de seamă intrarea casei şi toate ieşirile sfântului Locaş!
6 Şi spune celor îndărădnici, casei lui Israel: ,Aşa vorbeşte Domnul Dumnezeu: ,Ajungă-vă toate urâciunile voastre, casa lui Israel!
7 Aţi băgat în Locaşul Meu cel sfânt nişte străini cu inima netăiată împrejur, şi cu carnea netăiată împrejur, ca să-Mi spurce casa; aţi adus pânea Mea, grăsimea şi sângele înaintea tuturor urâciunilor voastre, şi aţi rupt astfel legământul Meu.
8 N-aţi păzit ce trebuia păzit cu privire la lucrurile Mele cele sfinte, ci i-aţi pus în locul vostru, ca să facă slujbă în Locaşul Meu cel sfânt.
9 Aşa vorbeşte Domnul Dumnezeu: ,Niciun străin, netăiat împrejur cu inima şi netăiat împrejur cu trupul, să nu intre în Locaşul Meu cel sfânt, niciunul din străinii cari vor fi în mijlocul copiilor lui Israel.
10 Mai mult, Leviţii cari s-au depărtat de Mine, când se rătăcea Israel şi se abătea dela Mine ca să-şi urmeze idolii, vor purta pedeapsa nelegiuirilor lor:
11 ei vor fi în Locaşul Meu cel sfânt ca slugi, vor păzi porţile casei şi vor face slujbă în casă; vor junghia pentru popor vitele rânduite pentru arderile de tot şi pentru celelalte jertfe, şi vor sta înaintea lui ca să-i slujească.
12 Pentrucă i-au slujit înaintea idolilor lui, şi au făcut să cadă în păcat casa lui Israel, deaceea Îmi ridic mâna asupra lor, zice Domnul Dumnezeu, ca să-şi poarte pedeapsa nelegiuirii lor.
13 Nu se vor apropia de Mine ca să fie în slujba Mea ca preoţi, nu se vor apropia de lucrurile Mele cele sfinte, nici de lucrurile Mele prea sfinte; ci vor purta pedepsa ruşinei lor şi urâciunilor pe cari le-au săvârşit.
14 Totuş le voi da paza casei, îi voi întrebuinţa la toată slujba ei şi la tot ce trebuie făcut în ea.
15 ,Dar preoţii, Leviţii, fiii lui Ţadoc, cari au păzit slujba locaşului Meu celui sfânt când se rătăceau copiii lui Israel dela Mine, aceia se vor apropia de Mine să-Mi slujească, şi vor sta înaintea Mea ca să-Mi aducă grăsime şi sânge, zice Domnul Dumnezeu.``
16 ,,Ei vor intra în Locaşul Meu cel sfânt, se vor apropia de masa Mea ca să-Mi slujească, şi vor fi în slujba Mea.
17 Când vor trece pe porţile curţii dinlăuntru, se vor îmbrăca în haine de in; nu vor avea pe ei nimic de lână, când vor face slujba în porţile curţii dinlăuntru şi în casă.
18 Vor avea pe cap şi scufii de in, şi ismene de in pe coapsele lor; nu se vor încinge cu ceva care să aducă sudoarea;
19 iar când vor ieşi să se ducă în curtea de afară la popor, vor lepăda veşmintele cu cari fac slujba, şi le vor pune în odăile sfântului Locaş; se vor îmbrăca în altele ca să nu sfinţească poporul cu veşmintele lor.
20 Nu-şi vor rade capul, dar nici nu vor lăsa părul să crească în voie; ci vor trebui să-şi taie părul.
21 Niciun preot nu va bea vin când va intra în curtea dinlăuntru.
22 Nu vor lua de nevastă nici o văduvă, nici o femeie lăsată de bărbat, ci vor lua numai fecioare din sămânţa casei lui Israel; totuş vor putea să ia şi pe văduva unui preot.
23 Vor învăţa pe poporul Meu să deosebească ce este sfânt de ce nu este sfânt, şi vor arăta deosebirea dintre ce este necurat şi ce este curat.
24 Vor judeca în neânţelegeri, şi vor hotărî după legile Mele. Vor păzi deasemenea legile şi poruncile Mele, la toate sărbătorile Mele, şi vor sfinţi Sabatele Mele.
25 Un preot nu se va duce la un mort, ca să nu se facă necurat; nu va putea să se facă necurat decât pentru un tată, pentru o mamă, pentru un fiu, pentru o fiică, pentru un frate şi pentru o soră, care nu era măritată.
26 După curăţire, i se vor număra şapte zile.
27 În ziua când va intra în Locaşul Meu cel sfânt, în curtea dinlăuntru, ca să facă slujba în sfântul Locaş, îşi va aduce jertfa de ispăşire, zice Domnul Dumnezeu.``
28 ,,Iată moştenirea pe care o vor avea: Eu voi fi moştenirea lor. Să nu le daţi nici o moşie în Israel: Eu voi fi moşia lor!``
29 Dar se vor hrăni cu darurile de mâncare, cu jertfele de ispăşire şi de vină; şi tot ce va fi închinat Domnului prin făgăduinţă în Israel va fi al lor.
30 Cele mai bune din cele dintâi roade de orice fel, şi partea ridicată din toate darurile de mâncare, pe cari le veţi aduce ca daruri ridicate, vor fi ale preoţilor; veţi da preoţilor şi pârga făinii voastre, pentru ca binecuvântarea să rămână peste casa voastră.
31 Preoţii însă nu vor mânca din nicio pasăre sau vită moartă ori sfîşiată de fiară.``
{"verseMap":{"1":[{"id":36959,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Temple","title_en":"Temple","content_ro":"<h3>TEMPLE<\/h3>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Background<\/p>\n<p>• Solomon’s Temple<\/p>\n<p>• Zerubbabel’s Temple<\/p>\n<p>• Herod’s Temple<\/p>\n<p>• Significance of the Temple in the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>• Significance of the Temple in the New Testament<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Background\">Background<\/p>\n<p>David’s capture of Jerusalem (2 Sm 5:6-9) and his designation of it as the nation’s capital is one of the great masterstrokes of history. Occupied by the Jebusites, it was a pocket of neutral territory between the northern and southern sections of David’s united kingdom and was politically acceptable to both. Jerusalem was then established as the national religious center by the return of the ark, which had been largely neglected since its capture by the Philistines (2 Sm 6:1-17). Henceforth, God’s choices of both David and Jerusalem (“Mount Zion”) were indissolubly linked (Ps 78:67-72).<\/p>\n<p>David’s great impulse was to build an adequate dwelling place for Israel’s God. The idea was initially approved by Nathan the prophet (2 Sm 7:1-3), but God revealed otherwise to him, and he conveyed the divine purpose to David (vv 4-17). In a significant wordplay, David was informed that, while he was not to build a house (temple) for God, God would build a house (dynasty) for him. David was not the one to build a temple because of the numerous wars during his reign; the temple would instead be built by his son (1 Kgs 5:3; 1 Chr 22:7-8; 28:3). Nevertheless, David enthusiastically amassed most of the necessary finances and materials and drew up the blueprints for the temple (1 Chr 22:3-5, 14; 28:2, 11-19). He also purchased the temple site (21:25).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"SolomonsTemple\">Solomon’s Temple<\/p>\n\n<h5>Date<\/h5>\n<p>Construction commenced in Solomon’s fourth year, about 966 <span>BC<\/span>, and took seven years to complete (1 Kgs 6:1, 38). Everything necessary for the temple, including the workers, had been prepared by David (1 Chr 28:21). The temple evidently had first priority among Solomon’s building schemes, as he built his own palace later (1 Kgs 7:1).<\/p>\n<h5>Superintendents and Workforce<\/h5>\n<p>The principal architect for the bronze furnishings was Huram (Hebrew “Hiram”), whose father was a metal craftsman from Tyre and whose mother was an Israelite (1 Kgs 7:13-14). Cedar for the temple came from Lebanon and was felled and transported by the skilled woodsmen of another Hiram—the king of Tyre, Solomon’s ally (5:5-9). Thirty thousand Israelites, divided into three groups, were drafted to assist at Lebanon. Each group was on duty for one month in three. For the stonework, Solomon conscripted 153,600 foreigners resident in Israel to provide a self-contained group of carriers, stone cutters, and supervisors (vv 15-17; 2 Chr 2:17-18). Possibly the “men of Gebal,” with their specialized skills, formed yet another group (1 Kgs 5:18). Building the temple was obviously a national project of immense size and effort. In order to preserve the sanctity of the site and to eliminate noise, the masonry and carpentry were not done at the temple site (6:7).<\/p>\n<h5>Description<\/h5>\n<p>The details given in the Bible are sufficiently clear for us to make a reasonably accurate description of the temple. The accounts in Kings and Chronicles are supplemented by Ezekiel’s depiction of the temple (see below), which was broadly based on his knowledge of the Jerusalem temple (Ez 40–48).<\/p>\n<p>The side rooms probably rested on a foundation or platform that was separate from the temple itself (1 Kgs 6:5, 10; cf. Ez 41:8-9) and were arranged in three stories, each seven and a half feet (2.3 meters) high, extending around the whole building except for the porch side. Each successive story was one and a half feet (.5 meter) wider than the one below, these dimensions coinciding with the thickness of the side wall of the Holy Place. The ground floor rooms were seven and a half feet (2.3 meters) wide; the first story was nine feet (2.7 meters), and the second was ten and a half feet (3.2 meters). Access to the upper stories was possibly by winding staircases (1 Kgs 6:8). There is some uncertainty concerning the location of the entrances; there may have been one on either side, but only one is mentioned (v 8). As in Ezekiel’s temple (Ez 40:17, 28), there were two adjacent courts, an inner and an outer (1 Kgs 6:36; 7:12), but no dimensions are given for these. The inner court, or “court of the priests,” being next to the temple itself, was also called “the upper court” (2 Chr 4:9; Jer 36:10). The wall of the inner court was made of three layers of hewn stone held together by a layer of cedar beams (1 Kgs 6:36), and the doors of both courts were sheathed in bronze (2 Chr 4:9). The palace buildings were within the outer court area, probably with a private passageway between the palace and the temple that was later closed during the reign of Ahaz (2 Chr 4:9, 12; 2 Kgs 16:18).<\/p>\n<p>The temple itself was 90 feet (27.4 meters) long, 30 feet (9.1 meters) wide, and 45 feet (13.7 meters) high (1 Kgs 6:2), with a porch or vestibule 15 feet (4.6 meters) deep stretching across the width. Probably the vestibule was on the east end of the temple, thus corresponding with the orientation of Ezekiel’s temple (Ez 43:1; 44:1). The larger part of the main sanctuary, next to the porch, formed the Holy Place, which was 60 feet (18.3 meters) long (1 Kgs 6:17). Beyond this was the innermost sanctuary, the Holy of Holies (or the “Most Holy Place“), which was a perfect cube of 30 feet (9.1 meters). All the interior walls were paneled with cedar decorated with flower patterns, cherubim, and palm trees, so that no masonry was visible. The walls of both inner and outer sanctuaries were “overlaid” (v 22) with pure gold. Actually the gold decoration may have been inlaid, on the basis that a solid sheath of gold would spoil the natural beauty of the wood carving. The floor was made of cypress planks (v 15). Narrow windows set high in the walls above the level of the three-storied outer chambers provided light in the Holy Place (v 4). The ceiling was paneled with beams and planks of cedar. No detail is given about the exterior roofing, but probably the contemporary technique was employed, using a wooden, latticelike framework into which a waterproof, limestone plaster was packed and rolled.<\/p>\n<p>The outer porch was apparently an open space, since no doors are mentioned. Access into the Holy Place was by double doors, both hinged to fold back on themselves, made of cypress and decorated in exactly the same way as the interior walls (vv 34-35). The doorposts were made of olive wood. Within the Holy Place was the altar of incense made of cedar overlaid with gold; it was placed centrally before the Holy of Holies. Also in the Holy Place were a table for the bread of the Presence of God, ten lampstands arranged in two groups of five on either side, and various utensils required for maintaining the priestly duties (1 Kgs 7:48-50). All these were made or overlaid with gold. The ten tables, arranged five on each side, were presumably for the utensils and accessories (2 Chr 4:8).<\/p>\n<p>Between the Holy Place and the Holy of Holies was a double door made of olive wood, carved with cherubim, palm trees, and flower patterns and overlaid with gold. Inside these doors, veiling still further the Holy of Holies, was a blue, purple, and crimson curtain, made of the finest fabrics and ornamented with cherubim (2 Chr 3:14).<\/p>\n<p>In the Holy of Holies were two cherubim, each 15 feet (4.6 meters) high and made of olive wood covered with gold (1 Kgs 6:23-28). Each wing measured seven and a half feet (2.3 meters). A wing of each touched the side walls; the other wings met at the center of the room. The divine throne had been considerably less impressive in the tabernacle, where a wing of each cherubim fused into the mercy seat above the ark (Ex 25:17-22). In Solomon’s temple, the ark of the covenant was placed below the forward-facing cherubim, the symbolic protectors. The ark, the only major item surviving from the Mosaic tabernacle, still contained the tablets of the law, but the pot of manna and Aaron’s rod were missing (1 Kgs 8:9).<\/p>\n<p>Immediately outside the temple and on either side of the vestibule were two hollow bronze pillars (1 Kgs 7:15-20; 2 Chr 3:15-17). According to the book of Kings, these pillars were 27 feet (8.2 meters) high, with a circumference of 18 feet (5.5 meters). The metal itself was about four inches (10.2 centimeters) thick. The pillars were surmounted by bronze, lily-shaped capitals seven and a half feet (2.3 meters) high and six feet (1.8 meters) wide, intricately adorned with a chain latticework that supported two rows of pomegranates. The total weight must have been enormous, and their size is attested to by Jeremiah, who notes that the Babylonians had to break them in pieces before transporting them to Babylon (Jer 52:17, 21-23).<\/p>\n<p>The bronze altar of sacrifice in front of the vestibule is not listed in the specifications of 1 Kings 7. However, it is mentioned in the temple dedication and subsequently (1 Kgs 8:22, 54, 64; 9:25) and clearly stood in the inner court. Its dimensions were 30 feet (9.1 meters) square and 15 feet (4.6 meters) high (2 Chr 4:1). In view of its weight, it was probably cast in sections at Solomon’s foundry in the Jordan Rift valley (vv 17-18) and then transported to the temple site for assembly.<\/p>\n<p>Probably the most striking article in the inner court was the “molten (bronze) sea,” a huge, round tank made of bronze 3 inches (8 centimeters) thick, 7½ feet (2.3 meters) high, and 15 feet (4.6 meters) in diameter (1 Kgs 7:23-26). Its rim flared out like a lily (2 Chr 4:2-5). The tank was supported on 12 bronze oxen, four on each side, and had two rows of decoration, possibly gourds or pomegranates, under the brim. Its capacity was between 10,000 and 12,000 gallons (37,850–45,420 liters). The bronze sea was used for priestly ablutions (v 6). Presumably this involved a platform of sorts, for the brim of this vast basin would have been about 15 feet (4.6 meters) above ground level.<\/p>\n<p>Hiram also constructed ten large lavers, mounted on moveable stands and placed in two groups of five, on the north and south sides of the inner court (1 Kgs 7:27-39). Basically the stands were bronze boxes, six feet (1.8 meters) square and four and a half feet (1.4 meters) high with a nine-inch (22.9-centimeter) rim around the top edge. Each corner was attached to braced posts to which the axles were fixed. The four-spoked wheels were 27 inches (68.6 centimeters) high. Into each stand there fitted a laver containing approximately 220 gallons (832.7 liters) of water, used for washing sacrificial animals (2 Chr 4:6). Probably each was adjacent to one of the ten tables that would be used to flay and otherwise prepare the sacrifices (v 8). Supplementary items, such as pots, shovels, and basins, all made of bronze, were also manufactured (1 Kgs 7:40, 45).<\/p>\n<h5>The Dedication<\/h5>\n<p>Eleven months elapsed between the completion of the temple and its dedication (1 Kgs 6:38; 8:2), during which time the major items of furniture were set in place. The dedication itself took place in the seventh month, presumably in connection with the Feast of Tabernacles and the Day of Atonement (Lv 23:23-36). The ark of the covenant was brought into its final resting place (1 Kgs 8:3-4), but the inner court proved inadequate for the vast numbers of beasts sacrificed (1 Kgs 8:62-64; 2 Chr 7:7).<\/p>\n<p>The temple employed the most sophisticated building techniques of the age, and no expense had been spared in construction, ornamentation, or equipment. Yet Solomon readily confessed its utter inadequacy to house the eternal God (1 Kgs 8:27). His prayer also underlined Israel’s propensity to forsake the Lord, contrasting the nation with God, who, though a just judge, was also merciful and faithful. The climax of the proceedings came when fire from heaven consumed the sacrifices and the shekinah glory filled the temple (2 Chr 7:1-3).<\/p>\n<h5>Later History<\/h5>\n<p>Like most ancient shrines, the temple became a treasury for national wealth and as such was often the target for attack. Shishak of Egypt plundered it within five years of Solomon’s death (1 Kgs 14:25-38). Shortly afterward, King Asa (910–869 <span>BC<\/span>) depleted its gold and silver treasures to buy Syrian help against his oppressor, Baasha (908–886 <span>BC<\/span>), king of Israel (15:16-19). Joash, the king of Judah (835–796 <span>BC<\/span>) who was concealed in the temple from the vicious Athaliah during his youth (2 Kgs 11), made provision for its repair after protesting the priests’ embezzlement of gifts (12:4-16). But after the death of Jehoiada, the high priest, Joash himself was adversely influenced by his nobles (2 Chr 24:15-19). As punishment for his apostasy, the Lord allowed the Syrians to attack, and Joash used the temple treasures to buy them off (2 Kgs 12:17-18). Hardly had provision for replacements been made, when Jehoash of Israel (798–782 <span>BC<\/span>), having shattered the arrogant pride of Amaziah of Judah (796–767 <span>BC<\/span>), again stripped the temple (14:8-14). Later, King Ahaz (735-715 <span>BC<\/span>) used the remaining resources of the temple to enlist support from the Assyrians (16:7-9), though he eventually became completely subservient to them.<\/p>\n<p> Then Hezekiah (715–686 <span>BC<\/span>), one of the great reforming kings, thoroughly renovated the temple and restored worship after it had fallen into disuse during theclosing years of Ahaz (2 Chr 29:1-19; 31:9-21). Manasseh (696–642 <span>BC<\/span>), however, completely reversed his father’s policy, bringing the practices of Canaanite and Mesopotamian worship into the temple (2 Kgs 21:3-7). His conversion experience, which probably occurred late in his reign and resulted in certain reform measures in the temple (2 Chr 33:12-19), was not far-reaching enough to escape the final judgment that his reign was the dark spot of Judah’s history (2 Kgs 21:10-16).<\/p>\n<p>Manasseh’s grandson Josiah (640–609 <span>BC<\/span>), was the second great reforming king. He organized the repair of the temple in 622 <span>BC<\/span>, during which the lost Book of the Law (almost certainly the book of Deuteronomy) was discovered (2 Kgs 22:3-13). As a result, Josiah’s reformation gained a new dimension and sense of urgency (22:14–23:3). The reformation included a thorough purge of all idolatrous elements from the temple (23:4-12) and the restoration of the traditional festivals. Sadly, however, Josiah’s reformation died with him, and Judah’s downward slide continued under the apostate Jehoiakim (609–598 <span>BC<\/span>). It was probably during this time that Jeremiah preached his famous temple sermon foretelling its destruction (Jer 7:1–8:3; 26:1-19), which alienated him from the religious leaders. In Nebuchadnezzar’s reprisal raid following Jehoiakim’s rebellion in 601 <span>BC<\/span> (2 Kgs 24:1-4), Jerusalem was captured (596 <span>BC<\/span>) and many of the temple treasures were transported to Babylon (2 Chr 36:7). The temple itself appears to have escaped damage, but when Judah again rebelled under Zedekiah (597–586 <span>BC<\/span>), the temple was demolished (2 Kgs 25:8-10). The remaining temple treasures were taken away.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"ZerubbabelsTemple\">Zerubbabel’s Temple<\/p>\n<h5>Construction<\/h5>\n<p>Although the temple was devastated, the site still remained as a place of pilgrimage during the exile (Jer 41:4-5). In 538 <span>BC<\/span> the Persian king, Cyrus, in pursuance of a liberal policy diametrically opposed to that of the earlier empires, permitted the Jews to return from exile. And he authorized the rebuilding of the temple, financing it from the Persian treasury.<\/p>\n<p>In the book of Ezra, the decree of authorization has been preserved in two forms: the general proclamation (Ezr 1:2-4) and a more prosaic memorandum in the national archives indicating the main temple specifications and the amount of promised Persian help (6:1-5). Probably only a minority of the Jews opted to leave the relative comforts of Mesopotamia for the dangers of a long journey to their desolated homeland. According to the book of Ezra, 42,360 dedicated individuals and their servants (2:64-65) responded under the leadership of Sheshbazzar (1:8-11; 5:14-16) and Zerubbabel (2:2; 3:2, 8; 4:2). With great enthusiasm, the altar was rebuilt on the temple site and the traditional pattern of worship reestablished (3:1-6). Utilizing the grant from Persia as well as their own freewill gifts (2:68-69; 3:7), the Jews began to plan the second temple and lay its foundations (3:7-13). The initial impetus quickly died as a result of local opposition (4:1-4, 24), selfish preoccupation, and crop failures (Hg 1:2-11). In 520 <span>BC<\/span> (Ezr 4:24; Hg 1:1; Zec 1:1), inspired by the prophets Haggai and Zechariah, the Jews under Zerubbabel and Joshua the high priest commenced rebuilding. Work continued in spite of official suspicion, if not direct opposition, and the temple was completed and dedicated in 515 <span>BC<\/span> (Ezr 5:1–6:22).<\/p>\n<p>Little is known of the physical features of Zerubbabel’s temple. The inference that it was vastly inferior to Solomon’s temple (Hg 2:3) probably relates to an early stage in the building operation. In fact, the second temple stood for over 500 years. The dimensions noted in Ezra 6:3 are incomplete; the new temple was no doubt about the same size as its predecessor and was probably built on the same foundation. The construction technique appears to have followed the method of the original, with layers of timber providing a framework for sections of masonry (v 4). Clearly, there was auxiliary accommodation, probably like the side rooms of Solomon’s temple (Ezr 8:29; Neh 12:44; 13:4-5). If Persian aid was forthcoming as promised (Ezr 6:8-12), the second temple was a more splendid, substantial structure than is generally supposed.<\/p>\n<h5>Later History<\/h5>\n<p>Several references in the Apocrypha, pseudepigrapha, rabbinic writings, and the historian Josephus help to illumine the history of the temple and give more detail on its structure and furnishings. Josephus, quoting from Hecateus of Abdera (fourth century <span>BC<\/span>), states that the temple was a large building in an enclosure about 500 feet by 150 feet (152.4 meters by 45.7 meters), surrounded by a stone wall, with an altar of unhewn stones the same size as Solomon’s bronze altar (cf. 2 Chr 4:1). Within the sanctuary was a golden altar of incense and a lampstand, the flame of which burned continually. Josephus also notes that Antiochus III (223–187 <span>BC<\/span>) financially supported the temple when the Seleucids displaced the Ptolemies as masters of Jerusalem.<\/p>\n<p>Ben Sirach, early in the second century <span>BC<\/span>, commended Simon, the son of Onias the high priest, for his work in fortifying and repairing the temple area. First Maccabees provides valuable evidence of the fate of the temple during the oppression under Antiochus IV Epiphanes (175–164 <span>BC<\/span>). The books of the Maccabees recount the defilement of the altar of burnt offering (1 Macc 1:54) and the plundering of the golden lampstand, altar of incense, table of offering, veil, and other treasures (2 Macc 5:15-16; 6:2-4). When the temple was recaptured and restored, the victorious Maccabees replaced the items taken by the Seleucids, except for the altar of sacrifice, which was considered so polluted that it was dismantled and replaced by a new one constructed of unhewn stone (1 Macc 4:36-61; 2 Macc 10:1-9). Clearly the temple area was used as a fortress, both in opposition to the Seleucid garrison that was maintained in Jerusalem in the Maccabean period and in the conflicts of the later Hasmonean period. When Pompey captured Jerusalem about 63 <span>BC<\/span>, he entered the temple to assert his authority but took no plunder, thus showing respect for it.<\/p>\n<p>The history of Zerubbabel’s temple closed when Herod, having carefully preserved it from any major damage when he gained control of Jerusalem with Roman aid in 37 <span>BC<\/span>, began to dismantle it about 21 <span>BC<\/span> in preparation for the construction of his own grand temple.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"HerodsTemple\">Herod’s Temple<\/p>\n<p>Apart from over 100 references in the NT, our main sources of information about Herod’s temple come from the Jewish historian Josephus and from the Middoth (a section of the Jewish rabbinic writings). There are considerable differences in detail between the two, which rules out any dogmatic interpretation in attempted reconstructions. Since Josephus was contemporary with the temple (he was born about <span>AD<\/span> 37 and died early in the second century), he is probably more reliable than the Middoth, which, dating from about <span>AD<\/span> 150, appears to exaggerate occasionally. Archaeological research has been helpful in determining the positions of the outer walls and gates.<\/p>\n<p>Herod’s motive in building his temple was political rather than religious. As an Idumean, he wished to placate his Jewish subjects by constructing a sanctuary as magnificent as Solomon’s. Possible fears that the site might be profaned, or that the existing temple might be demolished and never rebuilt, were allayed by the training of 1,000 priests as masons and the amassing of materials before the work commenced. Herod’s temple followed the tripartite plan of its predecessors, although its porch was much larger. It was built in the contemporary Greco-Roman architectural style and must therefore be regarded as distinct from Zerubbabel’s temple. Work began in 20 <span>BC<\/span>, and while the main sanctuary was quickly erected (it was in full operation within ten years), the total project was not completed until <span>AD<\/span> 64, only six years before it was destroyed by the Romans.<\/p>\n<p>Herod first prepared the site by clearing and leveling an area approximately 500 yards (457.2 meters) from north to south and about 325 yards (297.2 meters) from east to west. This involved cutting away sections of rock in some areas and building up with rubble in others. Considerable sections of the enclosing wall, constructed on stone blocks averaging about 15 feet (4.6 meters) long by 4 feet (1.2 meters) high, still survive. Some of the stones in the corners of the south wall weigh up to 70 tons (63.5 metric tons).<\/p>\n<p>The sanctuary itself seems to have been based on the same dimensions as Solomon’s temple. It was divided into the Holy Place, which was 60 feet (18.3 meters) long, 30 feet (9.1 meters) wide, and 60 feet high, and the Holy of Holies, which was 30 feet square. There was no furniture within the Holy of Holies, which was separated by a veil from the Holy Place. The Holy Place contained the seven-branch lampstand, the table for the bread of the Presence, and the incense altar. The main divergence from Solomon’s temple was the imposing porch, 150 feet (45.7 meters) in width and height. Outside was a doorway approximately 30 feet (9.1 meters) wide by 40 feet (12.2 meters) high, with an inner doorway about half that size leading into the sanctuary. By allowing empty rooms over the Holy of Holies and the Holy Place, there was a uniform roof height of 150 feet (45.7 meters). Golden spikes on the roof discouraged birds from alighting and defiling the structure. Like its predecessors, the temple was oriented toward the east and was surrounded on the other sides by three stories of rooms rising to a height of 60 feet (18.3 meters). The stone used was the local white stone, cut in huge blocks and highly polished.<\/p>\n<p>Access to the porch was by a flight of 12 steps from the Court of the Priests. Centrally placed before the porch and 33 feet (10.1 meters) away was the altar of sacrifice. Made of unhewn stone, it was a multilevel construction 15 feet (4.6 meters) high and about 48 feet (14.6 meters) square at its base. Male Israelites were allowed into this area once a year, during the Feast of the Tabernacles, to walk around the altar of sacrifice. Otherwise, they were restricted to the Court of Israel. To the east of the Court of Israel, and separated from it by a flight of 15 steps and by the ornate Great Gate, made of Corinthian bronze, was the Court of the Women. Here the offertory chests for temple expenses were located (Mk 12:41-44). The next court was the large, lower, outer Court of the Gentiles, which surrounded the inner courts and was separated from them by a balustrade and a series of warning notices. Two of these have been excavated, written in Latin and Greek and forbidding trespass by Gentiles into the inner areas, on pain of death. This outer court was widely used. Immediately inside its walls was a portico, supported by four rows of columns almost 40 feet (12.2 meters) high on the south side (the Royal Porch), and two rows on the other sides, the eastern portico known as “Solomon’s Porch” or “Solomon’s Colonnade.” Here is the area where the stalls of the money changers and merchants were set up, where the Sanhedrin met, and where Christ and the scribes taught and debated (Mk 11:27; Lk 2:46; 19:47; Jn 10:23). Here, too, the infant church met before it was rejected by a hostile Judaism (Acts 3:11; 5:12). Just to the northwest of the temple enclosure was the Fortress of Antonia, where the Roman governor resided while in Jerusalem, and where a Roman garrison was on hand to deal with disturbances (Acts 21:31-40). Overlooking the temple area, it was separated from it by a wide moat. The high priest’s vestments were stored in the fortress as a symbol of Roman authority. Access to the Court of the Gentiles was by four gates in the west wall; two in the south wall, where the ground fell away steeply into the valley, a site often identified as the pinnacle of the temple (Mt 4:5; Lk 4:9); and one gate in each of the east and north walls.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"SignificanceoftheTempleintheOldTestament\">Significance of the Temple in the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>The temple in Jerusalem functioned as the focal point of the tribal confederation. In spite of the attempt of Jeroboam I, the first king of the northern kingdom, to divert attention from Jerusalem by establishing shrines at Bethel and Dan (1 Kgs 12:26-30), Jerusalem never lost its preeminence. Naturally, both Hezekiah and Josiah sought to extend their reformation into the area of the northern tribes (2 Chr 30:1-12; 34:6-7), and Jerusalem was a pilgrimage center for those areas even after its destruction (Jer 41:5). The prophets foretold its destiny as the focal point of universal worship (Is 2:1-4).<\/p>\n<p>The temple was God’s dwelling place among his people. God’s presence, symbolized in the shekinah glory and the pillar of cloud, was associated with the tent of meeting (Ex 33:9-11), with the tabernacle (40:34-38), and finally with the temple (1 Kgs 8:10-11). The paradox is that while God is completely unrestricted, the temple was considered a place for God to live forever (vv 13, 27). God had chosen Zion, as he had chosen David (Pss 68:15-18; 76:2; 78:67-72), so the temple was regarded as God’s house (27:4; 42:4; 84:1-4).<\/p>\n<h5>Ezekiel’s Temple<\/h5>\n<p>Ezekiel’s detailed description of the ideal temple (Ez 40–48) was not used as the blueprint for Zerubbabel’s temple. In fact, since Ezekiel must have been familiar with Solomon’s temple before his deportation in 597 <span>BC<\/span>, his description is of greater help in determining uncertain details of the first temple. Ezekiel’s concern was to show the nature of pure worship, safeguarded from all contamination. This worship would allow the glory of God, which had departed from corrupted Solomon’s temple (9:3; 10:4, 18-19: 11:22-23), to return so that Jerusalem could again be named “the Lord is there” (43:1-5; 48:35). This thought, linked with Ezekiel’s vital concept of God’s Spirit indwelling his faithful worshipers (36:24-28), anticipated the NT teaching of the believers becoming God’s temple.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"SignificanceoftheTempleintheNewTestament\">Significance of the Temple in the New Testament<\/p>\n<h5>Christ and the Temple<\/h5>\n<p>Christ showed considerable respect for the temple. When he was 12 years old, he entered into the rabbinic discussions in its porticoes and described it as his Father’s house (Lk 2:41-50). To him “the house of God” was indwelt by God (Mt 12:4; 23:21). Although he twice cleansed it in righteous anger (Mt 21:12-13; Jn 2:13-16), he wept over the impending destruction of the city and temple (Lk 19:41-44). He often taught there, but he was “greater than the temple” (Mt 12:6). When his presentation to Jerusalem as the predicted Messiah was rejected, in spite of attendant miracles, he foretold its inevitable destruction (Mt 21:9-15; 24:1-2). For a brief period after Pentecost, the early church used the temple as its meeting place, until mounting opposition drove believers from Jerusalem (Acts 5:12, 21, 42; 8:1).<\/p>\n<h5>The Church as the Temple<\/h5>\n<p>The NT writers used two different Greek words to describe the temple: <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">naos<\/span> and <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">hieron<\/span><em>.<\/em> <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">Naos<\/span> refers to the actual sanctuary of the temple, the place of God’s dwelling. <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">Hieron<\/span> refers to the temple precincts as well as to the sanctuary. Generally speaking, <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">naos<\/span> was used to designate the inner section of the temple known as the Holy Place and the Holy of Holies, whereas <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">hieron<\/span> included the outer court and the temple proper.<\/p>\n<p>In Paul’s epistles the word <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">naos<\/span> appears six times (1 Cor 3:16-17; 6:19; 2 Cor 6:16; Eph 2:21; 2 Thes 2:4) and <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">hieron<\/span> once (1 Cor 9:13). In these verses Paul maintains the distinction of definition noted above. When speaking of the actual physical temple, he used the word <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">hieron<\/span> to indicate the place where the priests offered up animal sacrifices on the altar (1 Cor 9:13), which was situated in the outer court (see Ex 27–29, 40). And when Paul referred to the abominable act of the lawless one in usurping God’s place in the temple, he used the word <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">naos<\/span>—the word that designates the place of deity’s presence (2 Thes 2:4).<\/p>\n<p>In all the other Pauline passages, <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">naos<\/span> is used metaphorically—to depict a human habitation for the divine Spirit. In one instance the sanctuary image is used to describe the individual believer’s body (1 Cor 6:19); in every other instance the sanctuary depicts Christ’s body, the church (1 Cor 3:16-17; 2 Cor 6:16; Eph 2:21). Mistakenly, many readers think 1 Corinthians 3:16-17 speaks of the individual, but according to the Greek text, it is unquestionably clear that Paul was speaking about the collective church (specifically, the church in Corinth).<\/p>\n<p>When Paul told the church in Corinth that it was God’s sanctuary, they would have understood the image from their knowledge of pagan temples. But Paul probably had in mind the one temple in Jerusalem. The Gentiles had many gods with many temples in one city; the Jews had one God with only one temple in all of Israel. This helped to preserve unity among the Israelites. The Corinthians needed spiritual unity; they were fragmented due to their individual preferences (see 1 Cor 1:10-13).<\/p>\n<p>In Ephesians, Paul’s masterpiece on the church, he speaks of the local churches as living, organic entities that are all (compositely speaking) growing into a holy sanctuary in the Lord (Eph 2:21). Paul pictured each local church as providing God with a spiritual habitation in that locality (v 22) and as growing together with all the other churches into one holy, universal sanctuary for the Lord’s indwelling.<\/p>\n<h5>The Temple in John’s Revelation<\/h5>\n<p>In John’s revelation there is no material temple, even though he continues to use the imagery of Jerusalem and Mt Zion (Rv 3:12; 14:1; 21:2, 10, 22). Three interrelated ideas dominate. First is the concept of the church made up of martyrs, whose faithful members are God’s temple (3:12; 14:1). This temple grows gradually as the number of martyrs increases (6:11). Another aspect is the temple as the place of judgment (11:19; 14:15; 15:5–16:1). Finally, any temple in the new age is unnecessary, “for its temple is the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb” (21:22). The ultimate state will be God’s dwelling with his people—the eternal, spritual temple.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Altar; Ark of the Covenant; Bread of the Presence; David; Feasts and Festivals of Israel; First Jewish Revolt; Judaism; Mercy Seat; Offerings and Sacrifices; Priests and Levites; Sanctuary; Singers in the Temple; Solomon (Person).<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>TEMPLE<\/h3>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Background<\/p>\n<p>• Solomon’s Temple<\/p>\n<p>• Zerubbabel’s Temple<\/p>\n<p>• Herod’s Temple<\/p>\n<p>• Significance of the Temple in the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>• Significance of the Temple in the New Testament<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Background\">Background<\/p>\n<p>David’s capture of Jerusalem (2 Sm 5:6-9) and his designation of it as the nation’s capital is one of the great masterstrokes of history. Occupied by the Jebusites, it was a pocket of neutral territory between the northern and southern sections of David’s united kingdom and was politically acceptable to both. Jerusalem was then established as the national religious center by the return of the ark, which had been largely neglected since its capture by the Philistines (2 Sm 6:1-17). Henceforth, God’s choices of both David and Jerusalem (“Mount Zion”) were indissolubly linked (Ps 78:67-72).<\/p>\n<p>David’s great impulse was to build an adequate dwelling place for Israel’s God. The idea was initially approved by Nathan the prophet (2 Sm 7:1-3), but God revealed otherwise to him, and he conveyed the divine purpose to David (vv 4-17). In a significant wordplay, David was informed that, while he was not to build a house (temple) for God, God would build a house (dynasty) for him. David was not the one to build a temple because of the numerous wars during his reign; the temple would instead be built by his son (1 Kgs 5:3; 1 Chr 22:7-8; 28:3). Nevertheless, David enthusiastically amassed most of the necessary finances and materials and drew up the blueprints for the temple (1 Chr 22:3-5, 14; 28:2, 11-19). He also purchased the temple site (21:25).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"SolomonsTemple\">Solomon’s Temple<\/p>\n\n<h5>Date<\/h5>\n<p>Construction commenced in Solomon’s fourth year, about 966 <span>BC<\/span>, and took seven years to complete (1 Kgs 6:1, 38). Everything necessary for the temple, including the workers, had been prepared by David (1 Chr 28:21). The temple evidently had first priority among Solomon’s building schemes, as he built his own palace later (1 Kgs 7:1).<\/p>\n<h5>Superintendents and Workforce<\/h5>\n<p>The principal architect for the bronze furnishings was Huram (Hebrew “Hiram”), whose father was a metal craftsman from Tyre and whose mother was an Israelite (1 Kgs 7:13-14). Cedar for the temple came from Lebanon and was felled and transported by the skilled woodsmen of another Hiram—the king of Tyre, Solomon’s ally (5:5-9). Thirty thousand Israelites, divided into three groups, were drafted to assist at Lebanon. Each group was on duty for one month in three. For the stonework, Solomon conscripted 153,600 foreigners resident in Israel to provide a self-contained group of carriers, stone cutters, and supervisors (vv 15-17; 2 Chr 2:17-18). Possibly the “men of Gebal,” with their specialized skills, formed yet another group (1 Kgs 5:18). Building the temple was obviously a national project of immense size and effort. In order to preserve the sanctity of the site and to eliminate noise, the masonry and carpentry were not done at the temple site (6:7).<\/p>\n<h5>Description<\/h5>\n<p>The details given in the Bible are sufficiently clear for us to make a reasonably accurate description of the temple. The accounts in Kings and Chronicles are supplemented by Ezekiel’s depiction of the temple (see below), which was broadly based on his knowledge of the Jerusalem temple (Ez 40–48).<\/p>\n<p>The side rooms probably rested on a foundation or platform that was separate from the temple itself (1 Kgs 6:5, 10; cf. Ez 41:8-9) and were arranged in three stories, each seven and a half feet (2.3 meters) high, extending around the whole building except for the porch side. Each successive story was one and a half feet (.5 meter) wider than the one below, these dimensions coinciding with the thickness of the side wall of the Holy Place. The ground floor rooms were seven and a half feet (2.3 meters) wide; the first story was nine feet (2.7 meters), and the second was ten and a half feet (3.2 meters). Access to the upper stories was possibly by winding staircases (1 Kgs 6:8). There is some uncertainty concerning the location of the entrances; there may have been one on either side, but only one is mentioned (v 8). As in Ezekiel’s temple (Ez 40:17, 28), there were two adjacent courts, an inner and an outer (1 Kgs 6:36; 7:12), but no dimensions are given for these. The inner court, or “court of the priests,” being next to the temple itself, was also called “the upper court” (2 Chr 4:9; Jer 36:10). The wall of the inner court was made of three layers of hewn stone held together by a layer of cedar beams (1 Kgs 6:36), and the doors of both courts were sheathed in bronze (2 Chr 4:9). The palace buildings were within the outer court area, probably with a private passageway between the palace and the temple that was later closed during the reign of Ahaz (2 Chr 4:9, 12; 2 Kgs 16:18).<\/p>\n<p>The temple itself was 90 feet (27.4 meters) long, 30 feet (9.1 meters) wide, and 45 feet (13.7 meters) high (1 Kgs 6:2), with a porch or vestibule 15 feet (4.6 meters) deep stretching across the width. Probably the vestibule was on the east end of the temple, thus corresponding with the orientation of Ezekiel’s temple (Ez 43:1; 44:1). The larger part of the main sanctuary, next to the porch, formed the Holy Place, which was 60 feet (18.3 meters) long (1 Kgs 6:17). Beyond this was the innermost sanctuary, the Holy of Holies (or the “Most Holy Place“), which was a perfect cube of 30 feet (9.1 meters). All the interior walls were paneled with cedar decorated with flower patterns, cherubim, and palm trees, so that no masonry was visible. The walls of both inner and outer sanctuaries were “overlaid” (v 22) with pure gold. Actually the gold decoration may have been inlaid, on the basis that a solid sheath of gold would spoil the natural beauty of the wood carving. The floor was made of cypress planks (v 15). Narrow windows set high in the walls above the level of the three-storied outer chambers provided light in the Holy Place (v 4). The ceiling was paneled with beams and planks of cedar. No detail is given about the exterior roofing, but probably the contemporary technique was employed, using a wooden, latticelike framework into which a waterproof, limestone plaster was packed and rolled.<\/p>\n<p>The outer porch was apparently an open space, since no doors are mentioned. Access into the Holy Place was by double doors, both hinged to fold back on themselves, made of cypress and decorated in exactly the same way as the interior walls (vv 34-35). The doorposts were made of olive wood. Within the Holy Place was the altar of incense made of cedar overlaid with gold; it was placed centrally before the Holy of Holies. Also in the Holy Place were a table for the bread of the Presence of God, ten lampstands arranged in two groups of five on either side, and various utensils required for maintaining the priestly duties (1 Kgs 7:48-50). All these were made or overlaid with gold. The ten tables, arranged five on each side, were presumably for the utensils and accessories (2 Chr 4:8).<\/p>\n<p>Between the Holy Place and the Holy of Holies was a double door made of olive wood, carved with cherubim, palm trees, and flower patterns and overlaid with gold. Inside these doors, veiling still further the Holy of Holies, was a blue, purple, and crimson curtain, made of the finest fabrics and ornamented with cherubim (2 Chr 3:14).<\/p>\n<p>In the Holy of Holies were two cherubim, each 15 feet (4.6 meters) high and made of olive wood covered with gold (1 Kgs 6:23-28). Each wing measured seven and a half feet (2.3 meters). A wing of each touched the side walls; the other wings met at the center of the room. The divine throne had been considerably less impressive in the tabernacle, where a wing of each cherubim fused into the mercy seat above the ark (Ex 25:17-22). In Solomon’s temple, the ark of the covenant was placed below the forward-facing cherubim, the symbolic protectors. The ark, the only major item surviving from the Mosaic tabernacle, still contained the tablets of the law, but the pot of manna and Aaron’s rod were missing (1 Kgs 8:9).<\/p>\n<p>Immediately outside the temple and on either side of the vestibule were two hollow bronze pillars (1 Kgs 7:15-20; 2 Chr 3:15-17). According to the book of Kings, these pillars were 27 feet (8.2 meters) high, with a circumference of 18 feet (5.5 meters). The metal itself was about four inches (10.2 centimeters) thick. The pillars were surmounted by bronze, lily-shaped capitals seven and a half feet (2.3 meters) high and six feet (1.8 meters) wide, intricately adorned with a chain latticework that supported two rows of pomegranates. The total weight must have been enormous, and their size is attested to by Jeremiah, who notes that the Babylonians had to break them in pieces before transporting them to Babylon (Jer 52:17, 21-23).<\/p>\n<p>The bronze altar of sacrifice in front of the vestibule is not listed in the specifications of 1 Kings 7. However, it is mentioned in the temple dedication and subsequently (1 Kgs 8:22, 54, 64; 9:25) and clearly stood in the inner court. Its dimensions were 30 feet (9.1 meters) square and 15 feet (4.6 meters) high (2 Chr 4:1). In view of its weight, it was probably cast in sections at Solomon’s foundry in the Jordan Rift valley (vv 17-18) and then transported to the temple site for assembly.<\/p>\n<p>Probably the most striking article in the inner court was the “molten (bronze) sea,” a huge, round tank made of bronze 3 inches (8 centimeters) thick, 7½ feet (2.3 meters) high, and 15 feet (4.6 meters) in diameter (1 Kgs 7:23-26). Its rim flared out like a lily (2 Chr 4:2-5). The tank was supported on 12 bronze oxen, four on each side, and had two rows of decoration, possibly gourds or pomegranates, under the brim. Its capacity was between 10,000 and 12,000 gallons (37,850–45,420 liters). The bronze sea was used for priestly ablutions (v 6). Presumably this involved a platform of sorts, for the brim of this vast basin would have been about 15 feet (4.6 meters) above ground level.<\/p>\n<p>Hiram also constructed ten large lavers, mounted on moveable stands and placed in two groups of five, on the north and south sides of the inner court (1 Kgs 7:27-39). Basically the stands were bronze boxes, six feet (1.8 meters) square and four and a half feet (1.4 meters) high with a nine-inch (22.9-centimeter) rim around the top edge. Each corner was attached to braced posts to which the axles were fixed. The four-spoked wheels were 27 inches (68.6 centimeters) high. Into each stand there fitted a laver containing approximately 220 gallons (832.7 liters) of water, used for washing sacrificial animals (2 Chr 4:6). Probably each was adjacent to one of the ten tables that would be used to flay and otherwise prepare the sacrifices (v 8). Supplementary items, such as pots, shovels, and basins, all made of bronze, were also manufactured (1 Kgs 7:40, 45).<\/p>\n<h5>The Dedication<\/h5>\n<p>Eleven months elapsed between the completion of the temple and its dedication (1 Kgs 6:38; 8:2), during which time the major items of furniture were set in place. The dedication itself took place in the seventh month, presumably in connection with the Feast of Tabernacles and the Day of Atonement (Lv 23:23-36). The ark of the covenant was brought into its final resting place (1 Kgs 8:3-4), but the inner court proved inadequate for the vast numbers of beasts sacrificed (1 Kgs 8:62-64; 2 Chr 7:7).<\/p>\n<p>The temple employed the most sophisticated building techniques of the age, and no expense had been spared in construction, ornamentation, or equipment. Yet Solomon readily confessed its utter inadequacy to house the eternal God (1 Kgs 8:27). His prayer also underlined Israel’s propensity to forsake the Lord, contrasting the nation with God, who, though a just judge, was also merciful and faithful. The climax of the proceedings came when fire from heaven consumed the sacrifices and the shekinah glory filled the temple (2 Chr 7:1-3).<\/p>\n<h5>Later History<\/h5>\n<p>Like most ancient shrines, the temple became a treasury for national wealth and as such was often the target for attack. Shishak of Egypt plundered it within five years of Solomon’s death (1 Kgs 14:25-38). Shortly afterward, King Asa (910–869 <span>BC<\/span>) depleted its gold and silver treasures to buy Syrian help against his oppressor, Baasha (908–886 <span>BC<\/span>), king of Israel (15:16-19). Joash, the king of Judah (835–796 <span>BC<\/span>) who was concealed in the temple from the vicious Athaliah during his youth (2 Kgs 11), made provision for its repair after protesting the priests’ embezzlement of gifts (12:4-16). But after the death of Jehoiada, the high priest, Joash himself was adversely influenced by his nobles (2 Chr 24:15-19). As punishment for his apostasy, the Lord allowed the Syrians to attack, and Joash used the temple treasures to buy them off (2 Kgs 12:17-18). Hardly had provision for replacements been made, when Jehoash of Israel (798–782 <span>BC<\/span>), having shattered the arrogant pride of Amaziah of Judah (796–767 <span>BC<\/span>), again stripped the temple (14:8-14). Later, King Ahaz (735-715 <span>BC<\/span>) used the remaining resources of the temple to enlist support from the Assyrians (16:7-9), though he eventually became completely subservient to them.<\/p>\n<p> Then Hezekiah (715–686 <span>BC<\/span>), one of the great reforming kings, thoroughly renovated the temple and restored worship after it had fallen into disuse during theclosing years of Ahaz (2 Chr 29:1-19; 31:9-21). Manasseh (696–642 <span>BC<\/span>), however, completely reversed his father’s policy, bringing the practices of Canaanite and Mesopotamian worship into the temple (2 Kgs 21:3-7). His conversion experience, which probably occurred late in his reign and resulted in certain reform measures in the temple (2 Chr 33:12-19), was not far-reaching enough to escape the final judgment that his reign was the dark spot of Judah’s history (2 Kgs 21:10-16).<\/p>\n<p>Manasseh’s grandson Josiah (640–609 <span>BC<\/span>), was the second great reforming king. He organized the repair of the temple in 622 <span>BC<\/span>, during which the lost Book of the Law (almost certainly the book of Deuteronomy) was discovered (2 Kgs 22:3-13). As a result, Josiah’s reformation gained a new dimension and sense of urgency (22:14–23:3). The reformation included a thorough purge of all idolatrous elements from the temple (23:4-12) and the restoration of the traditional festivals. Sadly, however, Josiah’s reformation died with him, and Judah’s downward slide continued under the apostate Jehoiakim (609–598 <span>BC<\/span>). It was probably during this time that Jeremiah preached his famous temple sermon foretelling its destruction (Jer 7:1–8:3; 26:1-19), which alienated him from the religious leaders. In Nebuchadnezzar’s reprisal raid following Jehoiakim’s rebellion in 601 <span>BC<\/span> (2 Kgs 24:1-4), Jerusalem was captured (596 <span>BC<\/span>) and many of the temple treasures were transported to Babylon (2 Chr 36:7). The temple itself appears to have escaped damage, but when Judah again rebelled under Zedekiah (597–586 <span>BC<\/span>), the temple was demolished (2 Kgs 25:8-10). The remaining temple treasures were taken away.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"ZerubbabelsTemple\">Zerubbabel’s Temple<\/p>\n<h5>Construction<\/h5>\n<p>Although the temple was devastated, the site still remained as a place of pilgrimage during the exile (Jer 41:4-5). In 538 <span>BC<\/span> the Persian king, Cyrus, in pursuance of a liberal policy diametrically opposed to that of the earlier empires, permitted the Jews to return from exile. And he authorized the rebuilding of the temple, financing it from the Persian treasury.<\/p>\n<p>In the book of Ezra, the decree of authorization has been preserved in two forms: the general proclamation (Ezr 1:2-4) and a more prosaic memorandum in the national archives indicating the main temple specifications and the amount of promised Persian help (6:1-5). Probably only a minority of the Jews opted to leave the relative comforts of Mesopotamia for the dangers of a long journey to their desolated homeland. According to the book of Ezra, 42,360 dedicated individuals and their servants (2:64-65) responded under the leadership of Sheshbazzar (1:8-11; 5:14-16) and Zerubbabel (2:2; 3:2, 8; 4:2). With great enthusiasm, the altar was rebuilt on the temple site and the traditional pattern of worship reestablished (3:1-6). Utilizing the grant from Persia as well as their own freewill gifts (2:68-69; 3:7), the Jews began to plan the second temple and lay its foundations (3:7-13). The initial impetus quickly died as a result of local opposition (4:1-4, 24), selfish preoccupation, and crop failures (Hg 1:2-11). In 520 <span>BC<\/span> (Ezr 4:24; Hg 1:1; Zec 1:1), inspired by the prophets Haggai and Zechariah, the Jews under Zerubbabel and Joshua the high priest commenced rebuilding. Work continued in spite of official suspicion, if not direct opposition, and the temple was completed and dedicated in 515 <span>BC<\/span> (Ezr 5:1–6:22).<\/p>\n<p>Little is known of the physical features of Zerubbabel’s temple. The inference that it was vastly inferior to Solomon’s temple (Hg 2:3) probably relates to an early stage in the building operation. In fact, the second temple stood for over 500 years. The dimensions noted in Ezra 6:3 are incomplete; the new temple was no doubt about the same size as its predecessor and was probably built on the same foundation. The construction technique appears to have followed the method of the original, with layers of timber providing a framework for sections of masonry (v 4). Clearly, there was auxiliary accommodation, probably like the side rooms of Solomon’s temple (Ezr 8:29; Neh 12:44; 13:4-5). If Persian aid was forthcoming as promised (Ezr 6:8-12), the second temple was a more splendid, substantial structure than is generally supposed.<\/p>\n<h5>Later History<\/h5>\n<p>Several references in the Apocrypha, pseudepigrapha, rabbinic writings, and the historian Josephus help to illumine the history of the temple and give more detail on its structure and furnishings. Josephus, quoting from Hecateus of Abdera (fourth century <span>BC<\/span>), states that the temple was a large building in an enclosure about 500 feet by 150 feet (152.4 meters by 45.7 meters), surrounded by a stone wall, with an altar of unhewn stones the same size as Solomon’s bronze altar (cf. 2 Chr 4:1). Within the sanctuary was a golden altar of incense and a lampstand, the flame of which burned continually. Josephus also notes that Antiochus III (223–187 <span>BC<\/span>) financially supported the temple when the Seleucids displaced the Ptolemies as masters of Jerusalem.<\/p>\n<p>Ben Sirach, early in the second century <span>BC<\/span>, commended Simon, the son of Onias the high priest, for his work in fortifying and repairing the temple area. First Maccabees provides valuable evidence of the fate of the temple during the oppression under Antiochus IV Epiphanes (175–164 <span>BC<\/span>). The books of the Maccabees recount the defilement of the altar of burnt offering (1 Macc 1:54) and the plundering of the golden lampstand, altar of incense, table of offering, veil, and other treasures (2 Macc 5:15-16; 6:2-4). When the temple was recaptured and restored, the victorious Maccabees replaced the items taken by the Seleucids, except for the altar of sacrifice, which was considered so polluted that it was dismantled and replaced by a new one constructed of unhewn stone (1 Macc 4:36-61; 2 Macc 10:1-9). Clearly the temple area was used as a fortress, both in opposition to the Seleucid garrison that was maintained in Jerusalem in the Maccabean period and in the conflicts of the later Hasmonean period. When Pompey captured Jerusalem about 63 <span>BC<\/span>, he entered the temple to assert his authority but took no plunder, thus showing respect for it.<\/p>\n<p>The history of Zerubbabel’s temple closed when Herod, having carefully preserved it from any major damage when he gained control of Jerusalem with Roman aid in 37 <span>BC<\/span>, began to dismantle it about 21 <span>BC<\/span> in preparation for the construction of his own grand temple.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"HerodsTemple\">Herod’s Temple<\/p>\n<p>Apart from over 100 references in the NT, our main sources of information about Herod’s temple come from the Jewish historian Josephus and from the Middoth (a section of the Jewish rabbinic writings). There are considerable differences in detail between the two, which rules out any dogmatic interpretation in attempted reconstructions. Since Josephus was contemporary with the temple (he was born about <span>AD<\/span> 37 and died early in the second century), he is probably more reliable than the Middoth, which, dating from about <span>AD<\/span> 150, appears to exaggerate occasionally. Archaeological research has been helpful in determining the positions of the outer walls and gates.<\/p>\n<p>Herod’s motive in building his temple was political rather than religious. As an Idumean, he wished to placate his Jewish subjects by constructing a sanctuary as magnificent as Solomon’s. Possible fears that the site might be profaned, or that the existing temple might be demolished and never rebuilt, were allayed by the training of 1,000 priests as masons and the amassing of materials before the work commenced. Herod’s temple followed the tripartite plan of its predecessors, although its porch was much larger. It was built in the contemporary Greco-Roman architectural style and must therefore be regarded as distinct from Zerubbabel’s temple. Work began in 20 <span>BC<\/span>, and while the main sanctuary was quickly erected (it was in full operation within ten years), the total project was not completed until <span>AD<\/span> 64, only six years before it was destroyed by the Romans.<\/p>\n<p>Herod first prepared the site by clearing and leveling an area approximately 500 yards (457.2 meters) from north to south and about 325 yards (297.2 meters) from east to west. This involved cutting away sections of rock in some areas and building up with rubble in others. Considerable sections of the enclosing wall, constructed on stone blocks averaging about 15 feet (4.6 meters) long by 4 feet (1.2 meters) high, still survive. Some of the stones in the corners of the south wall weigh up to 70 tons (63.5 metric tons).<\/p>\n<p>The sanctuary itself seems to have been based on the same dimensions as Solomon’s temple. It was divided into the Holy Place, which was 60 feet (18.3 meters) long, 30 feet (9.1 meters) wide, and 60 feet high, and the Holy of Holies, which was 30 feet square. There was no furniture within the Holy of Holies, which was separated by a veil from the Holy Place. The Holy Place contained the seven-branch lampstand, the table for the bread of the Presence, and the incense altar. The main divergence from Solomon’s temple was the imposing porch, 150 feet (45.7 meters) in width and height. Outside was a doorway approximately 30 feet (9.1 meters) wide by 40 feet (12.2 meters) high, with an inner doorway about half that size leading into the sanctuary. By allowing empty rooms over the Holy of Holies and the Holy Place, there was a uniform roof height of 150 feet (45.7 meters). Golden spikes on the roof discouraged birds from alighting and defiling the structure. Like its predecessors, the temple was oriented toward the east and was surrounded on the other sides by three stories of rooms rising to a height of 60 feet (18.3 meters). The stone used was the local white stone, cut in huge blocks and highly polished.<\/p>\n<p>Access to the porch was by a flight of 12 steps from the Court of the Priests. Centrally placed before the porch and 33 feet (10.1 meters) away was the altar of sacrifice. Made of unhewn stone, it was a multilevel construction 15 feet (4.6 meters) high and about 48 feet (14.6 meters) square at its base. Male Israelites were allowed into this area once a year, during the Feast of the Tabernacles, to walk around the altar of sacrifice. Otherwise, they were restricted to the Court of Israel. To the east of the Court of Israel, and separated from it by a flight of 15 steps and by the ornate Great Gate, made of Corinthian bronze, was the Court of the Women. Here the offertory chests for temple expenses were located (Mk 12:41-44). The next court was the large, lower, outer Court of the Gentiles, which surrounded the inner courts and was separated from them by a balustrade and a series of warning notices. Two of these have been excavated, written in Latin and Greek and forbidding trespass by Gentiles into the inner areas, on pain of death. This outer court was widely used. Immediately inside its walls was a portico, supported by four rows of columns almost 40 feet (12.2 meters) high on the south side (the Royal Porch), and two rows on the other sides, the eastern portico known as “Solomon’s Porch” or “Solomon’s Colonnade.” Here is the area where the stalls of the money changers and merchants were set up, where the Sanhedrin met, and where Christ and the scribes taught and debated (Mk 11:27; Lk 2:46; 19:47; Jn 10:23). Here, too, the infant church met before it was rejected by a hostile Judaism (Acts 3:11; 5:12). Just to the northwest of the temple enclosure was the Fortress of Antonia, where the Roman governor resided while in Jerusalem, and where a Roman garrison was on hand to deal with disturbances (Acts 21:31-40). Overlooking the temple area, it was separated from it by a wide moat. The high priest’s vestments were stored in the fortress as a symbol of Roman authority. Access to the Court of the Gentiles was by four gates in the west wall; two in the south wall, where the ground fell away steeply into the valley, a site often identified as the pinnacle of the temple (Mt 4:5; Lk 4:9); and one gate in each of the east and north walls.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"SignificanceoftheTempleintheOldTestament\">Significance of the Temple in the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>The temple in Jerusalem functioned as the focal point of the tribal confederation. In spite of the attempt of Jeroboam I, the first king of the northern kingdom, to divert attention from Jerusalem by establishing shrines at Bethel and Dan (1 Kgs 12:26-30), Jerusalem never lost its preeminence. Naturally, both Hezekiah and Josiah sought to extend their reformation into the area of the northern tribes (2 Chr 30:1-12; 34:6-7), and Jerusalem was a pilgrimage center for those areas even after its destruction (Jer 41:5). The prophets foretold its destiny as the focal point of universal worship (Is 2:1-4).<\/p>\n<p>The temple was God’s dwelling place among his people. God’s presence, symbolized in the shekinah glory and the pillar of cloud, was associated with the tent of meeting (Ex 33:9-11), with the tabernacle (40:34-38), and finally with the temple (1 Kgs 8:10-11). The paradox is that while God is completely unrestricted, the temple was considered a place for God to live forever (vv 13, 27). God had chosen Zion, as he had chosen David (Pss 68:15-18; 76:2; 78:67-72), so the temple was regarded as God’s house (27:4; 42:4; 84:1-4).<\/p>\n<h5>Ezekiel’s Temple<\/h5>\n<p>Ezekiel’s detailed description of the ideal temple (Ez 40–48) was not used as the blueprint for Zerubbabel’s temple. In fact, since Ezekiel must have been familiar with Solomon’s temple before his deportation in 597 <span>BC<\/span>, his description is of greater help in determining uncertain details of the first temple. Ezekiel’s concern was to show the nature of pure worship, safeguarded from all contamination. This worship would allow the glory of God, which had departed from corrupted Solomon’s temple (9:3; 10:4, 18-19: 11:22-23), to return so that Jerusalem could again be named “the Lord is there” (43:1-5; 48:35). This thought, linked with Ezekiel’s vital concept of God’s Spirit indwelling his faithful worshipers (36:24-28), anticipated the NT teaching of the believers becoming God’s temple.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"SignificanceoftheTempleintheNewTestament\">Significance of the Temple in the New Testament<\/p>\n<h5>Christ and the Temple<\/h5>\n<p>Christ showed considerable respect for the temple. When he was 12 years old, he entered into the rabbinic discussions in its porticoes and described it as his Father’s house (Lk 2:41-50). To him “the house of God” was indwelt by God (Mt 12:4; 23:21). Although he twice cleansed it in righteous anger (Mt 21:12-13; Jn 2:13-16), he wept over the impending destruction of the city and temple (Lk 19:41-44). He often taught there, but he was “greater than the temple” (Mt 12:6). When his presentation to Jerusalem as the predicted Messiah was rejected, in spite of attendant miracles, he foretold its inevitable destruction (Mt 21:9-15; 24:1-2). For a brief period after Pentecost, the early church used the temple as its meeting place, until mounting opposition drove believers from Jerusalem (Acts 5:12, 21, 42; 8:1).<\/p>\n<h5>The Church as the Temple<\/h5>\n<p>The NT writers used two different Greek words to describe the temple: <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">naos<\/span> and <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">hieron<\/span><em>.<\/em> <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">Naos<\/span> refers to the actual sanctuary of the temple, the place of God’s dwelling. <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">Hieron<\/span> refers to the temple precincts as well as to the sanctuary. Generally speaking, <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">naos<\/span> was used to designate the inner section of the temple known as the Holy Place and the Holy of Holies, whereas <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">hieron<\/span> included the outer court and the temple proper.<\/p>\n<p>In Paul’s epistles the word <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">naos<\/span> appears six times (1 Cor 3:16-17; 6:19; 2 Cor 6:16; Eph 2:21; 2 Thes 2:4) and <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">hieron<\/span> once (1 Cor 9:13). In these verses Paul maintains the distinction of definition noted above. When speaking of the actual physical temple, he used the word <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">hieron<\/span> to indicate the place where the priests offered up animal sacrifices on the altar (1 Cor 9:13), which was situated in the outer court (see Ex 27–29, 40). And when Paul referred to the abominable act of the lawless one in usurping God’s place in the temple, he used the word <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">naos<\/span>—the word that designates the place of deity’s presence (2 Thes 2:4).<\/p>\n<p>In all the other Pauline passages, <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">naos<\/span> is used metaphorically—to depict a human habitation for the divine Spirit. In one instance the sanctuary image is used to describe the individual believer’s body (1 Cor 6:19); in every other instance the sanctuary depicts Christ’s body, the church (1 Cor 3:16-17; 2 Cor 6:16; Eph 2:21). Mistakenly, many readers think 1 Corinthians 3:16-17 speaks of the individual, but according to the Greek text, it is unquestionably clear that Paul was speaking about the collective church (specifically, the church in Corinth).<\/p>\n<p>When Paul told the church in Corinth that it was God’s sanctuary, they would have understood the image from their knowledge of pagan temples. But Paul probably had in mind the one temple in Jerusalem. The Gentiles had many gods with many temples in one city; the Jews had one God with only one temple in all of Israel. This helped to preserve unity among the Israelites. The Corinthians needed spiritual unity; they were fragmented due to their individual preferences (see 1 Cor 1:10-13).<\/p>\n<p>In Ephesians, Paul’s masterpiece on the church, he speaks of the local churches as living, organic entities that are all (compositely speaking) growing into a holy sanctuary in the Lord (Eph 2:21). Paul pictured each local church as providing God with a spiritual habitation in that locality (v 22) and as growing together with all the other churches into one holy, universal sanctuary for the Lord’s indwelling.<\/p>\n<h5>The Temple in John’s Revelation<\/h5>\n<p>In John’s revelation there is no material temple, even though he continues to use the imagery of Jerusalem and Mt Zion (Rv 3:12; 14:1; 21:2, 10, 22). Three interrelated ideas dominate. First is the concept of the church made up of martyrs, whose faithful members are God’s temple (3:12; 14:1). This temple grows gradually as the number of martyrs increases (6:11). Another aspect is the temple as the place of judgment (11:19; 14:15; 15:5–16:1). Finally, any temple in the new age is unnecessary, “for its temple is the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb” (21:22). The ultimate state will be God’s dwelling with his people—the eternal, spritual temple.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Altar; Ark of the Covenant; Bread of the Presence; David; Feasts and Festivals of Israel; First Jewish Revolt; Judaism; Mercy Seat; Offerings and Sacrifices; Priests and Levites; Sanctuary; Singers in the Temple; Solomon (Person).<\/p>","summary_ro":"TEMPLE Preview • Background • Solomon’s Temple • Zerubbabel’s Temple • Herod’s Temple • Significance of the Temple in the Old Testament • Significance of the Temple in the New Testament Background David’s capture of Jerusalem (2 Sm 5:6-9) and his designation of it as the nation’s capital is one of the great masterstrokes of history. Occupied by the Jebusites, it was a pocket of neutral territory between the northern and southern sections of David’s united kingdom and was politically acceptabl...","summary_en":"TEMPLE Preview • Background • Solomon’s Temple • Zerubbabel’s Temple • Herod’s Temple • Significance of the Temple in the Old Testament • Significance of the Temple in the New Testament Background David’s capture of Jerusalem (2 Sm 5:6-9) and his designation of it as the nation’s capital is one of the great masterstrokes of history. Occupied by the Jebusites, it was a pocket of neutral territory between the northern and southern sections of David’s united kingdom and was politically acceptabl...","source":"Articles\/T.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":53366,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ezechiel 44:1","title_en":"Study Note: Ezechiel 44:1","content_ro":"<p><strong>44:1-31<\/strong> Now that the glory of the Lord had returned to the Temple, questions of access were critical. Who could approach this holy God? Like ch 43, this chapter is concerned with the Temple’s entrances and exits, as well as the duties and procedures associated with its use.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>44:1-31<\/strong> Now that the glory of the Lord had returned to the Temple, questions of access were critical. Who could approach this holy God? Like ch 43, this chapter is concerned with the Temple’s entrances and exits, as well as the duties and procedures associated with its use.<\/p>","summary_ro":"44:1-31 Now that the glory of the Lord had returned to the Temple, questions of access were critical. Who could approach this holy God? Like ch 43, this chapter is concerned with the Temple’s entrances and exits, as well as the duties and procedures associated with its use.","summary_en":"44:1-31 Now that the glory of the Lord had returned to the Temple, questions of access were critical. Who could approach this holy God? Like ch 43, this chapter is concerned with the Temple’s entrances and exits, as well as the duties and procedures associated with its use.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":80992,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ezechiel 44:1","title_en":"Study Note: Ezechiel 44:1","content_ro":"<p><strong>44:1-31<\/strong> Now that the glory of the Lord had returned to the Temple, questions of access were critical. Who could approach this holy God? Like ch 43, this chapter is concerned with the Temple’s entrances and exits, as well as the duties and procedures associated with its use.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>44:1-31<\/strong> Now that the glory of the Lord had returned to the Temple, questions of access were critical. Who could approach this holy God? Like ch 43, this chapter is concerned with the Temple’s entrances and exits, as well as the duties and procedures associated with its use.<\/p>","summary_ro":"44:1-31 Now that the glory of the Lord had returned to the Temple, questions of access were critical. Who could approach this holy God? Like ch 43, this chapter is concerned with the Temple’s entrances and exits, as well as the duties and procedures associated with its use.","summary_en":"44:1-31 Now that the glory of the Lord had returned to the Temple, questions of access were critical. Who could approach this holy God? Like ch 43, this chapter is concerned with the Temple’s entrances and exits, as well as the duties and procedures associated with its use.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":108618,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ezechiel 44:1","title_en":"Study Note: Ezechiel 44:1","content_ro":"<p><strong>44:1-31<\/strong> Now that the glory of the Lord had returned to the Temple, questions of access were critical. Who could approach this holy God? Like ch 43, this chapter is concerned with the Temple’s entrances and exits, as well as the duties and procedures associated with its use.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>44:1-31<\/strong> Now that the glory of the Lord had returned to the Temple, questions of access were critical. Who could approach this holy God? Like ch 43, this chapter is concerned with the Temple’s entrances and exits, as well as the duties and procedures associated with its use.<\/p>","summary_ro":"44:1-31 Now that the glory of the Lord had returned to the Temple, questions of access were critical. Who could approach this holy God? Like ch 43, this chapter is concerned with the Temple’s entrances and exits, as well as the duties and procedures associated with its use.","summary_en":"44:1-31 Now that the glory of the Lord had returned to the Temple, questions of access were critical. Who could approach this holy God? Like ch 43, this chapter is concerned with the Temple’s entrances and exits, as well as the duties and procedures associated with its use.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":136244,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ezechiel 44:1","title_en":"Study Note: Ezechiel 44:1","content_ro":"<p><strong>44:1-31<\/strong> Now that the glory of the Lord had returned to the Temple, questions of access were critical. Who could approach this holy God? Like ch 43, this chapter is concerned with the Temple’s entrances and exits, as well as the duties and procedures associated with its use.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>44:1-31<\/strong> Now that the glory of the Lord had returned to the Temple, questions of access were critical. Who could approach this holy God? Like ch 43, this chapter is concerned with the Temple’s entrances and exits, as well as the duties and procedures associated with its use.<\/p>","summary_ro":"44:1-31 Now that the glory of the Lord had returned to the Temple, questions of access were critical. Who could approach this holy God? Like ch 43, this chapter is concerned with the Temple’s entrances and exits, as well as the duties and procedures associated with its use.","summary_en":"44:1-31 Now that the glory of the Lord had returned to the Temple, questions of access were critical. Who could approach this holy God? Like ch 43, this chapter is concerned with the Temple’s entrances and exits, as well as the duties and procedures associated with its use.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":61914,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Temple Worship","title_en":"Temple Worship","content_ro":"<h3>Temple Worship<\/h3>\n<p>Throughout the ancient Near East, it was a king’s responsibility to provide for his nation’s temple. David, the founder of the dynasty of Judah’s kings, established Jerusalem as the capital of Israel (2 Sam 5:4-10) and made it the central place of worship. Although Solomon actually built the Temple, David prepared for the building of the Temple and for its liturgy.<\/p>\n<p>It took Solomon seven years to build the Temple in Jerusalem, beginning in the fourth year of his reign (967 <span>BC<\/span>). It was a large structure—90 feet long, 30 feet wide, and 45 feet high, with a vestibule 15 feet deep stretching across the width (see 1 Kgs 6:2-10). It employed the most sophisticated building techniques of the age, and no expense was spared in construction, ornamentation, or equipment. Even so, Solomon readily confessed to its utter inadequacy to house the eternal God (1 Kgs 8:27).<\/p>\n<p>The Temple, located adjacent to the king’s palace, represented God’s reign over all creation and all nations: “The <span>Lord<\/span> is in his holy Temple. Let all the earth be silent before him” (Hab 2:20). It served to teach Israel about God’s exclusive dominion and their total dependence on him. And although God cannot be confined to a building, he chose to make the Temple the focal point of his presence on earth. As such, the Temple was central for Israelite worship and for the personal relationship between God and his people.<\/p>\n<p>The kings were charged to devote themselves to God and to encourage the proper worship of God at his dwelling place, the Temple (see 1 Chr 22:17-19). The Temple also established the legitimacy of the human king, who represented divine rule. This role of the Temple was expressed in Psalm 132, which celebrated David’s restoration of the Ark to Jerusalem (Ps 132:6-12). This psalm was used at the conclusion of Solomon’s prayer of dedication (2 Chr 6:41-42).<\/p>\n<p>The Temple’s purpose in representing God’s presence in the world was later fulfilled in Christ and the church. Jesus himself signaled the transition from the Temple buildings to his own body as the temple (see John 2:19), and the disciples began understanding this transition after the resurrection (John 2:21-22). The apostle Paul later described the church as the new sacred space where Jews and Gentiles are reconciled. Using Temple imagery, he described breaking down barriers in the body of Christ, creating one people (Eph 2:14-15). The church stands as a holy temple, resting on the foundation of the apostles and prophets (Eph 2:20-22). It is built from living stones—believers—fashioned together around Jesus Christ, the cornerstone (1 Pet 2:4-5).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>1 Kgs 8:27-53; 1 Chr 22:1-19; 2 Chr 5:2-14; 6:41-42; 7:12-16; Ps 48:9; 65:4; 66:13; 138:2; Jer 7:3-11; 11:15; Ezek 8:6-16; 44:1-31; Joel 1:14; 2:17; Hab 2:20; Hag 2:7; John 2:19-22; Eph 2:14-15, 20-22; 1 Pet 2:4-5<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Temple Worship<\/h3>\n<p>Throughout the ancient Near East, it was a king’s responsibility to provide for his nation’s temple. David, the founder of the dynasty of Judah’s kings, established Jerusalem as the capital of Israel (2 Sam 5:4-10) and made it the central place of worship. Although Solomon actually built the Temple, David prepared for the building of the Temple and for its liturgy.<\/p>\n<p>It took Solomon seven years to build the Temple in Jerusalem, beginning in the fourth year of his reign (967 <span>BC<\/span>). It was a large structure—90 feet long, 30 feet wide, and 45 feet high, with a vestibule 15 feet deep stretching across the width (see 1 Kgs 6:2-10). It employed the most sophisticated building techniques of the age, and no expense was spared in construction, ornamentation, or equipment. Even so, Solomon readily confessed to its utter inadequacy to house the eternal God (1 Kgs 8:27).<\/p>\n<p>The Temple, located adjacent to the king’s palace, represented God’s reign over all creation and all nations: “The <span>Lord<\/span> is in his holy Temple. Let all the earth be silent before him” (Hab 2:20). It served to teach Israel about God’s exclusive dominion and their total dependence on him. And although God cannot be confined to a building, he chose to make the Temple the focal point of his presence on earth. As such, the Temple was central for Israelite worship and for the personal relationship between God and his people.<\/p>\n<p>The kings were charged to devote themselves to God and to encourage the proper worship of God at his dwelling place, the Temple (see 1 Chr 22:17-19). The Temple also established the legitimacy of the human king, who represented divine rule. This role of the Temple was expressed in Psalm 132, which celebrated David’s restoration of the Ark to Jerusalem (Ps 132:6-12). This psalm was used at the conclusion of Solomon’s prayer of dedication (2 Chr 6:41-42).<\/p>\n<p>The Temple’s purpose in representing God’s presence in the world was later fulfilled in Christ and the church. Jesus himself signaled the transition from the Temple buildings to his own body as the temple (see John 2:19), and the disciples began understanding this transition after the resurrection (John 2:21-22). The apostle Paul later described the church as the new sacred space where Jews and Gentiles are reconciled. Using Temple imagery, he described breaking down barriers in the body of Christ, creating one people (Eph 2:14-15). The church stands as a holy temple, resting on the foundation of the apostles and prophets (Eph 2:20-22). It is built from living stones—believers—fashioned together around Jesus Christ, the cornerstone (1 Pet 2:4-5).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>1 Kgs 8:27-53; 1 Chr 22:1-19; 2 Chr 5:2-14; 6:41-42; 7:12-16; Ps 48:9; 65:4; 66:13; 138:2; Jer 7:3-11; 11:15; Ezek 8:6-16; 44:1-31; Joel 1:14; 2:17; Hab 2:20; Hag 2:7; John 2:19-22; Eph 2:14-15, 20-22; 1 Pet 2:4-5<\/p>","summary_ro":"Temple Worship Throughout the ancient Near East, it was a king’s responsibility to provide for his nation’s temple. David, the founder of the dynasty of Judah’s kings, established Jerusalem as the capital of Israel (2 Sam 5:4-10) and made it the central place of worship. Although Solomon actually built the Temple, David prepared for the building of the Temple and for its liturgy. It took Solomon seven years to build the Temple in Jerusalem, beginning in the fourth year of his reign (967 BC). ...","summary_en":"Temple Worship Throughout the ancient Near East, it was a king’s responsibility to provide for his nation’s temple. David, the founder of the dynasty of Judah’s kings, established Jerusalem as the capital of Israel (2 Sam 5:4-10) and made it the central place of worship. Although Solomon actually built the Temple, David prepared for the building of the Temple and for its liturgy. It took Solomon seven years to build the Temple in Jerusalem, beginning in the fourth year of his reign (967 BC). ...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":64506,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Temple Legislation as Theology","title_en":"Temple Legislation as Theology","content_ro":"<h3>Temple Legislation as Theology<\/h3>\n<p>The rabbis of Judaism spent a great deal of time seeking to harmonize the laws of Ezekiel 44–48 with the laws of the Torah. They were unsuccessful because the legislation in these chapters was no more intended to match that of Moses than the vision of the Temple building (Ezek 40–43) was designed to match the design of the Tabernacle or the Temple of Solomon. The description of the Temple regulations conveys a theological message of change, as did the earlier description of the Temple’s architecture.<\/p>\n<p>These regulations highlighted the need for proper separation between the Temple and the palace. The sacrificial rituals would become more numerous and more focused on purification. Holy offerings would once again be made by holy people to the holy God. These practices were completely devoted to the separation of the holy from the unholy and to the cleansing of God’s people. Since defilement of the Temple and idolatrous worship had driven the Lord out of his house (Ezek 8–11), an entirely new situation was necessary if God was to dwell once more among his people. Thus, the function of this legislation was to convict the prophet’s hearers of their past abuses that had broken down the wall of separation between the holy and the unholy and to reassure them that God would restore his people’s worship to its proper state.<\/p>\n<p>This legislation also puts the prince, the king descended from David, in a proper place of submission to the Lord. This element finds fulfillment with the coming of Christ. Jesus came as a servant King who delighted to do the Father’s will (Matt 4:1-11; 20:25-28). He offered the perfect purification offering, cleansed the heavenly sanctuary once for all time (Heb 9:11-12, 23), and ensured that God could dwell in the midst of his people forever. His blood cleanses us of all sin and enables sinners to boldly enter the heavenly Most Holy Place without fear of rejection or reprisal.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Isa 56:7; Ezek 8:1–11:25; 40:1–43:27; 44:1–46:18<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Temple Legislation as Theology<\/h3>\n<p>The rabbis of Judaism spent a great deal of time seeking to harmonize the laws of Ezekiel 44–48 with the laws of the Torah. They were unsuccessful because the legislation in these chapters was no more intended to match that of Moses than the vision of the Temple building (Ezek 40–43) was designed to match the design of the Tabernacle or the Temple of Solomon. The description of the Temple regulations conveys a theological message of change, as did the earlier description of the Temple’s architecture.<\/p>\n<p>These regulations highlighted the need for proper separation between the Temple and the palace. The sacrificial rituals would become more numerous and more focused on purification. Holy offerings would once again be made by holy people to the holy God. These practices were completely devoted to the separation of the holy from the unholy and to the cleansing of God’s people. Since defilement of the Temple and idolatrous worship had driven the Lord out of his house (Ezek 8–11), an entirely new situation was necessary if God was to dwell once more among his people. Thus, the function of this legislation was to convict the prophet’s hearers of their past abuses that had broken down the wall of separation between the holy and the unholy and to reassure them that God would restore his people’s worship to its proper state.<\/p>\n<p>This legislation also puts the prince, the king descended from David, in a proper place of submission to the Lord. This element finds fulfillment with the coming of Christ. Jesus came as a servant King who delighted to do the Father’s will (Matt 4:1-11; 20:25-28). He offered the perfect purification offering, cleansed the heavenly sanctuary once for all time (Heb 9:11-12, 23), and ensured that God could dwell in the midst of his people forever. His blood cleanses us of all sin and enables sinners to boldly enter the heavenly Most Holy Place without fear of rejection or reprisal.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Isa 56:7; Ezek 8:1–11:25; 40:1–43:27; 44:1–46:18<\/p>","summary_ro":"Temple Legislation as Theology The rabbis of Judaism spent a great deal of time seeking to harmonize the laws of Ezekiel 44–48 with the laws of the Torah. They were unsuccessful because the legislation in these chapters was no more intended to match that of Moses than the vision of the Temple building (Ezek 40–43) was designed to match the design of the Tabernacle or the Temple of Solomon. The description of the Temple regulations conveys a theological message of change, as did the earlier de...","summary_en":"Temple Legislation as Theology The rabbis of Judaism spent a great deal of time seeking to harmonize the laws of Ezekiel 44–48 with the laws of the Torah. They were unsuccessful because the legislation in these chapters was no more intended to match that of Moses than the vision of the Temple building (Ezek 40–43) was designed to match the design of the Tabernacle or the Temple of Solomon. The description of the Temple regulations conveys a theological message of change, as did the earlier de...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":89540,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Temple Worship","title_en":"Temple Worship","content_ro":"<h3>Temple Worship<\/h3>\n<p>Throughout the ancient Near East, it was a king’s responsibility to provide for his nation’s temple. David, the founder of the dynasty of Judah’s kings, established Jerusalem as the capital of Israel (2 Sam 5:4-10) and made it the central place of worship. Although Solomon actually built the Temple, David prepared for the building of the Temple and for its liturgy.<\/p>\n<p>It took Solomon seven years to build the Temple in Jerusalem, beginning in the fourth year of his reign (967 <span>BC<\/span>). It was a large structure—90 feet long, 30 feet wide, and 45 feet high, with a vestibule 15 feet deep stretching across the width (see 1 Kgs 6:2-10). It employed the most sophisticated building techniques of the age, and no expense was spared in construction, ornamentation, or equipment. Even so, Solomon readily confessed to its utter inadequacy to house the eternal God (1 Kgs 8:27).<\/p>\n<p>The Temple, located adjacent to the king’s palace, represented God’s reign over all creation and all nations: “The <span>Lord<\/span> is in his holy Temple. Let all the earth be silent before him” (Hab 2:20). It served to teach Israel about God’s exclusive dominion and their total dependence on him. And although God cannot be confined to a building, he chose to make the Temple the focal point of his presence on earth. As such, the Temple was central for Israelite worship and for the personal relationship between God and his people.<\/p>\n<p>The kings were charged to devote themselves to God and to encourage the proper worship of God at his dwelling place, the Temple (see 1 Chr 22:17-19). The Temple also established the legitimacy of the human king, who represented divine rule. This role of the Temple was expressed in Psalm 132, which celebrated David’s restoration of the Ark to Jerusalem (Ps 132:6-12). This psalm was used at the conclusion of Solomon’s prayer of dedication (2 Chr 6:41-42).<\/p>\n<p>The Temple’s purpose in representing God’s presence in the world was later fulfilled in Christ and the church. Jesus himself signaled the transition from the Temple buildings to his own body as the temple (see John 2:19), and the disciples began understanding this transition after the resurrection (John 2:21-22). The apostle Paul later described the church as the new sacred space where Jews and Gentiles are reconciled. Using Temple imagery, he described breaking down barriers in the body of Christ, creating one people (Eph 2:14-15). The church stands as a holy temple, resting on the foundation of the apostles and prophets (Eph 2:20-22). It is built from living stones—believers—fashioned together around Jesus Christ, the cornerstone (1 Pet 2:4-5).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>1 Kgs 8:27-53; 1 Chr 22:1-19; 2 Chr 5:2-14; 6:41-42; 7:12-16; Ps 48:9; 65:4; 66:13; 138:2; Jer 7:3-11; 11:15; Ezek 8:6-16; 44:1-31; Joel 1:14; 2:17; Hab 2:20; Hag 2:7; John 2:19-22; Eph 2:14-15, 20-22; 1 Pet 2:4-5<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Temple Worship<\/h3>\n<p>Throughout the ancient Near East, it was a king’s responsibility to provide for his nation’s temple. David, the founder of the dynasty of Judah’s kings, established Jerusalem as the capital of Israel (2 Sam 5:4-10) and made it the central place of worship. Although Solomon actually built the Temple, David prepared for the building of the Temple and for its liturgy.<\/p>\n<p>It took Solomon seven years to build the Temple in Jerusalem, beginning in the fourth year of his reign (967 <span>BC<\/span>). It was a large structure—90 feet long, 30 feet wide, and 45 feet high, with a vestibule 15 feet deep stretching across the width (see 1 Kgs 6:2-10). It employed the most sophisticated building techniques of the age, and no expense was spared in construction, ornamentation, or equipment. Even so, Solomon readily confessed to its utter inadequacy to house the eternal God (1 Kgs 8:27).<\/p>\n<p>The Temple, located adjacent to the king’s palace, represented God’s reign over all creation and all nations: “The <span>Lord<\/span> is in his holy Temple. Let all the earth be silent before him” (Hab 2:20). It served to teach Israel about God’s exclusive dominion and their total dependence on him. And although God cannot be confined to a building, he chose to make the Temple the focal point of his presence on earth. As such, the Temple was central for Israelite worship and for the personal relationship between God and his people.<\/p>\n<p>The kings were charged to devote themselves to God and to encourage the proper worship of God at his dwelling place, the Temple (see 1 Chr 22:17-19). The Temple also established the legitimacy of the human king, who represented divine rule. This role of the Temple was expressed in Psalm 132, which celebrated David’s restoration of the Ark to Jerusalem (Ps 132:6-12). This psalm was used at the conclusion of Solomon’s prayer of dedication (2 Chr 6:41-42).<\/p>\n<p>The Temple’s purpose in representing God’s presence in the world was later fulfilled in Christ and the church. Jesus himself signaled the transition from the Temple buildings to his own body as the temple (see John 2:19), and the disciples began understanding this transition after the resurrection (John 2:21-22). The apostle Paul later described the church as the new sacred space where Jews and Gentiles are reconciled. Using Temple imagery, he described breaking down barriers in the body of Christ, creating one people (Eph 2:14-15). The church stands as a holy temple, resting on the foundation of the apostles and prophets (Eph 2:20-22). It is built from living stones—believers—fashioned together around Jesus Christ, the cornerstone (1 Pet 2:4-5).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>1 Kgs 8:27-53; 1 Chr 22:1-19; 2 Chr 5:2-14; 6:41-42; 7:12-16; Ps 48:9; 65:4; 66:13; 138:2; Jer 7:3-11; 11:15; Ezek 8:6-16; 44:1-31; Joel 1:14; 2:17; Hab 2:20; Hag 2:7; John 2:19-22; Eph 2:14-15, 20-22; 1 Pet 2:4-5<\/p>","summary_ro":"Temple Worship Throughout the ancient Near East, it was a king’s responsibility to provide for his nation’s temple. David, the founder of the dynasty of Judah’s kings, established Jerusalem as the capital of Israel (2 Sam 5:4-10) and made it the central place of worship. Although Solomon actually built the Temple, David prepared for the building of the Temple and for its liturgy. It took Solomon seven years to build the Temple in Jerusalem, beginning in the fourth year of his reign (967 BC). ...","summary_en":"Temple Worship Throughout the ancient Near East, it was a king’s responsibility to provide for his nation’s temple. David, the founder of the dynasty of Judah’s kings, established Jerusalem as the capital of Israel (2 Sam 5:4-10) and made it the central place of worship. Although Solomon actually built the Temple, David prepared for the building of the Temple and for its liturgy. It took Solomon seven years to build the Temple in Jerusalem, beginning in the fourth year of his reign (967 BC). ...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":92132,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Temple Legislation as Theology","title_en":"Temple Legislation as Theology","content_ro":"<h3>Temple Legislation as Theology<\/h3>\n<p>The rabbis of Judaism spent a great deal of time seeking to harmonize the laws of Ezekiel 44–48 with the laws of the Torah. They were unsuccessful because the legislation in these chapters was no more intended to match that of Moses than the vision of the Temple building (Ezek 40–43) was designed to match the design of the Tabernacle or the Temple of Solomon. The description of the Temple regulations conveys a theological message of change, as did the earlier description of the Temple’s architecture.<\/p>\n<p>These regulations highlighted the need for proper separation between the Temple and the palace. The sacrificial rituals would become more numerous and more focused on purification. Holy offerings would once again be made by holy people to the holy God. These practices were completely devoted to the separation of the holy from the unholy and to the cleansing of God’s people. Since defilement of the Temple and idolatrous worship had driven the Lord out of his house (Ezek 8–11), an entirely new situation was necessary if God was to dwell once more among his people. Thus, the function of this legislation was to convict the prophet’s hearers of their past abuses that had broken down the wall of separation between the holy and the unholy and to reassure them that God would restore his people’s worship to its proper state.<\/p>\n<p>This legislation also puts the prince, the king descended from David, in a proper place of submission to the Lord. This element finds fulfillment with the coming of Christ. Jesus came as a servant King who delighted to do the Father’s will (Matt 4:1-11; 20:25-28). He offered the perfect purification offering, cleansed the heavenly sanctuary once for all time (Heb 9:11-12, 23), and ensured that God could dwell in the midst of his people forever. His blood cleanses us of all sin and enables sinners to boldly enter the heavenly Most Holy Place without fear of rejection or reprisal.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Isa 56:7; Ezek 8:1–11:25; 40:1–43:27; 44:1–46:18<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Temple Legislation as Theology<\/h3>\n<p>The rabbis of Judaism spent a great deal of time seeking to harmonize the laws of Ezekiel 44–48 with the laws of the Torah. They were unsuccessful because the legislation in these chapters was no more intended to match that of Moses than the vision of the Temple building (Ezek 40–43) was designed to match the design of the Tabernacle or the Temple of Solomon. The description of the Temple regulations conveys a theological message of change, as did the earlier description of the Temple’s architecture.<\/p>\n<p>These regulations highlighted the need for proper separation between the Temple and the palace. The sacrificial rituals would become more numerous and more focused on purification. Holy offerings would once again be made by holy people to the holy God. These practices were completely devoted to the separation of the holy from the unholy and to the cleansing of God’s people. Since defilement of the Temple and idolatrous worship had driven the Lord out of his house (Ezek 8–11), an entirely new situation was necessary if God was to dwell once more among his people. Thus, the function of this legislation was to convict the prophet’s hearers of their past abuses that had broken down the wall of separation between the holy and the unholy and to reassure them that God would restore his people’s worship to its proper state.<\/p>\n<p>This legislation also puts the prince, the king descended from David, in a proper place of submission to the Lord. This element finds fulfillment with the coming of Christ. Jesus came as a servant King who delighted to do the Father’s will (Matt 4:1-11; 20:25-28). He offered the perfect purification offering, cleansed the heavenly sanctuary once for all time (Heb 9:11-12, 23), and ensured that God could dwell in the midst of his people forever. His blood cleanses us of all sin and enables sinners to boldly enter the heavenly Most Holy Place without fear of rejection or reprisal.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Isa 56:7; Ezek 8:1–11:25; 40:1–43:27; 44:1–46:18<\/p>","summary_ro":"Temple Legislation as Theology The rabbis of Judaism spent a great deal of time seeking to harmonize the laws of Ezekiel 44–48 with the laws of the Torah. They were unsuccessful because the legislation in these chapters was no more intended to match that of Moses than the vision of the Temple building (Ezek 40–43) was designed to match the design of the Tabernacle or the Temple of Solomon. The description of the Temple regulations conveys a theological message of change, as did the earlier de...","summary_en":"Temple Legislation as Theology The rabbis of Judaism spent a great deal of time seeking to harmonize the laws of Ezekiel 44–48 with the laws of the Torah. They were unsuccessful because the legislation in these chapters was no more intended to match that of Moses than the vision of the Temple building (Ezek 40–43) was designed to match the design of the Tabernacle or the Temple of Solomon. The description of the Temple regulations conveys a theological message of change, as did the earlier de...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":117166,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Temple Worship","title_en":"Temple Worship","content_ro":"<h3>Temple Worship<\/h3>\n<p>Throughout the ancient Near East, it was a king’s responsibility to provide for his nation’s temple. David, the founder of the dynasty of Judah’s kings, established Jerusalem as the capital of Israel (2 Sam 5:4-10) and made it the central place of worship. Although Solomon actually built the Temple, David prepared for the building of the Temple and for its liturgy.<\/p>\n<p>It took Solomon seven years to build the Temple in Jerusalem, beginning in the fourth year of his reign (967 <span>BC<\/span>). It was a large structure—90 feet long, 30 feet wide, and 45 feet high, with a vestibule 15 feet deep stretching across the width (see 1 Kgs 6:2-10). It employed the most sophisticated building techniques of the age, and no expense was spared in construction, ornamentation, or equipment. Even so, Solomon readily confessed to its utter inadequacy to house the eternal God (1 Kgs 8:27).<\/p>\n<p>The Temple, located adjacent to the king’s palace, represented God’s reign over all creation and all nations: “The <span>Lord<\/span> is in his holy Temple. Let all the earth be silent before him” (Hab 2:20). It served to teach Israel about God’s exclusive dominion and their total dependence on him. And although God cannot be confined to a building, he chose to make the Temple the focal point of his presence on earth. As such, the Temple was central for Israelite worship and for the personal relationship between God and his people.<\/p>\n<p>The kings were charged to devote themselves to God and to encourage the proper worship of God at his dwelling place, the Temple (see 1 Chr 22:17-19). The Temple also established the legitimacy of the human king, who represented divine rule. This role of the Temple was expressed in Psalm 132, which celebrated David’s restoration of the Ark to Jerusalem (Ps 132:6-12). This psalm was used at the conclusion of Solomon’s prayer of dedication (2 Chr 6:41-42).<\/p>\n<p>The Temple’s purpose in representing God’s presence in the world was later fulfilled in Christ and the church. Jesus himself signaled the transition from the Temple buildings to his own body as the temple (see John 2:19), and the disciples began understanding this transition after the resurrection (John 2:21-22). The apostle Paul later described the church as the new sacred space where Jews and Gentiles are reconciled. Using Temple imagery, he described breaking down barriers in the body of Christ, creating one people (Eph 2:14-15). The church stands as a holy temple, resting on the foundation of the apostles and prophets (Eph 2:20-22). It is built from living stones—believers—fashioned together around Jesus Christ, the cornerstone (1 Pet 2:4-5).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>1 Kgs 8:27-53; 1 Chr 22:1-19; 2 Chr 5:2-14; 6:41-42; 7:12-16; Ps 48:9; 65:4; 66:13; 138:2; Jer 7:3-11; 11:15; Ezek 8:6-16; 44:1-31; Joel 1:14; 2:17; Hab 2:20; Hag 2:7; John 2:19-22; Eph 2:14-15, 20-22; 1 Pet 2:4-5<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Temple Worship<\/h3>\n<p>Throughout the ancient Near East, it was a king’s responsibility to provide for his nation’s temple. David, the founder of the dynasty of Judah’s kings, established Jerusalem as the capital of Israel (2 Sam 5:4-10) and made it the central place of worship. Although Solomon actually built the Temple, David prepared for the building of the Temple and for its liturgy.<\/p>\n<p>It took Solomon seven years to build the Temple in Jerusalem, beginning in the fourth year of his reign (967 <span>BC<\/span>). It was a large structure—90 feet long, 30 feet wide, and 45 feet high, with a vestibule 15 feet deep stretching across the width (see 1 Kgs 6:2-10). It employed the most sophisticated building techniques of the age, and no expense was spared in construction, ornamentation, or equipment. Even so, Solomon readily confessed to its utter inadequacy to house the eternal God (1 Kgs 8:27).<\/p>\n<p>The Temple, located adjacent to the king’s palace, represented God’s reign over all creation and all nations: “The <span>Lord<\/span> is in his holy Temple. Let all the earth be silent before him” (Hab 2:20). It served to teach Israel about God’s exclusive dominion and their total dependence on him. And although God cannot be confined to a building, he chose to make the Temple the focal point of his presence on earth. As such, the Temple was central for Israelite worship and for the personal relationship between God and his people.<\/p>\n<p>The kings were charged to devote themselves to God and to encourage the proper worship of God at his dwelling place, the Temple (see 1 Chr 22:17-19). The Temple also established the legitimacy of the human king, who represented divine rule. This role of the Temple was expressed in Psalm 132, which celebrated David’s restoration of the Ark to Jerusalem (Ps 132:6-12). This psalm was used at the conclusion of Solomon’s prayer of dedication (2 Chr 6:41-42).<\/p>\n<p>The Temple’s purpose in representing God’s presence in the world was later fulfilled in Christ and the church. Jesus himself signaled the transition from the Temple buildings to his own body as the temple (see John 2:19), and the disciples began understanding this transition after the resurrection (John 2:21-22). The apostle Paul later described the church as the new sacred space where Jews and Gentiles are reconciled. Using Temple imagery, he described breaking down barriers in the body of Christ, creating one people (Eph 2:14-15). The church stands as a holy temple, resting on the foundation of the apostles and prophets (Eph 2:20-22). It is built from living stones—believers—fashioned together around Jesus Christ, the cornerstone (1 Pet 2:4-5).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>1 Kgs 8:27-53; 1 Chr 22:1-19; 2 Chr 5:2-14; 6:41-42; 7:12-16; Ps 48:9; 65:4; 66:13; 138:2; Jer 7:3-11; 11:15; Ezek 8:6-16; 44:1-31; Joel 1:14; 2:17; Hab 2:20; Hag 2:7; John 2:19-22; Eph 2:14-15, 20-22; 1 Pet 2:4-5<\/p>","summary_ro":"Temple Worship Throughout the ancient Near East, it was a king’s responsibility to provide for his nation’s temple. David, the founder of the dynasty of Judah’s kings, established Jerusalem as the capital of Israel (2 Sam 5:4-10) and made it the central place of worship. Although Solomon actually built the Temple, David prepared for the building of the Temple and for its liturgy. It took Solomon seven years to build the Temple in Jerusalem, beginning in the fourth year of his reign (967 BC). ...","summary_en":"Temple Worship Throughout the ancient Near East, it was a king’s responsibility to provide for his nation’s temple. David, the founder of the dynasty of Judah’s kings, established Jerusalem as the capital of Israel (2 Sam 5:4-10) and made it the central place of worship. Although Solomon actually built the Temple, David prepared for the building of the Temple and for its liturgy. It took Solomon seven years to build the Temple in Jerusalem, beginning in the fourth year of his reign (967 BC). ...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":119758,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Temple Legislation as Theology","title_en":"Temple Legislation as Theology","content_ro":"<h3>Temple Legislation as Theology<\/h3>\n<p>The rabbis of Judaism spent a great deal of time seeking to harmonize the laws of Ezekiel 44–48 with the laws of the Torah. They were unsuccessful because the legislation in these chapters was no more intended to match that of Moses than the vision of the Temple building (Ezek 40–43) was designed to match the design of the Tabernacle or the Temple of Solomon. The description of the Temple regulations conveys a theological message of change, as did the earlier description of the Temple’s architecture.<\/p>\n<p>These regulations highlighted the need for proper separation between the Temple and the palace. The sacrificial rituals would become more numerous and more focused on purification. Holy offerings would once again be made by holy people to the holy God. These practices were completely devoted to the separation of the holy from the unholy and to the cleansing of God’s people. Since defilement of the Temple and idolatrous worship had driven the Lord out of his house (Ezek 8–11), an entirely new situation was necessary if God was to dwell once more among his people. Thus, the function of this legislation was to convict the prophet’s hearers of their past abuses that had broken down the wall of separation between the holy and the unholy and to reassure them that God would restore his people’s worship to its proper state.<\/p>\n<p>This legislation also puts the prince, the king descended from David, in a proper place of submission to the Lord. This element finds fulfillment with the coming of Christ. Jesus came as a servant King who delighted to do the Father’s will (Matt 4:1-11; 20:25-28). He offered the perfect purification offering, cleansed the heavenly sanctuary once for all time (Heb 9:11-12, 23), and ensured that God could dwell in the midst of his people forever. His blood cleanses us of all sin and enables sinners to boldly enter the heavenly Most Holy Place without fear of rejection or reprisal.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Isa 56:7; Ezek 8:1–11:25; 40:1–43:27; 44:1–46:18<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Temple Legislation as Theology<\/h3>\n<p>The rabbis of Judaism spent a great deal of time seeking to harmonize the laws of Ezekiel 44–48 with the laws of the Torah. They were unsuccessful because the legislation in these chapters was no more intended to match that of Moses than the vision of the Temple building (Ezek 40–43) was designed to match the design of the Tabernacle or the Temple of Solomon. The description of the Temple regulations conveys a theological message of change, as did the earlier description of the Temple’s architecture.<\/p>\n<p>These regulations highlighted the need for proper separation between the Temple and the palace. The sacrificial rituals would become more numerous and more focused on purification. Holy offerings would once again be made by holy people to the holy God. These practices were completely devoted to the separation of the holy from the unholy and to the cleansing of God’s people. Since defilement of the Temple and idolatrous worship had driven the Lord out of his house (Ezek 8–11), an entirely new situation was necessary if God was to dwell once more among his people. Thus, the function of this legislation was to convict the prophet’s hearers of their past abuses that had broken down the wall of separation between the holy and the unholy and to reassure them that God would restore his people’s worship to its proper state.<\/p>\n<p>This legislation also puts the prince, the king descended from David, in a proper place of submission to the Lord. This element finds fulfillment with the coming of Christ. Jesus came as a servant King who delighted to do the Father’s will (Matt 4:1-11; 20:25-28). He offered the perfect purification offering, cleansed the heavenly sanctuary once for all time (Heb 9:11-12, 23), and ensured that God could dwell in the midst of his people forever. His blood cleanses us of all sin and enables sinners to boldly enter the heavenly Most Holy Place without fear of rejection or reprisal.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Isa 56:7; Ezek 8:1–11:25; 40:1–43:27; 44:1–46:18<\/p>","summary_ro":"Temple Legislation as Theology The rabbis of Judaism spent a great deal of time seeking to harmonize the laws of Ezekiel 44–48 with the laws of the Torah. They were unsuccessful because the legislation in these chapters was no more intended to match that of Moses than the vision of the Temple building (Ezek 40–43) was designed to match the design of the Tabernacle or the Temple of Solomon. The description of the Temple regulations conveys a theological message of change, as did the earlier de...","summary_en":"Temple Legislation as Theology The rabbis of Judaism spent a great deal of time seeking to harmonize the laws of Ezekiel 44–48 with the laws of the Torah. They were unsuccessful because the legislation in these chapters was no more intended to match that of Moses than the vision of the Temple building (Ezek 40–43) was designed to match the design of the Tabernacle or the Temple of Solomon. The description of the Temple regulations conveys a theological message of change, as did the earlier de...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":144792,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Temple Worship","title_en":"Temple Worship","content_ro":"<h3>Temple Worship<\/h3>\n<p>Throughout the ancient Near East, it was a king’s responsibility to provide for his nation’s temple. David, the founder of the dynasty of Judah’s kings, established Jerusalem as the capital of Israel (2 Sam 5:4-10) and made it the central place of worship. Although Solomon actually built the Temple, David prepared for the building of the Temple and for its liturgy.<\/p>\n<p>It took Solomon seven years to build the Temple in Jerusalem, beginning in the fourth year of his reign (967 <span>BC<\/span>). It was a large structure—90 feet long, 30 feet wide, and 45 feet high, with a vestibule 15 feet deep stretching across the width (see 1 Kgs 6:2-10). It employed the most sophisticated building techniques of the age, and no expense was spared in construction, ornamentation, or equipment. Even so, Solomon readily confessed to its utter inadequacy to house the eternal God (1 Kgs 8:27).<\/p>\n<p>The Temple, located adjacent to the king’s palace, represented God’s reign over all creation and all nations: “The <span>Lord<\/span> is in his holy Temple. Let all the earth be silent before him” (Hab 2:20). It served to teach Israel about God’s exclusive dominion and their total dependence on him. And although God cannot be confined to a building, he chose to make the Temple the focal point of his presence on earth. As such, the Temple was central for Israelite worship and for the personal relationship between God and his people.<\/p>\n<p>The kings were charged to devote themselves to God and to encourage the proper worship of God at his dwelling place, the Temple (see 1 Chr 22:17-19). The Temple also established the legitimacy of the human king, who represented divine rule. This role of the Temple was expressed in Psalm 132, which celebrated David’s restoration of the Ark to Jerusalem (Ps 132:6-12). This psalm was used at the conclusion of Solomon’s prayer of dedication (2 Chr 6:41-42).<\/p>\n<p>The Temple’s purpose in representing God’s presence in the world was later fulfilled in Christ and the church. Jesus himself signaled the transition from the Temple buildings to his own body as the temple (see John 2:19), and the disciples began understanding this transition after the resurrection (John 2:21-22). The apostle Paul later described the church as the new sacred space where Jews and Gentiles are reconciled. Using Temple imagery, he described breaking down barriers in the body of Christ, creating one people (Eph 2:14-15). The church stands as a holy temple, resting on the foundation of the apostles and prophets (Eph 2:20-22). It is built from living stones—believers—fashioned together around Jesus Christ, the cornerstone (1 Pet 2:4-5).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>1 Kgs 8:27-53; 1 Chr 22:1-19; 2 Chr 5:2-14; 6:41-42; 7:12-16; Ps 48:9; 65:4; 66:13; 138:2; Jer 7:3-11; 11:15; Ezek 8:6-16; 44:1-31; Joel 1:14; 2:17; Hab 2:20; Hag 2:7; John 2:19-22; Eph 2:14-15, 20-22; 1 Pet 2:4-5<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Temple Worship<\/h3>\n<p>Throughout the ancient Near East, it was a king’s responsibility to provide for his nation’s temple. David, the founder of the dynasty of Judah’s kings, established Jerusalem as the capital of Israel (2 Sam 5:4-10) and made it the central place of worship. Although Solomon actually built the Temple, David prepared for the building of the Temple and for its liturgy.<\/p>\n<p>It took Solomon seven years to build the Temple in Jerusalem, beginning in the fourth year of his reign (967 <span>BC<\/span>). It was a large structure—90 feet long, 30 feet wide, and 45 feet high, with a vestibule 15 feet deep stretching across the width (see 1 Kgs 6:2-10). It employed the most sophisticated building techniques of the age, and no expense was spared in construction, ornamentation, or equipment. Even so, Solomon readily confessed to its utter inadequacy to house the eternal God (1 Kgs 8:27).<\/p>\n<p>The Temple, located adjacent to the king’s palace, represented God’s reign over all creation and all nations: “The <span>Lord<\/span> is in his holy Temple. Let all the earth be silent before him” (Hab 2:20). It served to teach Israel about God’s exclusive dominion and their total dependence on him. And although God cannot be confined to a building, he chose to make the Temple the focal point of his presence on earth. As such, the Temple was central for Israelite worship and for the personal relationship between God and his people.<\/p>\n<p>The kings were charged to devote themselves to God and to encourage the proper worship of God at his dwelling place, the Temple (see 1 Chr 22:17-19). The Temple also established the legitimacy of the human king, who represented divine rule. This role of the Temple was expressed in Psalm 132, which celebrated David’s restoration of the Ark to Jerusalem (Ps 132:6-12). This psalm was used at the conclusion of Solomon’s prayer of dedication (2 Chr 6:41-42).<\/p>\n<p>The Temple’s purpose in representing God’s presence in the world was later fulfilled in Christ and the church. Jesus himself signaled the transition from the Temple buildings to his own body as the temple (see John 2:19), and the disciples began understanding this transition after the resurrection (John 2:21-22). The apostle Paul later described the church as the new sacred space where Jews and Gentiles are reconciled. Using Temple imagery, he described breaking down barriers in the body of Christ, creating one people (Eph 2:14-15). The church stands as a holy temple, resting on the foundation of the apostles and prophets (Eph 2:20-22). It is built from living stones—believers—fashioned together around Jesus Christ, the cornerstone (1 Pet 2:4-5).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>1 Kgs 8:27-53; 1 Chr 22:1-19; 2 Chr 5:2-14; 6:41-42; 7:12-16; Ps 48:9; 65:4; 66:13; 138:2; Jer 7:3-11; 11:15; Ezek 8:6-16; 44:1-31; Joel 1:14; 2:17; Hab 2:20; Hag 2:7; John 2:19-22; Eph 2:14-15, 20-22; 1 Pet 2:4-5<\/p>","summary_ro":"Temple Worship Throughout the ancient Near East, it was a king’s responsibility to provide for his nation’s temple. David, the founder of the dynasty of Judah’s kings, established Jerusalem as the capital of Israel (2 Sam 5:4-10) and made it the central place of worship. Although Solomon actually built the Temple, David prepared for the building of the Temple and for its liturgy. It took Solomon seven years to build the Temple in Jerusalem, beginning in the fourth year of his reign (967 BC). ...","summary_en":"Temple Worship Throughout the ancient Near East, it was a king’s responsibility to provide for his nation’s temple. David, the founder of the dynasty of Judah’s kings, established Jerusalem as the capital of Israel (2 Sam 5:4-10) and made it the central place of worship. Although Solomon actually built the Temple, David prepared for the building of the Temple and for its liturgy. It took Solomon seven years to build the Temple in Jerusalem, beginning in the fourth year of his reign (967 BC). ...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":147384,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Temple Legislation as Theology","title_en":"Temple Legislation as Theology","content_ro":"<h3>Temple Legislation as Theology<\/h3>\n<p>The rabbis of Judaism spent a great deal of time seeking to harmonize the laws of Ezekiel 44–48 with the laws of the Torah. They were unsuccessful because the legislation in these chapters was no more intended to match that of Moses than the vision of the Temple building (Ezek 40–43) was designed to match the design of the Tabernacle or the Temple of Solomon. The description of the Temple regulations conveys a theological message of change, as did the earlier description of the Temple’s architecture.<\/p>\n<p>These regulations highlighted the need for proper separation between the Temple and the palace. The sacrificial rituals would become more numerous and more focused on purification. Holy offerings would once again be made by holy people to the holy God. These practices were completely devoted to the separation of the holy from the unholy and to the cleansing of God’s people. Since defilement of the Temple and idolatrous worship had driven the Lord out of his house (Ezek 8–11), an entirely new situation was necessary if God was to dwell once more among his people. Thus, the function of this legislation was to convict the prophet’s hearers of their past abuses that had broken down the wall of separation between the holy and the unholy and to reassure them that God would restore his people’s worship to its proper state.<\/p>\n<p>This legislation also puts the prince, the king descended from David, in a proper place of submission to the Lord. This element finds fulfillment with the coming of Christ. Jesus came as a servant King who delighted to do the Father’s will (Matt 4:1-11; 20:25-28). He offered the perfect purification offering, cleansed the heavenly sanctuary once for all time (Heb 9:11-12, 23), and ensured that God could dwell in the midst of his people forever. His blood cleanses us of all sin and enables sinners to boldly enter the heavenly Most Holy Place without fear of rejection or reprisal.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Isa 56:7; Ezek 8:1–11:25; 40:1–43:27; 44:1–46:18<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Temple Legislation as Theology<\/h3>\n<p>The rabbis of Judaism spent a great deal of time seeking to harmonize the laws of Ezekiel 44–48 with the laws of the Torah. They were unsuccessful because the legislation in these chapters was no more intended to match that of Moses than the vision of the Temple building (Ezek 40–43) was designed to match the design of the Tabernacle or the Temple of Solomon. The description of the Temple regulations conveys a theological message of change, as did the earlier description of the Temple’s architecture.<\/p>\n<p>These regulations highlighted the need for proper separation between the Temple and the palace. The sacrificial rituals would become more numerous and more focused on purification. Holy offerings would once again be made by holy people to the holy God. These practices were completely devoted to the separation of the holy from the unholy and to the cleansing of God’s people. Since defilement of the Temple and idolatrous worship had driven the Lord out of his house (Ezek 8–11), an entirely new situation was necessary if God was to dwell once more among his people. Thus, the function of this legislation was to convict the prophet’s hearers of their past abuses that had broken down the wall of separation between the holy and the unholy and to reassure them that God would restore his people’s worship to its proper state.<\/p>\n<p>This legislation also puts the prince, the king descended from David, in a proper place of submission to the Lord. This element finds fulfillment with the coming of Christ. Jesus came as a servant King who delighted to do the Father’s will (Matt 4:1-11; 20:25-28). He offered the perfect purification offering, cleansed the heavenly sanctuary once for all time (Heb 9:11-12, 23), and ensured that God could dwell in the midst of his people forever. His blood cleanses us of all sin and enables sinners to boldly enter the heavenly Most Holy Place without fear of rejection or reprisal.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Isa 56:7; Ezek 8:1–11:25; 40:1–43:27; 44:1–46:18<\/p>","summary_ro":"Temple Legislation as Theology The rabbis of Judaism spent a great deal of time seeking to harmonize the laws of Ezekiel 44–48 with the laws of the Torah. They were unsuccessful because the legislation in these chapters was no more intended to match that of Moses than the vision of the Temple building (Ezek 40–43) was designed to match the design of the Tabernacle or the Temple of Solomon. The description of the Temple regulations conveys a theological message of change, as did the earlier de...","summary_en":"Temple Legislation as Theology The rabbis of Judaism spent a great deal of time seeking to harmonize the laws of Ezekiel 44–48 with the laws of the Torah. They were unsuccessful because the legislation in these chapters was no more intended to match that of Moses than the vision of the Temple building (Ezek 40–43) was designed to match the design of the Tabernacle or the Temple of Solomon. The description of the Temple regulations conveys a theological message of change, as did the earlier de...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"2":[{"id":53367,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ezechiel 44:2","title_en":"Study Note: Ezechiel 44:2","content_ro":"<p><strong>44:2<\/strong> The outer east <em>gate must remain<\/em> perpetually <em>closed<\/em> because the Lord had now returned to his Temple and would never again leave it. He had also sanctified this gate by going through it, and no one else was ever to use it.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>44:2<\/strong> The outer east <em>gate must remain<\/em> perpetually <em>closed<\/em> because the Lord had now returned to his Temple and would never again leave it. He had also sanctified this gate by going through it, and no one else was ever to use it.<\/p>","summary_ro":"44:2 The outer east gate must remain perpetually closed because the Lord had now returned to his Temple and would never again leave it. He had also sanctified this gate by going through it, and no one else was ever to use it.","summary_en":"44:2 The outer east gate must remain perpetually closed because the Lord had now returned to his Temple and would never again leave it. He had also sanctified this gate by going through it, and no one else was ever to use it.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":80993,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ezechiel 44:2","title_en":"Study Note: Ezechiel 44:2","content_ro":"<p><strong>44:2<\/strong> The outer east <em>gate must remain<\/em> perpetually <em>closed<\/em> because the Lord had now returned to his Temple and would never again leave it. He had also sanctified this gate by going through it, and no one else was ever to use it.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>44:2<\/strong> The outer east <em>gate must remain<\/em> perpetually <em>closed<\/em> because the Lord had now returned to his Temple and would never again leave it. He had also sanctified this gate by going through it, and no one else was ever to use it.<\/p>","summary_ro":"44:2 The outer east gate must remain perpetually closed because the Lord had now returned to his Temple and would never again leave it. He had also sanctified this gate by going through it, and no one else was ever to use it.","summary_en":"44:2 The outer east gate must remain perpetually closed because the Lord had now returned to his Temple and would never again leave it. He had also sanctified this gate by going through it, and no one else was ever to use it.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":108619,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ezechiel 44:2","title_en":"Study Note: Ezechiel 44:2","content_ro":"<p><strong>44:2<\/strong> The outer east <em>gate must remain<\/em> perpetually <em>closed<\/em> because the Lord had now returned to his Temple and would never again leave it. He had also sanctified this gate by going through it, and no one else was ever to use it.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>44:2<\/strong> The outer east <em>gate must remain<\/em> perpetually <em>closed<\/em> because the Lord had now returned to his Temple and would never again leave it. He had also sanctified this gate by going through it, and no one else was ever to use it.<\/p>","summary_ro":"44:2 The outer east gate must remain perpetually closed because the Lord had now returned to his Temple and would never again leave it. He had also sanctified this gate by going through it, and no one else was ever to use it.","summary_en":"44:2 The outer east gate must remain perpetually closed because the Lord had now returned to his Temple and would never again leave it. He had also sanctified this gate by going through it, and no one else was ever to use it.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":136245,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ezechiel 44:2","title_en":"Study Note: Ezechiel 44:2","content_ro":"<p><strong>44:2<\/strong> The outer east <em>gate must remain<\/em> perpetually <em>closed<\/em> because the Lord had now returned to his Temple and would never again leave it. He had also sanctified this gate by going through it, and no one else was ever to use it.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>44:2<\/strong> The outer east <em>gate must remain<\/em> perpetually <em>closed<\/em> because the Lord had now returned to his Temple and would never again leave it. He had also sanctified this gate by going through it, and no one else was ever to use it.<\/p>","summary_ro":"44:2 The outer east gate must remain perpetually closed because the Lord had now returned to his Temple and would never again leave it. He had also sanctified this gate by going through it, and no one else was ever to use it.","summary_en":"44:2 The outer east gate must remain perpetually closed because the Lord had now returned to his Temple and would never again leave it. He had also sanctified this gate by going through it, and no one else was ever to use it.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"3":[{"id":53368,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ezechiel 44:3","title_en":"Study Note: Ezechiel 44:3","content_ro":"<p><strong>44:3<\/strong> Though <em>the prince<\/em> had the significant privilege of being the only one allowed <em>to feast in the<\/em> <span>Lord<\/span><em>’s presence<\/em> inside the east outer <em>gateway<\/em><em>,<\/em> he was restricted to entering and leaving the portico from the outer court. He was not to enter from outside the Temple complex by going through the gate, as the Lord had; the earthly ruler is a man, not God, and he must submit to God. The prince must also never forget that the Temple is God’s palace, not his own private chapel.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>44:3<\/strong> Though <em>the prince<\/em> had the significant privilege of being the only one allowed <em>to feast in the<\/em> <span>Lord<\/span><em>’s presence<\/em> inside the east outer <em>gateway<\/em><em>,<\/em> he was restricted to entering and leaving the portico from the outer court. He was not to enter from outside the Temple complex by going through the gate, as the Lord had; the earthly ruler is a man, not God, and he must submit to God. The prince must also never forget that the Temple is God’s palace, not his own private chapel.<\/p>","summary_ro":"44:3 Though the prince had the significant privilege of being the only one allowed to feast in the Lord’s presence inside the east outer gateway, he was restricted to entering and leaving the portico from the outer court. He was not to enter from outside the Temple complex by going through the gate, as the Lord had; the earthly ruler is a man, not God, and he must submit to God. The prince must also never forget that the Temple is God’s palace, not his own private chapel.","summary_en":"44:3 Though the prince had the significant privilege of being the only one allowed to feast in the Lord’s presence inside the east outer gateway, he was restricted to entering and leaving the portico from the outer court. He was not to enter from outside the Temple complex by going through the gate, as the Lord had; the earthly ruler is a man, not God, and he must submit to God. The prince must also never forget that the Temple is God’s palace, not his own private chapel.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":80994,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ezechiel 44:3","title_en":"Study Note: Ezechiel 44:3","content_ro":"<p><strong>44:3<\/strong> Though <em>the prince<\/em> had the significant privilege of being the only one allowed <em>to feast in the<\/em> <span>Lord<\/span><em>’s presence<\/em> inside the east outer <em>gateway<\/em><em>,<\/em> he was restricted to entering and leaving the portico from the outer court. He was not to enter from outside the Temple complex by going through the gate, as the Lord had; the earthly ruler is a man, not God, and he must submit to God. The prince must also never forget that the Temple is God’s palace, not his own private chapel.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>44:3<\/strong> Though <em>the prince<\/em> had the significant privilege of being the only one allowed <em>to feast in the<\/em> <span>Lord<\/span><em>’s presence<\/em> inside the east outer <em>gateway<\/em><em>,<\/em> he was restricted to entering and leaving the portico from the outer court. He was not to enter from outside the Temple complex by going through the gate, as the Lord had; the earthly ruler is a man, not God, and he must submit to God. The prince must also never forget that the Temple is God’s palace, not his own private chapel.<\/p>","summary_ro":"44:3 Though the prince had the significant privilege of being the only one allowed to feast in the Lord’s presence inside the east outer gateway, he was restricted to entering and leaving the portico from the outer court. He was not to enter from outside the Temple complex by going through the gate, as the Lord had; the earthly ruler is a man, not God, and he must submit to God. The prince must also never forget that the Temple is God’s palace, not his own private chapel.","summary_en":"44:3 Though the prince had the significant privilege of being the only one allowed to feast in the Lord’s presence inside the east outer gateway, he was restricted to entering and leaving the portico from the outer court. He was not to enter from outside the Temple complex by going through the gate, as the Lord had; the earthly ruler is a man, not God, and he must submit to God. The prince must also never forget that the Temple is God’s palace, not his own private chapel.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":108620,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ezechiel 44:3","title_en":"Study Note: Ezechiel 44:3","content_ro":"<p><strong>44:3<\/strong> Though <em>the prince<\/em> had the significant privilege of being the only one allowed <em>to feast in the<\/em> <span>Lord<\/span><em>’s presence<\/em> inside the east outer <em>gateway<\/em><em>,<\/em> he was restricted to entering and leaving the portico from the outer court. He was not to enter from outside the Temple complex by going through the gate, as the Lord had; the earthly ruler is a man, not God, and he must submit to God. The prince must also never forget that the Temple is God’s palace, not his own private chapel.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>44:3<\/strong> Though <em>the prince<\/em> had the significant privilege of being the only one allowed <em>to feast in the<\/em> <span>Lord<\/span><em>’s presence<\/em> inside the east outer <em>gateway<\/em><em>,<\/em> he was restricted to entering and leaving the portico from the outer court. He was not to enter from outside the Temple complex by going through the gate, as the Lord had; the earthly ruler is a man, not God, and he must submit to God. The prince must also never forget that the Temple is God’s palace, not his own private chapel.<\/p>","summary_ro":"44:3 Though the prince had the significant privilege of being the only one allowed to feast in the Lord’s presence inside the east outer gateway, he was restricted to entering and leaving the portico from the outer court. He was not to enter from outside the Temple complex by going through the gate, as the Lord had; the earthly ruler is a man, not God, and he must submit to God. The prince must also never forget that the Temple is God’s palace, not his own private chapel.","summary_en":"44:3 Though the prince had the significant privilege of being the only one allowed to feast in the Lord’s presence inside the east outer gateway, he was restricted to entering and leaving the portico from the outer court. He was not to enter from outside the Temple complex by going through the gate, as the Lord had; the earthly ruler is a man, not God, and he must submit to God. The prince must also never forget that the Temple is God’s palace, not his own private chapel.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":136246,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ezechiel 44:3","title_en":"Study Note: Ezechiel 44:3","content_ro":"<p><strong>44:3<\/strong> Though <em>the prince<\/em> had the significant privilege of being the only one allowed <em>to feast in the<\/em> <span>Lord<\/span><em>’s presence<\/em> inside the east outer <em>gateway<\/em><em>,<\/em> he was restricted to entering and leaving the portico from the outer court. He was not to enter from outside the Temple complex by going through the gate, as the Lord had; the earthly ruler is a man, not God, and he must submit to God. The prince must also never forget that the Temple is God’s palace, not his own private chapel.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>44:3<\/strong> Though <em>the prince<\/em> had the significant privilege of being the only one allowed <em>to feast in the<\/em> <span>Lord<\/span><em>’s presence<\/em> inside the east outer <em>gateway<\/em><em>,<\/em> he was restricted to entering and leaving the portico from the outer court. He was not to enter from outside the Temple complex by going through the gate, as the Lord had; the earthly ruler is a man, not God, and he must submit to God. The prince must also never forget that the Temple is God’s palace, not his own private chapel.<\/p>","summary_ro":"44:3 Though the prince had the significant privilege of being the only one allowed to feast in the Lord’s presence inside the east outer gateway, he was restricted to entering and leaving the portico from the outer court. He was not to enter from outside the Temple complex by going through the gate, as the Lord had; the earthly ruler is a man, not God, and he must submit to God. The prince must also never forget that the Temple is God’s palace, not his own private chapel.","summary_en":"44:3 Though the prince had the significant privilege of being the only one allowed to feast in the Lord’s presence inside the east outer gateway, he was restricted to entering and leaving the portico from the outer court. He was not to enter from outside the Temple complex by going through the gate, as the Lord had; the earthly ruler is a man, not God, and he must submit to God. The prince must also never forget that the Temple is God’s palace, not his own private chapel.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"4":[{"id":64364,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"God’s Glory with His People","title_en":"God’s Glory with His People","content_ro":"<h3>God’s Glory with His People<\/h3>\n<p>In ancient Israel, God’s glory was particularly manifest at the central sanctuaries that had been built for him. When the Israelites completed construction of the Tabernacle, that sacred space became filled with the glory of the Lord (Exod 40:34-35). Likewise, after the Temple was completed and the Ark of the Covenant was brought in, God’s glorious presence filled the Temple (1 Kgs 8:10-11).<\/p>\n<p>The presence and absence of God’s glory is a central theme in the book of Ezekiel. God’s glory appears to the prophet Ezekiel while he is exiled in Babylon, meaning that his glory was no longer present at the Temple in Jerusalem. The reason God’s glory had departed from the Temple at that time becomes clear in Ezekiel’s vision in Ezekiel 8–11, in which the prophet sees the abominations that had polluted the Temple in Jerusalem. Without God’s presence, the Temple had become an empty shell awaiting destruction. God was not forcibly evicted by the superior might of the Babylonian army; he voluntarily departed because his people were defiled. Their sin drove him away from the land he had promised to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. For a time, the Lord went from Jerusalem to Babylon to become a sanctuary for the exiles there (see 11:16).<\/p>\n<p>God would not abandon his Temple forever. After pouring out his wrath in full measure, he would restore a remnant to their land and sanctify them by his Spirit so that he could once again dwell in their midst in a new sanctuary (37:26). God’s glory, dwelling among his people forever (43:1-5), is at the heart of Ezekiel’s vision of their restoration.<\/p>\n<p>The glory of God has come to live among us fully in the person of Jesus Christ. As John testifies, “We have seen his glory, the glory of the Father’s one and only Son” (John 1:14). The aged Simeon saw the baby Jesus brought to the Temple and described him as “a light to reveal God to the nations, and . . . the glory of your people Israel” (Luke 2:32). Jesus’ glory was veiled while he was on earth, though for a moment on the Mount of Transfiguration his radiance was revealed to his closest disciples (Matt 17:2). He experienced his own abandonment by God as he hung on the cross, bearing the curse for our sin (Matt 27:46). Now, as the exalted and glorified Lord, he sits at God’s right hand (Eph 1:19-20). By his Spirit, he has promised never to abandon us, but to be with us to the end of time (Matt 28:20).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Exod 15:11; 33:18–34:8; 40:34; Ps 19:1-11; Isa 4:5-6; 6:3; 40:5; 42:8; 43:7; 58:8; 60:1-2; Ezek 1:1-28; 11:16; 37:26; 43:1-5; 44:4; Hab 2:14; Matt 17:2; 28:20; Luke 2:32; John 1:14; 2 Cor 4:4-6; Heb 1:3; Rev 21:10-11, 23<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>God’s Glory with His People<\/h3>\n<p>In ancient Israel, God’s glory was particularly manifest at the central sanctuaries that had been built for him. When the Israelites completed construction of the Tabernacle, that sacred space became filled with the glory of the Lord (Exod 40:34-35). Likewise, after the Temple was completed and the Ark of the Covenant was brought in, God’s glorious presence filled the Temple (1 Kgs 8:10-11).<\/p>\n<p>The presence and absence of God’s glory is a central theme in the book of Ezekiel. God’s glory appears to the prophet Ezekiel while he is exiled in Babylon, meaning that his glory was no longer present at the Temple in Jerusalem. The reason God’s glory had departed from the Temple at that time becomes clear in Ezekiel’s vision in Ezekiel 8–11, in which the prophet sees the abominations that had polluted the Temple in Jerusalem. Without God’s presence, the Temple had become an empty shell awaiting destruction. God was not forcibly evicted by the superior might of the Babylonian army; he voluntarily departed because his people were defiled. Their sin drove him away from the land he had promised to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. For a time, the Lord went from Jerusalem to Babylon to become a sanctuary for the exiles there (see 11:16).<\/p>\n<p>God would not abandon his Temple forever. After pouring out his wrath in full measure, he would restore a remnant to their land and sanctify them by his Spirit so that he could once again dwell in their midst in a new sanctuary (37:26). God’s glory, dwelling among his people forever (43:1-5), is at the heart of Ezekiel’s vision of their restoration.<\/p>\n<p>The glory of God has come to live among us fully in the person of Jesus Christ. As John testifies, “We have seen his glory, the glory of the Father’s one and only Son” (John 1:14). The aged Simeon saw the baby Jesus brought to the Temple and described him as “a light to reveal God to the nations, and . . . the glory of your people Israel” (Luke 2:32). Jesus’ glory was veiled while he was on earth, though for a moment on the Mount of Transfiguration his radiance was revealed to his closest disciples (Matt 17:2). He experienced his own abandonment by God as he hung on the cross, bearing the curse for our sin (Matt 27:46). Now, as the exalted and glorified Lord, he sits at God’s right hand (Eph 1:19-20). By his Spirit, he has promised never to abandon us, but to be with us to the end of time (Matt 28:20).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Exod 15:11; 33:18–34:8; 40:34; Ps 19:1-11; Isa 4:5-6; 6:3; 40:5; 42:8; 43:7; 58:8; 60:1-2; Ezek 1:1-28; 11:16; 37:26; 43:1-5; 44:4; Hab 2:14; Matt 17:2; 28:20; Luke 2:32; John 1:14; 2 Cor 4:4-6; Heb 1:3; Rev 21:10-11, 23<\/p>","summary_ro":"God’s Glory with His People In ancient Israel, God’s glory was particularly manifest at the central sanctuaries that had been built for him. When the Israelites completed construction of the Tabernacle, that sacred space became filled with the glory of the Lord (Exod 40:34-35). Likewise, after the Temple was completed and the Ark of the Covenant was brought in, God’s glorious presence filled the Temple (1 Kgs 8:10-11). The presence and absence of God’s glory is a central theme in the book of ...","summary_en":"God’s Glory with His People In ancient Israel, God’s glory was particularly manifest at the central sanctuaries that had been built for him. When the Israelites completed construction of the Tabernacle, that sacred space became filled with the glory of the Lord (Exod 40:34-35). Likewise, after the Temple was completed and the Ark of the Covenant was brought in, God’s glorious presence filled the Temple (1 Kgs 8:10-11). The presence and absence of God’s glory is a central theme in the book of ...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":91990,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"God’s Glory with His People","title_en":"God’s Glory with His People","content_ro":"<h3>God’s Glory with His People<\/h3>\n<p>In ancient Israel, God’s glory was particularly manifest at the central sanctuaries that had been built for him. When the Israelites completed construction of the Tabernacle, that sacred space became filled with the glory of the Lord (Exod 40:34-35). Likewise, after the Temple was completed and the Ark of the Covenant was brought in, God’s glorious presence filled the Temple (1 Kgs 8:10-11).<\/p>\n<p>The presence and absence of God’s glory is a central theme in the book of Ezekiel. God’s glory appears to the prophet Ezekiel while he is exiled in Babylon, meaning that his glory was no longer present at the Temple in Jerusalem. The reason God’s glory had departed from the Temple at that time becomes clear in Ezekiel’s vision in Ezekiel 8–11, in which the prophet sees the abominations that had polluted the Temple in Jerusalem. Without God’s presence, the Temple had become an empty shell awaiting destruction. God was not forcibly evicted by the superior might of the Babylonian army; he voluntarily departed because his people were defiled. Their sin drove him away from the land he had promised to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. For a time, the Lord went from Jerusalem to Babylon to become a sanctuary for the exiles there (see 11:16).<\/p>\n<p>God would not abandon his Temple forever. After pouring out his wrath in full measure, he would restore a remnant to their land and sanctify them by his Spirit so that he could once again dwell in their midst in a new sanctuary (37:26). God’s glory, dwelling among his people forever (43:1-5), is at the heart of Ezekiel’s vision of their restoration.<\/p>\n<p>The glory of God has come to live among us fully in the person of Jesus Christ. As John testifies, “We have seen his glory, the glory of the Father’s one and only Son” (John 1:14). The aged Simeon saw the baby Jesus brought to the Temple and described him as “a light to reveal God to the nations, and . . . the glory of your people Israel” (Luke 2:32). Jesus’ glory was veiled while he was on earth, though for a moment on the Mount of Transfiguration his radiance was revealed to his closest disciples (Matt 17:2). He experienced his own abandonment by God as he hung on the cross, bearing the curse for our sin (Matt 27:46). Now, as the exalted and glorified Lord, he sits at God’s right hand (Eph 1:19-20). By his Spirit, he has promised never to abandon us, but to be with us to the end of time (Matt 28:20).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Exod 15:11; 33:18–34:8; 40:34; Ps 19:1-11; Isa 4:5-6; 6:3; 40:5; 42:8; 43:7; 58:8; 60:1-2; Ezek 1:1-28; 11:16; 37:26; 43:1-5; 44:4; Hab 2:14; Matt 17:2; 28:20; Luke 2:32; John 1:14; 2 Cor 4:4-6; Heb 1:3; Rev 21:10-11, 23<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>God’s Glory with His People<\/h3>\n<p>In ancient Israel, God’s glory was particularly manifest at the central sanctuaries that had been built for him. When the Israelites completed construction of the Tabernacle, that sacred space became filled with the glory of the Lord (Exod 40:34-35). Likewise, after the Temple was completed and the Ark of the Covenant was brought in, God’s glorious presence filled the Temple (1 Kgs 8:10-11).<\/p>\n<p>The presence and absence of God’s glory is a central theme in the book of Ezekiel. God’s glory appears to the prophet Ezekiel while he is exiled in Babylon, meaning that his glory was no longer present at the Temple in Jerusalem. The reason God’s glory had departed from the Temple at that time becomes clear in Ezekiel’s vision in Ezekiel 8–11, in which the prophet sees the abominations that had polluted the Temple in Jerusalem. Without God’s presence, the Temple had become an empty shell awaiting destruction. God was not forcibly evicted by the superior might of the Babylonian army; he voluntarily departed because his people were defiled. Their sin drove him away from the land he had promised to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. For a time, the Lord went from Jerusalem to Babylon to become a sanctuary for the exiles there (see 11:16).<\/p>\n<p>God would not abandon his Temple forever. After pouring out his wrath in full measure, he would restore a remnant to their land and sanctify them by his Spirit so that he could once again dwell in their midst in a new sanctuary (37:26). God’s glory, dwelling among his people forever (43:1-5), is at the heart of Ezekiel’s vision of their restoration.<\/p>\n<p>The glory of God has come to live among us fully in the person of Jesus Christ. As John testifies, “We have seen his glory, the glory of the Father’s one and only Son” (John 1:14). The aged Simeon saw the baby Jesus brought to the Temple and described him as “a light to reveal God to the nations, and . . . the glory of your people Israel” (Luke 2:32). Jesus’ glory was veiled while he was on earth, though for a moment on the Mount of Transfiguration his radiance was revealed to his closest disciples (Matt 17:2). He experienced his own abandonment by God as he hung on the cross, bearing the curse for our sin (Matt 27:46). Now, as the exalted and glorified Lord, he sits at God’s right hand (Eph 1:19-20). By his Spirit, he has promised never to abandon us, but to be with us to the end of time (Matt 28:20).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Exod 15:11; 33:18–34:8; 40:34; Ps 19:1-11; Isa 4:5-6; 6:3; 40:5; 42:8; 43:7; 58:8; 60:1-2; Ezek 1:1-28; 11:16; 37:26; 43:1-5; 44:4; Hab 2:14; Matt 17:2; 28:20; Luke 2:32; John 1:14; 2 Cor 4:4-6; Heb 1:3; Rev 21:10-11, 23<\/p>","summary_ro":"God’s Glory with His People In ancient Israel, God’s glory was particularly manifest at the central sanctuaries that had been built for him. When the Israelites completed construction of the Tabernacle, that sacred space became filled with the glory of the Lord (Exod 40:34-35). Likewise, after the Temple was completed and the Ark of the Covenant was brought in, God’s glorious presence filled the Temple (1 Kgs 8:10-11). The presence and absence of God’s glory is a central theme in the book of ...","summary_en":"God’s Glory with His People In ancient Israel, God’s glory was particularly manifest at the central sanctuaries that had been built for him. When the Israelites completed construction of the Tabernacle, that sacred space became filled with the glory of the Lord (Exod 40:34-35). Likewise, after the Temple was completed and the Ark of the Covenant was brought in, God’s glorious presence filled the Temple (1 Kgs 8:10-11). The presence and absence of God’s glory is a central theme in the book of ...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":119616,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"God’s Glory with His People","title_en":"God’s Glory with His People","content_ro":"<h3>God’s Glory with His People<\/h3>\n<p>In ancient Israel, God’s glory was particularly manifest at the central sanctuaries that had been built for him. When the Israelites completed construction of the Tabernacle, that sacred space became filled with the glory of the Lord (Exod 40:34-35). Likewise, after the Temple was completed and the Ark of the Covenant was brought in, God’s glorious presence filled the Temple (1 Kgs 8:10-11).<\/p>\n<p>The presence and absence of God’s glory is a central theme in the book of Ezekiel. God’s glory appears to the prophet Ezekiel while he is exiled in Babylon, meaning that his glory was no longer present at the Temple in Jerusalem. The reason God’s glory had departed from the Temple at that time becomes clear in Ezekiel’s vision in Ezekiel 8–11, in which the prophet sees the abominations that had polluted the Temple in Jerusalem. Without God’s presence, the Temple had become an empty shell awaiting destruction. God was not forcibly evicted by the superior might of the Babylonian army; he voluntarily departed because his people were defiled. Their sin drove him away from the land he had promised to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. For a time, the Lord went from Jerusalem to Babylon to become a sanctuary for the exiles there (see 11:16).<\/p>\n<p>God would not abandon his Temple forever. After pouring out his wrath in full measure, he would restore a remnant to their land and sanctify them by his Spirit so that he could once again dwell in their midst in a new sanctuary (37:26). God’s glory, dwelling among his people forever (43:1-5), is at the heart of Ezekiel’s vision of their restoration.<\/p>\n<p>The glory of God has come to live among us fully in the person of Jesus Christ. As John testifies, “We have seen his glory, the glory of the Father’s one and only Son” (John 1:14). The aged Simeon saw the baby Jesus brought to the Temple and described him as “a light to reveal God to the nations, and . . . the glory of your people Israel” (Luke 2:32). Jesus’ glory was veiled while he was on earth, though for a moment on the Mount of Transfiguration his radiance was revealed to his closest disciples (Matt 17:2). He experienced his own abandonment by God as he hung on the cross, bearing the curse for our sin (Matt 27:46). Now, as the exalted and glorified Lord, he sits at God’s right hand (Eph 1:19-20). By his Spirit, he has promised never to abandon us, but to be with us to the end of time (Matt 28:20).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Exod 15:11; 33:18–34:8; 40:34; Ps 19:1-11; Isa 4:5-6; 6:3; 40:5; 42:8; 43:7; 58:8; 60:1-2; Ezek 1:1-28; 11:16; 37:26; 43:1-5; 44:4; Hab 2:14; Matt 17:2; 28:20; Luke 2:32; John 1:14; 2 Cor 4:4-6; Heb 1:3; Rev 21:10-11, 23<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>God’s Glory with His People<\/h3>\n<p>In ancient Israel, God’s glory was particularly manifest at the central sanctuaries that had been built for him. When the Israelites completed construction of the Tabernacle, that sacred space became filled with the glory of the Lord (Exod 40:34-35). Likewise, after the Temple was completed and the Ark of the Covenant was brought in, God’s glorious presence filled the Temple (1 Kgs 8:10-11).<\/p>\n<p>The presence and absence of God’s glory is a central theme in the book of Ezekiel. God’s glory appears to the prophet Ezekiel while he is exiled in Babylon, meaning that his glory was no longer present at the Temple in Jerusalem. The reason God’s glory had departed from the Temple at that time becomes clear in Ezekiel’s vision in Ezekiel 8–11, in which the prophet sees the abominations that had polluted the Temple in Jerusalem. Without God’s presence, the Temple had become an empty shell awaiting destruction. God was not forcibly evicted by the superior might of the Babylonian army; he voluntarily departed because his people were defiled. Their sin drove him away from the land he had promised to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. For a time, the Lord went from Jerusalem to Babylon to become a sanctuary for the exiles there (see 11:16).<\/p>\n<p>God would not abandon his Temple forever. After pouring out his wrath in full measure, he would restore a remnant to their land and sanctify them by his Spirit so that he could once again dwell in their midst in a new sanctuary (37:26). God’s glory, dwelling among his people forever (43:1-5), is at the heart of Ezekiel’s vision of their restoration.<\/p>\n<p>The glory of God has come to live among us fully in the person of Jesus Christ. As John testifies, “We have seen his glory, the glory of the Father’s one and only Son” (John 1:14). The aged Simeon saw the baby Jesus brought to the Temple and described him as “a light to reveal God to the nations, and . . . the glory of your people Israel” (Luke 2:32). Jesus’ glory was veiled while he was on earth, though for a moment on the Mount of Transfiguration his radiance was revealed to his closest disciples (Matt 17:2). He experienced his own abandonment by God as he hung on the cross, bearing the curse for our sin (Matt 27:46). Now, as the exalted and glorified Lord, he sits at God’s right hand (Eph 1:19-20). By his Spirit, he has promised never to abandon us, but to be with us to the end of time (Matt 28:20).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Exod 15:11; 33:18–34:8; 40:34; Ps 19:1-11; Isa 4:5-6; 6:3; 40:5; 42:8; 43:7; 58:8; 60:1-2; Ezek 1:1-28; 11:16; 37:26; 43:1-5; 44:4; Hab 2:14; Matt 17:2; 28:20; Luke 2:32; John 1:14; 2 Cor 4:4-6; Heb 1:3; Rev 21:10-11, 23<\/p>","summary_ro":"God’s Glory with His People In ancient Israel, God’s glory was particularly manifest at the central sanctuaries that had been built for him. When the Israelites completed construction of the Tabernacle, that sacred space became filled with the glory of the Lord (Exod 40:34-35). Likewise, after the Temple was completed and the Ark of the Covenant was brought in, God’s glorious presence filled the Temple (1 Kgs 8:10-11). The presence and absence of God’s glory is a central theme in the book of ...","summary_en":"God’s Glory with His People In ancient Israel, God’s glory was particularly manifest at the central sanctuaries that had been built for him. When the Israelites completed construction of the Tabernacle, that sacred space became filled with the glory of the Lord (Exod 40:34-35). Likewise, after the Temple was completed and the Ark of the Covenant was brought in, God’s glorious presence filled the Temple (1 Kgs 8:10-11). The presence and absence of God’s glory is a central theme in the book of ...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":147242,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"God’s Glory with His People","title_en":"God’s Glory with His People","content_ro":"<h3>God’s Glory with His People<\/h3>\n<p>In ancient Israel, God’s glory was particularly manifest at the central sanctuaries that had been built for him. When the Israelites completed construction of the Tabernacle, that sacred space became filled with the glory of the Lord (Exod 40:34-35). Likewise, after the Temple was completed and the Ark of the Covenant was brought in, God’s glorious presence filled the Temple (1 Kgs 8:10-11).<\/p>\n<p>The presence and absence of God’s glory is a central theme in the book of Ezekiel. God’s glory appears to the prophet Ezekiel while he is exiled in Babylon, meaning that his glory was no longer present at the Temple in Jerusalem. The reason God’s glory had departed from the Temple at that time becomes clear in Ezekiel’s vision in Ezekiel 8–11, in which the prophet sees the abominations that had polluted the Temple in Jerusalem. Without God’s presence, the Temple had become an empty shell awaiting destruction. God was not forcibly evicted by the superior might of the Babylonian army; he voluntarily departed because his people were defiled. Their sin drove him away from the land he had promised to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. For a time, the Lord went from Jerusalem to Babylon to become a sanctuary for the exiles there (see 11:16).<\/p>\n<p>God would not abandon his Temple forever. After pouring out his wrath in full measure, he would restore a remnant to their land and sanctify them by his Spirit so that he could once again dwell in their midst in a new sanctuary (37:26). God’s glory, dwelling among his people forever (43:1-5), is at the heart of Ezekiel’s vision of their restoration.<\/p>\n<p>The glory of God has come to live among us fully in the person of Jesus Christ. As John testifies, “We have seen his glory, the glory of the Father’s one and only Son” (John 1:14). The aged Simeon saw the baby Jesus brought to the Temple and described him as “a light to reveal God to the nations, and . . . the glory of your people Israel” (Luke 2:32). Jesus’ glory was veiled while he was on earth, though for a moment on the Mount of Transfiguration his radiance was revealed to his closest disciples (Matt 17:2). He experienced his own abandonment by God as he hung on the cross, bearing the curse for our sin (Matt 27:46). Now, as the exalted and glorified Lord, he sits at God’s right hand (Eph 1:19-20). By his Spirit, he has promised never to abandon us, but to be with us to the end of time (Matt 28:20).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Exod 15:11; 33:18–34:8; 40:34; Ps 19:1-11; Isa 4:5-6; 6:3; 40:5; 42:8; 43:7; 58:8; 60:1-2; Ezek 1:1-28; 11:16; 37:26; 43:1-5; 44:4; Hab 2:14; Matt 17:2; 28:20; Luke 2:32; John 1:14; 2 Cor 4:4-6; Heb 1:3; Rev 21:10-11, 23<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>God’s Glory with His People<\/h3>\n<p>In ancient Israel, God’s glory was particularly manifest at the central sanctuaries that had been built for him. When the Israelites completed construction of the Tabernacle, that sacred space became filled with the glory of the Lord (Exod 40:34-35). Likewise, after the Temple was completed and the Ark of the Covenant was brought in, God’s glorious presence filled the Temple (1 Kgs 8:10-11).<\/p>\n<p>The presence and absence of God’s glory is a central theme in the book of Ezekiel. God’s glory appears to the prophet Ezekiel while he is exiled in Babylon, meaning that his glory was no longer present at the Temple in Jerusalem. The reason God’s glory had departed from the Temple at that time becomes clear in Ezekiel’s vision in Ezekiel 8–11, in which the prophet sees the abominations that had polluted the Temple in Jerusalem. Without God’s presence, the Temple had become an empty shell awaiting destruction. God was not forcibly evicted by the superior might of the Babylonian army; he voluntarily departed because his people were defiled. Their sin drove him away from the land he had promised to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. For a time, the Lord went from Jerusalem to Babylon to become a sanctuary for the exiles there (see 11:16).<\/p>\n<p>God would not abandon his Temple forever. After pouring out his wrath in full measure, he would restore a remnant to their land and sanctify them by his Spirit so that he could once again dwell in their midst in a new sanctuary (37:26). God’s glory, dwelling among his people forever (43:1-5), is at the heart of Ezekiel’s vision of their restoration.<\/p>\n<p>The glory of God has come to live among us fully in the person of Jesus Christ. As John testifies, “We have seen his glory, the glory of the Father’s one and only Son” (John 1:14). The aged Simeon saw the baby Jesus brought to the Temple and described him as “a light to reveal God to the nations, and . . . the glory of your people Israel” (Luke 2:32). Jesus’ glory was veiled while he was on earth, though for a moment on the Mount of Transfiguration his radiance was revealed to his closest disciples (Matt 17:2). He experienced his own abandonment by God as he hung on the cross, bearing the curse for our sin (Matt 27:46). Now, as the exalted and glorified Lord, he sits at God’s right hand (Eph 1:19-20). By his Spirit, he has promised never to abandon us, but to be with us to the end of time (Matt 28:20).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Exod 15:11; 33:18–34:8; 40:34; Ps 19:1-11; Isa 4:5-6; 6:3; 40:5; 42:8; 43:7; 58:8; 60:1-2; Ezek 1:1-28; 11:16; 37:26; 43:1-5; 44:4; Hab 2:14; Matt 17:2; 28:20; Luke 2:32; John 1:14; 2 Cor 4:4-6; Heb 1:3; Rev 21:10-11, 23<\/p>","summary_ro":"God’s Glory with His People In ancient Israel, God’s glory was particularly manifest at the central sanctuaries that had been built for him. When the Israelites completed construction of the Tabernacle, that sacred space became filled with the glory of the Lord (Exod 40:34-35). Likewise, after the Temple was completed and the Ark of the Covenant was brought in, God’s glorious presence filled the Temple (1 Kgs 8:10-11). The presence and absence of God’s glory is a central theme in the book of ...","summary_en":"God’s Glory with His People In ancient Israel, God’s glory was particularly manifest at the central sanctuaries that had been built for him. When the Israelites completed construction of the Tabernacle, that sacred space became filled with the glory of the Lord (Exod 40:34-35). Likewise, after the Temple was completed and the Ark of the Covenant was brought in, God’s glorious presence filled the Temple (1 Kgs 8:10-11). The presence and absence of God’s glory is a central theme in the book of ...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"6":[{"id":25512,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Meunites Meunim","title_en":"Meunites Meunim","content_ro":"<h3>MEUNIM, MEUNITES<\/h3>\n<p>People living in Edom (Mt Seir, 1 Chr 4:41-42) who were dispossessed of their rich pasturelands by the Simeonites. Later, Meunites from Edom attacked Judah’s King Jehoshaphat (2 Chr 20:1); later still, King Uzziah of Judah defeated them (26:7). Their original land possession, association with Arabs and Ammonites, and prolonged hostility recall Judges 10:11-12, where “Maonites” are named oppressors of Israel. This word, by Hebrew rules of vocalization, could well become “Meunites,” suggesting Maon (Ma’in, Maan) in the Edomite area south of the Dead Sea as their home.<\/p>\n<p>The Meunim are listed among the families of temple servants returning to Jerusalem following the exile (Ezr 2:50; Neh 7:52). However, because ancient enemies seem unlikely temple servants, some suggest that these Meunim were descendants of the Caleb clan within Judah to whom another town named Maon, west of the Dead Sea and south of Hebron, was allotted (Jos 15:20, 55). This Maon gave David refuge and another wife (1 Sm 23:24-28; 25).<\/p>\n<p>This reconstruction involving two groups, two Maons, and temple servants with very foreign names, is tentative. An alternate view holds that hostile foreigners, formerly captured to become temple slaves (cf. Jos 9:7; Ez 44:6-8), attained freedom during the exile and temple-guild status on returning.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Maon (Place).<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>MEUNIM, MEUNITES<\/h3>\n<p>People living in Edom (Mt Seir, 1 Chr 4:41-42) who were dispossessed of their rich pasturelands by the Simeonites. Later, Meunites from Edom attacked Judah’s King Jehoshaphat (2 Chr 20:1); later still, King Uzziah of Judah defeated them (26:7). Their original land possession, association with Arabs and Ammonites, and prolonged hostility recall Judges 10:11-12, where “Maonites” are named oppressors of Israel. This word, by Hebrew rules of vocalization, could well become “Meunites,” suggesting Maon (Ma’in, Maan) in the Edomite area south of the Dead Sea as their home.<\/p>\n<p>The Meunim are listed among the families of temple servants returning to Jerusalem following the exile (Ezr 2:50; Neh 7:52). However, because ancient enemies seem unlikely temple servants, some suggest that these Meunim were descendants of the Caleb clan within Judah to whom another town named Maon, west of the Dead Sea and south of Hebron, was allotted (Jos 15:20, 55). This Maon gave David refuge and another wife (1 Sm 23:24-28; 25).<\/p>\n<p>This reconstruction involving two groups, two Maons, and temple servants with very foreign names, is tentative. An alternate view holds that hostile foreigners, formerly captured to become temple slaves (cf. Jos 9:7; Ez 44:6-8), attained freedom during the exile and temple-guild status on returning.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Maon (Place).<\/p>","summary_ro":"MEUNIM, MEUNITES People living in Edom (Mt Seir, 1 Chr 4:41-42) who were dispossessed of their rich pasturelands by the Simeonites. Later, Meunites from Edom attacked Judah’s King Jehoshaphat (2 Chr 20:1); later still, King Uzziah of Judah defeated them (26:7). Their original land possession, association with Arabs and Ammonites, and prolonged hostility recall Judges 10:11-12, where “Maonites” are named oppressors of Israel. This word, by Hebrew rules of vocalization, could well become “Meuni...","summary_en":"MEUNIM, MEUNITES People living in Edom (Mt Seir, 1 Chr 4:41-42) who were dispossessed of their rich pasturelands by the Simeonites. Later, Meunites from Edom attacked Judah’s King Jehoshaphat (2 Chr 20:1); later still, King Uzziah of Judah defeated them (26:7). Their original land possession, association with Arabs and Ammonites, and prolonged hostility recall Judges 10:11-12, where “Maonites” are named oppressors of Israel. This word, by Hebrew rules of vocalization, could well become “Meuni...","source":"Articles\/M.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":53369,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ezechiel 44:6","title_en":"Study Note: Ezechiel 44:6","content_ro":"<p><strong>44:6-8<\/strong> The <em>people of Israel<\/em> were called <em>rebels<\/em> because they had failed to control access to the sanctuary in the past; they had hired <em>uncircumcised foreigners<\/em> to come <em>into<\/em> the <em>sanctuary<\/em> and probably employed them as Temple guards and gatekeepers. This task should not have been delegated to foreigners; it should have been performed by the Levites, whom the Lord had assigned to perform it (cp. 44:10).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>44:6-8<\/strong> The <em>people of Israel<\/em> were called <em>rebels<\/em> because they had failed to control access to the sanctuary in the past; they had hired <em>uncircumcised foreigners<\/em> to come <em>into<\/em> the <em>sanctuary<\/em> and probably employed them as Temple guards and gatekeepers. This task should not have been delegated to foreigners; it should have been performed by the Levites, whom the Lord had assigned to perform it (cp. 44:10).<\/p>","summary_ro":"44:6-8 The people of Israel were called rebels because they had failed to control access to the sanctuary in the past; they had hired uncircumcised foreigners to come into the sanctuary and probably employed them as Temple guards and gatekeepers. This task should not have been delegated to foreigners; it should have been performed by the Levites, whom the Lord had assigned to perform it (cp. 44:10).","summary_en":"44:6-8 The people of Israel were called rebels because they had failed to control access to the sanctuary in the past; they had hired uncircumcised foreigners to come into the sanctuary and probably employed them as Temple guards and gatekeepers. This task should not have been delegated to foreigners; it should have been performed by the Levites, whom the Lord had assigned to perform it (cp. 44:10).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":80995,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ezechiel 44:6","title_en":"Study Note: Ezechiel 44:6","content_ro":"<p><strong>44:6-8<\/strong> The <em>people of Israel<\/em> were called <em>rebels<\/em> because they had failed to control access to the sanctuary in the past; they had hired <em>uncircumcised foreigners<\/em> to come <em>into<\/em> the <em>sanctuary<\/em> and probably employed them as Temple guards and gatekeepers. This task should not have been delegated to foreigners; it should have been performed by the Levites, whom the Lord had assigned to perform it (cp. 44:10).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>44:6-8<\/strong> The <em>people of Israel<\/em> were called <em>rebels<\/em> because they had failed to control access to the sanctuary in the past; they had hired <em>uncircumcised foreigners<\/em> to come <em>into<\/em> the <em>sanctuary<\/em> and probably employed them as Temple guards and gatekeepers. This task should not have been delegated to foreigners; it should have been performed by the Levites, whom the Lord had assigned to perform it (cp. 44:10).<\/p>","summary_ro":"44:6-8 The people of Israel were called rebels because they had failed to control access to the sanctuary in the past; they had hired uncircumcised foreigners to come into the sanctuary and probably employed them as Temple guards and gatekeepers. This task should not have been delegated to foreigners; it should have been performed by the Levites, whom the Lord had assigned to perform it (cp. 44:10).","summary_en":"44:6-8 The people of Israel were called rebels because they had failed to control access to the sanctuary in the past; they had hired uncircumcised foreigners to come into the sanctuary and probably employed them as Temple guards and gatekeepers. This task should not have been delegated to foreigners; it should have been performed by the Levites, whom the Lord had assigned to perform it (cp. 44:10).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":108621,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ezechiel 44:6","title_en":"Study Note: Ezechiel 44:6","content_ro":"<p><strong>44:6-8<\/strong> The <em>people of Israel<\/em> were called <em>rebels<\/em> because they had failed to control access to the sanctuary in the past; they had hired <em>uncircumcised foreigners<\/em> to come <em>into<\/em> the <em>sanctuary<\/em> and probably employed them as Temple guards and gatekeepers. This task should not have been delegated to foreigners; it should have been performed by the Levites, whom the Lord had assigned to perform it (cp. 44:10).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>44:6-8<\/strong> The <em>people of Israel<\/em> were called <em>rebels<\/em> because they had failed to control access to the sanctuary in the past; they had hired <em>uncircumcised foreigners<\/em> to come <em>into<\/em> the <em>sanctuary<\/em> and probably employed them as Temple guards and gatekeepers. This task should not have been delegated to foreigners; it should have been performed by the Levites, whom the Lord had assigned to perform it (cp. 44:10).<\/p>","summary_ro":"44:6-8 The people of Israel were called rebels because they had failed to control access to the sanctuary in the past; they had hired uncircumcised foreigners to come into the sanctuary and probably employed them as Temple guards and gatekeepers. This task should not have been delegated to foreigners; it should have been performed by the Levites, whom the Lord had assigned to perform it (cp. 44:10).","summary_en":"44:6-8 The people of Israel were called rebels because they had failed to control access to the sanctuary in the past; they had hired uncircumcised foreigners to come into the sanctuary and probably employed them as Temple guards and gatekeepers. This task should not have been delegated to foreigners; it should have been performed by the Levites, whom the Lord had assigned to perform it (cp. 44:10).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":136247,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ezechiel 44:6","title_en":"Study Note: Ezechiel 44:6","content_ro":"<p><strong>44:6-8<\/strong> The <em>people of Israel<\/em> were called <em>rebels<\/em> because they had failed to control access to the sanctuary in the past; they had hired <em>uncircumcised foreigners<\/em> to come <em>into<\/em> the <em>sanctuary<\/em> and probably employed them as Temple guards and gatekeepers. This task should not have been delegated to foreigners; it should have been performed by the Levites, whom the Lord had assigned to perform it (cp. 44:10).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>44:6-8<\/strong> The <em>people of Israel<\/em> were called <em>rebels<\/em> because they had failed to control access to the sanctuary in the past; they had hired <em>uncircumcised foreigners<\/em> to come <em>into<\/em> the <em>sanctuary<\/em> and probably employed them as Temple guards and gatekeepers. This task should not have been delegated to foreigners; it should have been performed by the Levites, whom the Lord had assigned to perform it (cp. 44:10).<\/p>","summary_ro":"44:6-8 The people of Israel were called rebels because they had failed to control access to the sanctuary in the past; they had hired uncircumcised foreigners to come into the sanctuary and probably employed them as Temple guards and gatekeepers. This task should not have been delegated to foreigners; it should have been performed by the Levites, whom the Lord had assigned to perform it (cp. 44:10).","summary_en":"44:6-8 The people of Israel were called rebels because they had failed to control access to the sanctuary in the past; they had hired uncircumcised foreigners to come into the sanctuary and probably employed them as Temple guards and gatekeepers. This task should not have been delegated to foreigners; it should have been performed by the Levites, whom the Lord had assigned to perform it (cp. 44:10).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"7":[{"id":40360,"type":"textbox","type_label":"Notă explicativă","type_icon":"💡","type_color":"#8b5cf6","title_ro":"The Spiritual Significance of Circumcision","title_en":"The Spiritual Significance of Circumcision","content_ro":"<h3>The Spiritual Significance of Circumcision<\/h3>\n<blockquote><p>The hygienic act of circumcision symbolized the need for cleansing if the holy God was to enter into relationship with an unholy people. At first it was God’s intention to let the ritual teach its own lesson. In Genesis 17:9-27 the observance merely serves as the covenant seal; Abraham is given little explanation of the significance of the rite itself. Later Moses used the expression “uncircumcised lips” to describe his unskilled speech (Ex 6:12, 30). When Israel entered the Promised Land, the yield of its fruit trees was to be considered “uncircumcised” for the first three years; after that it would be holy to the Lord (Lv 19:23-24).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>By the time of the exodus, it became evident that circumcision had to do with ethical as well as physical considerations. In Deuteronomy 10:16 Moses exhorted the people to circumcise the foreskins of their hearts, and in Deuteronomy 30:6 this command assumes the form of a promise: “The <span>Lord<\/span> your God will circumcise your heart and theheart of your offspring, so that you will love the <span>Lord<\/span> your God with all your heart and with all your soul” (<span>rsv<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>Sin in the lives of the chosen people made their circumcision meaningless before God. Thus Moses told the Israelites to humble their uncircumcised hearts (Lv 26:41). The prophets further develop this teaching. Jeremiah urged the citizens of Judah to remove the foreskins of their hearts to avoid God’s wrath because of their evil ways (Jer 4:4), warning that the “uncircumcised ears” of Israel were not sensitive to the word of the Lord (Jer 6:10, <span>rsv<\/span> mg). Judgment will come upon Egypt, Edom, Ammon, Moab, and Judah, declares God, for “I am going to punish all who are circumcised only in flesh . . . for all these nations, and the whole House of Israel too, are uncircumcised at heart” (Jer 9:24-25, JB). Through Ezekiel the Lord complains that the temple has been profaned by the admission of aliens uncircumcised in heart and flesh (Ez 44:7, 9). Isaiah looks forward to the day when there will be a new Jerusalem into which the uncircumcised and unclean will no longer come.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>The Spiritual Significance of Circumcision<\/h3>\n<blockquote><p>The hygienic act of circumcision symbolized the need for cleansing if the holy God was to enter into relationship with an unholy people. At first it was God’s intention to let the ritual teach its own lesson. In Genesis 17:9-27 the observance merely serves as the covenant seal; Abraham is given little explanation of the significance of the rite itself. Later Moses used the expression “uncircumcised lips” to describe his unskilled speech (Ex 6:12, 30). When Israel entered the Promised Land, the yield of its fruit trees was to be considered “uncircumcised” for the first three years; after that it would be holy to the Lord (Lv 19:23-24).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>By the time of the exodus, it became evident that circumcision had to do with ethical as well as physical considerations. In Deuteronomy 10:16 Moses exhorted the people to circumcise the foreskins of their hearts, and in Deuteronomy 30:6 this command assumes the form of a promise: “The <span>Lord<\/span> your God will circumcise your heart and theheart of your offspring, so that you will love the <span>Lord<\/span> your God with all your heart and with all your soul” (<span>rsv<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>Sin in the lives of the chosen people made their circumcision meaningless before God. Thus Moses told the Israelites to humble their uncircumcised hearts (Lv 26:41). The prophets further develop this teaching. Jeremiah urged the citizens of Judah to remove the foreskins of their hearts to avoid God’s wrath because of their evil ways (Jer 4:4), warning that the “uncircumcised ears” of Israel were not sensitive to the word of the Lord (Jer 6:10, <span>rsv<\/span> mg). Judgment will come upon Egypt, Edom, Ammon, Moab, and Judah, declares God, for “I am going to punish all who are circumcised only in flesh . . . for all these nations, and the whole House of Israel too, are uncircumcised at heart” (Jer 9:24-25, JB). Through Ezekiel the Lord complains that the temple has been profaned by the admission of aliens uncircumcised in heart and flesh (Ez 44:7, 9). Isaiah looks forward to the day when there will be a new Jerusalem into which the uncircumcised and unclean will no longer come.<\/p>","summary_ro":"The Spiritual Significance of Circumcision The hygienic act of circumcision symbolized the need for cleansing if the holy God was to enter into relationship with an unholy people. At first it was God’s intention to let the ritual teach its own lesson. In Genesis 17:9-27 the observance merely serves as the covenant seal; Abraham is given little explanation of the significance of the rite itself. Later Moses used the expression “uncircumcised lips” to describe his unskilled speech (Ex 6:12, 30)...","summary_en":"The Spiritual Significance of Circumcision The hygienic act of circumcision symbolized the need for cleansing if the holy God was to enter into relationship with an unholy people. At first it was God’s intention to let the ritual teach its own lesson. In Genesis 17:9-27 the observance merely serves as the covenant seal; Abraham is given little explanation of the significance of the rite itself. Later Moses used the expression “uncircumcised lips” to describe his unskilled speech (Ex 6:12, 30)...","source":"Textboxes\/Textboxes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":59938,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Circumcision","title_en":"Circumcision","content_ro":"<h3>Circumcision<\/h3>\n<p>Circumcision, the removal of the male foreskin, was practiced by a number of cultures in the ancient world (see Jer 9:25-26).<\/p>\n<p>God chose circumcision as the sign of a covenant that focuses on descendants. God had promised to make Abraham and his descendants into a great nation (Gen 12:2; 17:3-6) and to use them to redeem the Gentile nations (12:3; see Gal 3:8-9). Circumcision was God’s signature in flesh; it would identify Abraham and his descendants as God’s own people (Gen 17:9-14) and remind them to live in faithfulness to the covenant.<\/p>\n<p>Although circumcision was applied to adult males when they joined the covenant community (Gen 17:23-27; Exod 12:48; Josh 5:3-7), it was usually performed on infants (Gen 21:4; Lev 12:3), who received God’s promises and membership in the covenant community through their parents. Faith was required in order to receive God’s blessings, however, as can be seen in the differentiation between Ishmael and Isaac, Esau and Jacob, and Joseph and his brothers. Non-Israelites could also obligate themselves to Israel’s covenant (Exod 12:48; cp. Gen 34:15-24), and circumcision marked their inclusion into the worshiping community (e.g., Exod 12:44).<\/p>\n<p>Circumcision would help Israel recognize and remember that they must lay aside natural impurity. God’s people had to be loyal to the covenant, to the family, and to their own marriages. Intermarriage with uncircumcised people who were not of the covenant was a violation of the covenant. Any man who refused to be circumcised (physically <em>cut<\/em> in this symbolic way) would be <em>cut<\/em> off from the covenant people because of his disobedience to God’s command (Gen 17:14).<\/p>\n<p>Circumcision is a symbol of separation from the world, of purity, and of loyalty to the covenant. It provides the powerful metaphor of “circumcision of the heart,” which designates a heart that is committed to God and is inwardly set apart to God, rather than being stubbornly resistant (Lev 26:41; Deut 30:6; Jer 4:4; 9:26; Eph 2:11). Circumcision of the heart evidences salvation and fellowship with God (see Ezek 18:31-32; 36:25-27; Rom 2:28-29; 4:11).<\/p>\n<p>When Jesus Christ established God’s new covenant, he fulfilled the requirements of the old covenant. It is not necessary for Gentile believers to be circumcised, since they are incorporated into the people of God through faith in Christ (Acts 15:1-29; Rom 2:25-29; Gal 2:1-10; 6:15; Col 2:11-12). One must turn in confidence to God and his promises, lay aside sinful behavior and the customs of the world, and live a new life by faith (see Jer 31:33-34; Rom 8:1-17; Gal 5:16–6:10).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 17:9-14, 23-27; 21:4; 34:1-26; Exod 4:24-26; 12:48; Lev 12:3; Josh 5:2-8; Jer 9:25-26; Ezek 44:7-9; Luke 1:59; 2:21; Acts 15:1-31; 16:1-5; Rom 2:25-29; 1 Cor 7:17-19; Gal 5:1-6, 11-12; 6:12-16; Eph 2:11-18; Phil 3:2-7; Col 2:11; 3:11<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Circumcision<\/h3>\n<p>Circumcision, the removal of the male foreskin, was practiced by a number of cultures in the ancient world (see Jer 9:25-26).<\/p>\n<p>God chose circumcision as the sign of a covenant that focuses on descendants. God had promised to make Abraham and his descendants into a great nation (Gen 12:2; 17:3-6) and to use them to redeem the Gentile nations (12:3; see Gal 3:8-9). Circumcision was God’s signature in flesh; it would identify Abraham and his descendants as God’s own people (Gen 17:9-14) and remind them to live in faithfulness to the covenant.<\/p>\n<p>Although circumcision was applied to adult males when they joined the covenant community (Gen 17:23-27; Exod 12:48; Josh 5:3-7), it was usually performed on infants (Gen 21:4; Lev 12:3), who received God’s promises and membership in the covenant community through their parents. Faith was required in order to receive God’s blessings, however, as can be seen in the differentiation between Ishmael and Isaac, Esau and Jacob, and Joseph and his brothers. Non-Israelites could also obligate themselves to Israel’s covenant (Exod 12:48; cp. Gen 34:15-24), and circumcision marked their inclusion into the worshiping community (e.g., Exod 12:44).<\/p>\n<p>Circumcision would help Israel recognize and remember that they must lay aside natural impurity. God’s people had to be loyal to the covenant, to the family, and to their own marriages. Intermarriage with uncircumcised people who were not of the covenant was a violation of the covenant. Any man who refused to be circumcised (physically <em>cut<\/em> in this symbolic way) would be <em>cut<\/em> off from the covenant people because of his disobedience to God’s command (Gen 17:14).<\/p>\n<p>Circumcision is a symbol of separation from the world, of purity, and of loyalty to the covenant. It provides the powerful metaphor of “circumcision of the heart,” which designates a heart that is committed to God and is inwardly set apart to God, rather than being stubbornly resistant (Lev 26:41; Deut 30:6; Jer 4:4; 9:26; Eph 2:11). Circumcision of the heart evidences salvation and fellowship with God (see Ezek 18:31-32; 36:25-27; Rom 2:28-29; 4:11).<\/p>\n<p>When Jesus Christ established God’s new covenant, he fulfilled the requirements of the old covenant. It is not necessary for Gentile believers to be circumcised, since they are incorporated into the people of God through faith in Christ (Acts 15:1-29; Rom 2:25-29; Gal 2:1-10; 6:15; Col 2:11-12). One must turn in confidence to God and his promises, lay aside sinful behavior and the customs of the world, and live a new life by faith (see Jer 31:33-34; Rom 8:1-17; Gal 5:16–6:10).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 17:9-14, 23-27; 21:4; 34:1-26; Exod 4:24-26; 12:48; Lev 12:3; Josh 5:2-8; Jer 9:25-26; Ezek 44:7-9; Luke 1:59; 2:21; Acts 15:1-31; 16:1-5; Rom 2:25-29; 1 Cor 7:17-19; Gal 5:1-6, 11-12; 6:12-16; Eph 2:11-18; Phil 3:2-7; Col 2:11; 3:11<\/p>","summary_ro":"Circumcision Circumcision, the removal of the male foreskin, was practiced by a number of cultures in the ancient world (see Jer 9:25-26). God chose circumcision as the sign of a covenant that focuses on descendants. God had promised to make Abraham and his descendants into a great nation (Gen 12:2; 17:3-6) and to use them to redeem the Gentile nations (12:3; see Gal 3:8-9). Circumcision was God’s signature in flesh; it would identify Abraham and his descendants as God’s own people (Gen 17:9-...","summary_en":"Circumcision Circumcision, the removal of the male foreskin, was practiced by a number of cultures in the ancient world (see Jer 9:25-26). God chose circumcision as the sign of a covenant that focuses on descendants. God had promised to make Abraham and his descendants into a great nation (Gen 12:2; 17:3-6) and to use them to redeem the Gentile nations (12:3; see Gal 3:8-9). Circumcision was God’s signature in flesh; it would identify Abraham and his descendants as God’s own people (Gen 17:9-...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":87564,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Circumcision","title_en":"Circumcision","content_ro":"<h3>Circumcision<\/h3>\n<p>Circumcision, the removal of the male foreskin, was practiced by a number of cultures in the ancient world (see Jer 9:25-26).<\/p>\n<p>God chose circumcision as the sign of a covenant that focuses on descendants. God had promised to make Abraham and his descendants into a great nation (Gen 12:2; 17:3-6) and to use them to redeem the Gentile nations (12:3; see Gal 3:8-9). Circumcision was God’s signature in flesh; it would identify Abraham and his descendants as God’s own people (Gen 17:9-14) and remind them to live in faithfulness to the covenant.<\/p>\n<p>Although circumcision was applied to adult males when they joined the covenant community (Gen 17:23-27; Exod 12:48; Josh 5:3-7), it was usually performed on infants (Gen 21:4; Lev 12:3), who received God’s promises and membership in the covenant community through their parents. Faith was required in order to receive God’s blessings, however, as can be seen in the differentiation between Ishmael and Isaac, Esau and Jacob, and Joseph and his brothers. Non-Israelites could also obligate themselves to Israel’s covenant (Exod 12:48; cp. Gen 34:15-24), and circumcision marked their inclusion into the worshiping community (e.g., Exod 12:44).<\/p>\n<p>Circumcision would help Israel recognize and remember that they must lay aside natural impurity. God’s people had to be loyal to the covenant, to the family, and to their own marriages. Intermarriage with uncircumcised people who were not of the covenant was a violation of the covenant. Any man who refused to be circumcised (physically <em>cut<\/em> in this symbolic way) would be <em>cut<\/em> off from the covenant people because of his disobedience to God’s command (Gen 17:14).<\/p>\n<p>Circumcision is a symbol of separation from the world, of purity, and of loyalty to the covenant. It provides the powerful metaphor of “circumcision of the heart,” which designates a heart that is committed to God and is inwardly set apart to God, rather than being stubbornly resistant (Lev 26:41; Deut 30:6; Jer 4:4; 9:26; Eph 2:11). Circumcision of the heart evidences salvation and fellowship with God (see Ezek 18:31-32; 36:25-27; Rom 2:28-29; 4:11).<\/p>\n<p>When Jesus Christ established God’s new covenant, he fulfilled the requirements of the old covenant. It is not necessary for Gentile believers to be circumcised, since they are incorporated into the people of God through faith in Christ (Acts 15:1-29; Rom 2:25-29; Gal 2:1-10; 6:15; Col 2:11-12). One must turn in confidence to God and his promises, lay aside sinful behavior and the customs of the world, and live a new life by faith (see Jer 31:33-34; Rom 8:1-17; Gal 5:16–6:10).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 17:9-14, 23-27; 21:4; 34:1-26; Exod 4:24-26; 12:48; Lev 12:3; Josh 5:2-8; Jer 9:25-26; Ezek 44:7-9; Luke 1:59; 2:21; Acts 15:1-31; 16:1-5; Rom 2:25-29; 1 Cor 7:17-19; Gal 5:1-6, 11-12; 6:12-16; Eph 2:11-18; Phil 3:2-7; Col 2:11; 3:11<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Circumcision<\/h3>\n<p>Circumcision, the removal of the male foreskin, was practiced by a number of cultures in the ancient world (see Jer 9:25-26).<\/p>\n<p>God chose circumcision as the sign of a covenant that focuses on descendants. God had promised to make Abraham and his descendants into a great nation (Gen 12:2; 17:3-6) and to use them to redeem the Gentile nations (12:3; see Gal 3:8-9). Circumcision was God’s signature in flesh; it would identify Abraham and his descendants as God’s own people (Gen 17:9-14) and remind them to live in faithfulness to the covenant.<\/p>\n<p>Although circumcision was applied to adult males when they joined the covenant community (Gen 17:23-27; Exod 12:48; Josh 5:3-7), it was usually performed on infants (Gen 21:4; Lev 12:3), who received God’s promises and membership in the covenant community through their parents. Faith was required in order to receive God’s blessings, however, as can be seen in the differentiation between Ishmael and Isaac, Esau and Jacob, and Joseph and his brothers. Non-Israelites could also obligate themselves to Israel’s covenant (Exod 12:48; cp. Gen 34:15-24), and circumcision marked their inclusion into the worshiping community (e.g., Exod 12:44).<\/p>\n<p>Circumcision would help Israel recognize and remember that they must lay aside natural impurity. God’s people had to be loyal to the covenant, to the family, and to their own marriages. Intermarriage with uncircumcised people who were not of the covenant was a violation of the covenant. Any man who refused to be circumcised (physically <em>cut<\/em> in this symbolic way) would be <em>cut<\/em> off from the covenant people because of his disobedience to God’s command (Gen 17:14).<\/p>\n<p>Circumcision is a symbol of separation from the world, of purity, and of loyalty to the covenant. It provides the powerful metaphor of “circumcision of the heart,” which designates a heart that is committed to God and is inwardly set apart to God, rather than being stubbornly resistant (Lev 26:41; Deut 30:6; Jer 4:4; 9:26; Eph 2:11). Circumcision of the heart evidences salvation and fellowship with God (see Ezek 18:31-32; 36:25-27; Rom 2:28-29; 4:11).<\/p>\n<p>When Jesus Christ established God’s new covenant, he fulfilled the requirements of the old covenant. It is not necessary for Gentile believers to be circumcised, since they are incorporated into the people of God through faith in Christ (Acts 15:1-29; Rom 2:25-29; Gal 2:1-10; 6:15; Col 2:11-12). One must turn in confidence to God and his promises, lay aside sinful behavior and the customs of the world, and live a new life by faith (see Jer 31:33-34; Rom 8:1-17; Gal 5:16–6:10).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 17:9-14, 23-27; 21:4; 34:1-26; Exod 4:24-26; 12:48; Lev 12:3; Josh 5:2-8; Jer 9:25-26; Ezek 44:7-9; Luke 1:59; 2:21; Acts 15:1-31; 16:1-5; Rom 2:25-29; 1 Cor 7:17-19; Gal 5:1-6, 11-12; 6:12-16; Eph 2:11-18; Phil 3:2-7; Col 2:11; 3:11<\/p>","summary_ro":"Circumcision Circumcision, the removal of the male foreskin, was practiced by a number of cultures in the ancient world (see Jer 9:25-26). God chose circumcision as the sign of a covenant that focuses on descendants. God had promised to make Abraham and his descendants into a great nation (Gen 12:2; 17:3-6) and to use them to redeem the Gentile nations (12:3; see Gal 3:8-9). Circumcision was God’s signature in flesh; it would identify Abraham and his descendants as God’s own people (Gen 17:9-...","summary_en":"Circumcision Circumcision, the removal of the male foreskin, was practiced by a number of cultures in the ancient world (see Jer 9:25-26). God chose circumcision as the sign of a covenant that focuses on descendants. God had promised to make Abraham and his descendants into a great nation (Gen 12:2; 17:3-6) and to use them to redeem the Gentile nations (12:3; see Gal 3:8-9). Circumcision was God’s signature in flesh; it would identify Abraham and his descendants as God’s own people (Gen 17:9-...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":115190,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Circumcision","title_en":"Circumcision","content_ro":"<h3>Circumcision<\/h3>\n<p>Circumcision, the removal of the male foreskin, was practiced by a number of cultures in the ancient world (see Jer 9:25-26).<\/p>\n<p>God chose circumcision as the sign of a covenant that focuses on descendants. God had promised to make Abraham and his descendants into a great nation (Gen 12:2; 17:3-6) and to use them to redeem the Gentile nations (12:3; see Gal 3:8-9). Circumcision was God’s signature in flesh; it would identify Abraham and his descendants as God’s own people (Gen 17:9-14) and remind them to live in faithfulness to the covenant.<\/p>\n<p>Although circumcision was applied to adult males when they joined the covenant community (Gen 17:23-27; Exod 12:48; Josh 5:3-7), it was usually performed on infants (Gen 21:4; Lev 12:3), who received God’s promises and membership in the covenant community through their parents. Faith was required in order to receive God’s blessings, however, as can be seen in the differentiation between Ishmael and Isaac, Esau and Jacob, and Joseph and his brothers. Non-Israelites could also obligate themselves to Israel’s covenant (Exod 12:48; cp. Gen 34:15-24), and circumcision marked their inclusion into the worshiping community (e.g., Exod 12:44).<\/p>\n<p>Circumcision would help Israel recognize and remember that they must lay aside natural impurity. God’s people had to be loyal to the covenant, to the family, and to their own marriages. Intermarriage with uncircumcised people who were not of the covenant was a violation of the covenant. Any man who refused to be circumcised (physically <em>cut<\/em> in this symbolic way) would be <em>cut<\/em> off from the covenant people because of his disobedience to God’s command (Gen 17:14).<\/p>\n<p>Circumcision is a symbol of separation from the world, of purity, and of loyalty to the covenant. It provides the powerful metaphor of “circumcision of the heart,” which designates a heart that is committed to God and is inwardly set apart to God, rather than being stubbornly resistant (Lev 26:41; Deut 30:6; Jer 4:4; 9:26; Eph 2:11). Circumcision of the heart evidences salvation and fellowship with God (see Ezek 18:31-32; 36:25-27; Rom 2:28-29; 4:11).<\/p>\n<p>When Jesus Christ established God’s new covenant, he fulfilled the requirements of the old covenant. It is not necessary for Gentile believers to be circumcised, since they are incorporated into the people of God through faith in Christ (Acts 15:1-29; Rom 2:25-29; Gal 2:1-10; 6:15; Col 2:11-12). One must turn in confidence to God and his promises, lay aside sinful behavior and the customs of the world, and live a new life by faith (see Jer 31:33-34; Rom 8:1-17; Gal 5:16–6:10).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 17:9-14, 23-27; 21:4; 34:1-26; Exod 4:24-26; 12:48; Lev 12:3; Josh 5:2-8; Jer 9:25-26; Ezek 44:7-9; Luke 1:59; 2:21; Acts 15:1-31; 16:1-5; Rom 2:25-29; 1 Cor 7:17-19; Gal 5:1-6, 11-12; 6:12-16; Eph 2:11-18; Phil 3:2-7; Col 2:11; 3:11<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Circumcision<\/h3>\n<p>Circumcision, the removal of the male foreskin, was practiced by a number of cultures in the ancient world (see Jer 9:25-26).<\/p>\n<p>God chose circumcision as the sign of a covenant that focuses on descendants. God had promised to make Abraham and his descendants into a great nation (Gen 12:2; 17:3-6) and to use them to redeem the Gentile nations (12:3; see Gal 3:8-9). Circumcision was God’s signature in flesh; it would identify Abraham and his descendants as God’s own people (Gen 17:9-14) and remind them to live in faithfulness to the covenant.<\/p>\n<p>Although circumcision was applied to adult males when they joined the covenant community (Gen 17:23-27; Exod 12:48; Josh 5:3-7), it was usually performed on infants (Gen 21:4; Lev 12:3), who received God’s promises and membership in the covenant community through their parents. Faith was required in order to receive God’s blessings, however, as can be seen in the differentiation between Ishmael and Isaac, Esau and Jacob, and Joseph and his brothers. Non-Israelites could also obligate themselves to Israel’s covenant (Exod 12:48; cp. Gen 34:15-24), and circumcision marked their inclusion into the worshiping community (e.g., Exod 12:44).<\/p>\n<p>Circumcision would help Israel recognize and remember that they must lay aside natural impurity. God’s people had to be loyal to the covenant, to the family, and to their own marriages. Intermarriage with uncircumcised people who were not of the covenant was a violation of the covenant. Any man who refused to be circumcised (physically <em>cut<\/em> in this symbolic way) would be <em>cut<\/em> off from the covenant people because of his disobedience to God’s command (Gen 17:14).<\/p>\n<p>Circumcision is a symbol of separation from the world, of purity, and of loyalty to the covenant. It provides the powerful metaphor of “circumcision of the heart,” which designates a heart that is committed to God and is inwardly set apart to God, rather than being stubbornly resistant (Lev 26:41; Deut 30:6; Jer 4:4; 9:26; Eph 2:11). Circumcision of the heart evidences salvation and fellowship with God (see Ezek 18:31-32; 36:25-27; Rom 2:28-29; 4:11).<\/p>\n<p>When Jesus Christ established God’s new covenant, he fulfilled the requirements of the old covenant. It is not necessary for Gentile believers to be circumcised, since they are incorporated into the people of God through faith in Christ (Acts 15:1-29; Rom 2:25-29; Gal 2:1-10; 6:15; Col 2:11-12). One must turn in confidence to God and his promises, lay aside sinful behavior and the customs of the world, and live a new life by faith (see Jer 31:33-34; Rom 8:1-17; Gal 5:16–6:10).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 17:9-14, 23-27; 21:4; 34:1-26; Exod 4:24-26; 12:48; Lev 12:3; Josh 5:2-8; Jer 9:25-26; Ezek 44:7-9; Luke 1:59; 2:21; Acts 15:1-31; 16:1-5; Rom 2:25-29; 1 Cor 7:17-19; Gal 5:1-6, 11-12; 6:12-16; Eph 2:11-18; Phil 3:2-7; Col 2:11; 3:11<\/p>","summary_ro":"Circumcision Circumcision, the removal of the male foreskin, was practiced by a number of cultures in the ancient world (see Jer 9:25-26). God chose circumcision as the sign of a covenant that focuses on descendants. God had promised to make Abraham and his descendants into a great nation (Gen 12:2; 17:3-6) and to use them to redeem the Gentile nations (12:3; see Gal 3:8-9). Circumcision was God’s signature in flesh; it would identify Abraham and his descendants as God’s own people (Gen 17:9-...","summary_en":"Circumcision Circumcision, the removal of the male foreskin, was practiced by a number of cultures in the ancient world (see Jer 9:25-26). God chose circumcision as the sign of a covenant that focuses on descendants. God had promised to make Abraham and his descendants into a great nation (Gen 12:2; 17:3-6) and to use them to redeem the Gentile nations (12:3; see Gal 3:8-9). Circumcision was God’s signature in flesh; it would identify Abraham and his descendants as God’s own people (Gen 17:9-...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":142816,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Circumcision","title_en":"Circumcision","content_ro":"<h3>Circumcision<\/h3>\n<p>Circumcision, the removal of the male foreskin, was practiced by a number of cultures in the ancient world (see Jer 9:25-26).<\/p>\n<p>God chose circumcision as the sign of a covenant that focuses on descendants. God had promised to make Abraham and his descendants into a great nation (Gen 12:2; 17:3-6) and to use them to redeem the Gentile nations (12:3; see Gal 3:8-9). Circumcision was God’s signature in flesh; it would identify Abraham and his descendants as God’s own people (Gen 17:9-14) and remind them to live in faithfulness to the covenant.<\/p>\n<p>Although circumcision was applied to adult males when they joined the covenant community (Gen 17:23-27; Exod 12:48; Josh 5:3-7), it was usually performed on infants (Gen 21:4; Lev 12:3), who received God’s promises and membership in the covenant community through their parents. Faith was required in order to receive God’s blessings, however, as can be seen in the differentiation between Ishmael and Isaac, Esau and Jacob, and Joseph and his brothers. Non-Israelites could also obligate themselves to Israel’s covenant (Exod 12:48; cp. Gen 34:15-24), and circumcision marked their inclusion into the worshiping community (e.g., Exod 12:44).<\/p>\n<p>Circumcision would help Israel recognize and remember that they must lay aside natural impurity. God’s people had to be loyal to the covenant, to the family, and to their own marriages. Intermarriage with uncircumcised people who were not of the covenant was a violation of the covenant. Any man who refused to be circumcised (physically <em>cut<\/em> in this symbolic way) would be <em>cut<\/em> off from the covenant people because of his disobedience to God’s command (Gen 17:14).<\/p>\n<p>Circumcision is a symbol of separation from the world, of purity, and of loyalty to the covenant. It provides the powerful metaphor of “circumcision of the heart,” which designates a heart that is committed to God and is inwardly set apart to God, rather than being stubbornly resistant (Lev 26:41; Deut 30:6; Jer 4:4; 9:26; Eph 2:11). Circumcision of the heart evidences salvation and fellowship with God (see Ezek 18:31-32; 36:25-27; Rom 2:28-29; 4:11).<\/p>\n<p>When Jesus Christ established God’s new covenant, he fulfilled the requirements of the old covenant. It is not necessary for Gentile believers to be circumcised, since they are incorporated into the people of God through faith in Christ (Acts 15:1-29; Rom 2:25-29; Gal 2:1-10; 6:15; Col 2:11-12). One must turn in confidence to God and his promises, lay aside sinful behavior and the customs of the world, and live a new life by faith (see Jer 31:33-34; Rom 8:1-17; Gal 5:16–6:10).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 17:9-14, 23-27; 21:4; 34:1-26; Exod 4:24-26; 12:48; Lev 12:3; Josh 5:2-8; Jer 9:25-26; Ezek 44:7-9; Luke 1:59; 2:21; Acts 15:1-31; 16:1-5; Rom 2:25-29; 1 Cor 7:17-19; Gal 5:1-6, 11-12; 6:12-16; Eph 2:11-18; Phil 3:2-7; Col 2:11; 3:11<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Circumcision<\/h3>\n<p>Circumcision, the removal of the male foreskin, was practiced by a number of cultures in the ancient world (see Jer 9:25-26).<\/p>\n<p>God chose circumcision as the sign of a covenant that focuses on descendants. God had promised to make Abraham and his descendants into a great nation (Gen 12:2; 17:3-6) and to use them to redeem the Gentile nations (12:3; see Gal 3:8-9). Circumcision was God’s signature in flesh; it would identify Abraham and his descendants as God’s own people (Gen 17:9-14) and remind them to live in faithfulness to the covenant.<\/p>\n<p>Although circumcision was applied to adult males when they joined the covenant community (Gen 17:23-27; Exod 12:48; Josh 5:3-7), it was usually performed on infants (Gen 21:4; Lev 12:3), who received God’s promises and membership in the covenant community through their parents. Faith was required in order to receive God’s blessings, however, as can be seen in the differentiation between Ishmael and Isaac, Esau and Jacob, and Joseph and his brothers. Non-Israelites could also obligate themselves to Israel’s covenant (Exod 12:48; cp. Gen 34:15-24), and circumcision marked their inclusion into the worshiping community (e.g., Exod 12:44).<\/p>\n<p>Circumcision would help Israel recognize and remember that they must lay aside natural impurity. God’s people had to be loyal to the covenant, to the family, and to their own marriages. Intermarriage with uncircumcised people who were not of the covenant was a violation of the covenant. Any man who refused to be circumcised (physically <em>cut<\/em> in this symbolic way) would be <em>cut<\/em> off from the covenant people because of his disobedience to God’s command (Gen 17:14).<\/p>\n<p>Circumcision is a symbol of separation from the world, of purity, and of loyalty to the covenant. It provides the powerful metaphor of “circumcision of the heart,” which designates a heart that is committed to God and is inwardly set apart to God, rather than being stubbornly resistant (Lev 26:41; Deut 30:6; Jer 4:4; 9:26; Eph 2:11). Circumcision of the heart evidences salvation and fellowship with God (see Ezek 18:31-32; 36:25-27; Rom 2:28-29; 4:11).<\/p>\n<p>When Jesus Christ established God’s new covenant, he fulfilled the requirements of the old covenant. It is not necessary for Gentile believers to be circumcised, since they are incorporated into the people of God through faith in Christ (Acts 15:1-29; Rom 2:25-29; Gal 2:1-10; 6:15; Col 2:11-12). One must turn in confidence to God and his promises, lay aside sinful behavior and the customs of the world, and live a new life by faith (see Jer 31:33-34; Rom 8:1-17; Gal 5:16–6:10).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 17:9-14, 23-27; 21:4; 34:1-26; Exod 4:24-26; 12:48; Lev 12:3; Josh 5:2-8; Jer 9:25-26; Ezek 44:7-9; Luke 1:59; 2:21; Acts 15:1-31; 16:1-5; Rom 2:25-29; 1 Cor 7:17-19; Gal 5:1-6, 11-12; 6:12-16; Eph 2:11-18; Phil 3:2-7; Col 2:11; 3:11<\/p>","summary_ro":"Circumcision Circumcision, the removal of the male foreskin, was practiced by a number of cultures in the ancient world (see Jer 9:25-26). God chose circumcision as the sign of a covenant that focuses on descendants. God had promised to make Abraham and his descendants into a great nation (Gen 12:2; 17:3-6) and to use them to redeem the Gentile nations (12:3; see Gal 3:8-9). Circumcision was God’s signature in flesh; it would identify Abraham and his descendants as God’s own people (Gen 17:9-...","summary_en":"Circumcision Circumcision, the removal of the male foreskin, was practiced by a number of cultures in the ancient world (see Jer 9:25-26). God chose circumcision as the sign of a covenant that focuses on descendants. God had promised to make Abraham and his descendants into a great nation (Gen 12:2; 17:3-6) and to use them to redeem the Gentile nations (12:3; see Gal 3:8-9). Circumcision was God’s signature in flesh; it would identify Abraham and his descendants as God’s own people (Gen 17:9-...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"9":[{"id":12610,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Foreigner","title_en":"Foreigner","content_ro":"<h3>FOREIGNER<\/h3>\n<p>Noncitizen or alien, temporary guest, sojourner, or stranger.<\/p>\n<p>The Hebrew word meaning “foreigner” is rendered correctly on all occasions in the <span>rsv<\/span>, but the <span>kjv<\/span> uses it in its truest sense on only two occasions (Dt 15:3; Ob 1:11). In most cases the <span>kjv<\/span> translates the word as “alien” (Dt 14:21; Jb 19:15; Ps 69:8; Lam 5:2) or “stranger” (Gn 15:13; Ex 2:22; Lv 25:35). Another Hebrew word means “dweller” (Lv 25:35; 1 Chr 29:15; Ps 39:12) or “settler.” For the most part, however, it is rendered “foreigner.”<\/p>\n<p>A temporary guest or sojourner was usually someone who wanted to take up temporary residence or had moved from one tribe of people to another, and then attempted to obtain certain privileges or rights belonging to the natives. A whole tribe might be sojourners in Israel. This was the case with the Gibeonites (Jos 9) and the Beerothites (2 Sm 4:3; cf. 2 Chr 2:17). The Israelites themselves were sojourners in the land of Egypt (Gn 15:13; 23:4; 26:3; 47:4; Ex 2:22; 23:9) and in other lands (Ru 1:1).<\/p>\n<p>Foreigners or sojourners had certain rights but also certain limitations while in Israel. They could offer sacrifices (Lv 17:8; 22:18) but could not enter the sanctuary unless circumcised (Ez 44:9). They were allowed to participate in the three great Jewish festivals (Dt 16:11, 14) but could not eat the Passover meal unless circumcised (Ex 12:43, 48). Foreigners were not obliged to follow the Israelite religion, but they shared in some of its benefits (Dt 14:29). They were not to work on the Sabbath or the Day of Atonement (Ex 20:10; 23:12; Lv 16:29; Dt 5:14) and could be stoned for reviling or blaspheming God’s name (Lv 24:16; Nm 15:30). Foreigners were forbidden to eat blood (Lv 17:10-12) but could eat animals that had died a natural death (Dt 14:21). Israel’s code of sexual morality also applied to the foreigner (Lv 18:26). There were prohibitions against Israelites intermarrying with foreigners, but it was nevertheless a common occurrence (Gn 34:14; Ex 34:12, 16; Dt 7:3-4; Jos 23:12).<\/p>\n<p>Civil rights were provided for foreigners by the law of Moses (Ex 12:49; Lv 24:22), and they came under the same legal processes and penalties (Lv 20:2; 24:16, 22; Dt 1:16). They were to be treated politely (Ex 22:21; 23:9), loved as those under the love of God (Lv 19:34; Dt 10:18-19), and treated generously (Lv 19:10; 23:22; Dt 24:19-22). They could receive asylum in times of trouble (Nm 35:15; Jos 20:9). Foreign servants were to receive treatment equal to Hebrew servants (Dt 24:14). A foreigner could not take part in tribal deliberations or become a king (17:15). The prophet Ezekiel looked forward to the messianic age when the foreigner would share all the blessings of the land with God’s own people (Ez 47:22-23).<\/p>\n<p>In the NT, “foreigner” is often used metaphorically. On the one hand, the work of Christ allowed all foreigners (i.e., those alienated from Christ) to become members of God’s household (Eph 2:11-19). On the other hand, Christians should consider themselves foreigners in this world (Heb 11:13; 1 Pt 2:11).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Barbarian; Neighbor.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>FOREIGNER<\/h3>\n<p>Noncitizen or alien, temporary guest, sojourner, or stranger.<\/p>\n<p>The Hebrew word meaning “foreigner” is rendered correctly on all occasions in the <span>rsv<\/span>, but the <span>kjv<\/span> uses it in its truest sense on only two occasions (Dt 15:3; Ob 1:11). In most cases the <span>kjv<\/span> translates the word as “alien” (Dt 14:21; Jb 19:15; Ps 69:8; Lam 5:2) or “stranger” (Gn 15:13; Ex 2:22; Lv 25:35). Another Hebrew word means “dweller” (Lv 25:35; 1 Chr 29:15; Ps 39:12) or “settler.” For the most part, however, it is rendered “foreigner.”<\/p>\n<p>A temporary guest or sojourner was usually someone who wanted to take up temporary residence or had moved from one tribe of people to another, and then attempted to obtain certain privileges or rights belonging to the natives. A whole tribe might be sojourners in Israel. This was the case with the Gibeonites (Jos 9) and the Beerothites (2 Sm 4:3; cf. 2 Chr 2:17). The Israelites themselves were sojourners in the land of Egypt (Gn 15:13; 23:4; 26:3; 47:4; Ex 2:22; 23:9) and in other lands (Ru 1:1).<\/p>\n<p>Foreigners or sojourners had certain rights but also certain limitations while in Israel. They could offer sacrifices (Lv 17:8; 22:18) but could not enter the sanctuary unless circumcised (Ez 44:9). They were allowed to participate in the three great Jewish festivals (Dt 16:11, 14) but could not eat the Passover meal unless circumcised (Ex 12:43, 48). Foreigners were not obliged to follow the Israelite religion, but they shared in some of its benefits (Dt 14:29). They were not to work on the Sabbath or the Day of Atonement (Ex 20:10; 23:12; Lv 16:29; Dt 5:14) and could be stoned for reviling or blaspheming God’s name (Lv 24:16; Nm 15:30). Foreigners were forbidden to eat blood (Lv 17:10-12) but could eat animals that had died a natural death (Dt 14:21). Israel’s code of sexual morality also applied to the foreigner (Lv 18:26). There were prohibitions against Israelites intermarrying with foreigners, but it was nevertheless a common occurrence (Gn 34:14; Ex 34:12, 16; Dt 7:3-4; Jos 23:12).<\/p>\n<p>Civil rights were provided for foreigners by the law of Moses (Ex 12:49; Lv 24:22), and they came under the same legal processes and penalties (Lv 20:2; 24:16, 22; Dt 1:16). They were to be treated politely (Ex 22:21; 23:9), loved as those under the love of God (Lv 19:34; Dt 10:18-19), and treated generously (Lv 19:10; 23:22; Dt 24:19-22). They could receive asylum in times of trouble (Nm 35:15; Jos 20:9). Foreign servants were to receive treatment equal to Hebrew servants (Dt 24:14). A foreigner could not take part in tribal deliberations or become a king (17:15). The prophet Ezekiel looked forward to the messianic age when the foreigner would share all the blessings of the land with God’s own people (Ez 47:22-23).<\/p>\n<p>In the NT, “foreigner” is often used metaphorically. On the one hand, the work of Christ allowed all foreigners (i.e., those alienated from Christ) to become members of God’s household (Eph 2:11-19). On the other hand, Christians should consider themselves foreigners in this world (Heb 11:13; 1 Pt 2:11).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Barbarian; Neighbor.<\/p>","summary_ro":"FOREIGNER Noncitizen or alien, temporary guest, sojourner, or stranger. The Hebrew word meaning “foreigner” is rendered correctly on all occasions in the rsv, but the kjv uses it in its truest sense on only two occasions (Dt 15:3; Ob 1:11). In most cases the kjv translates the word as “alien” (Dt 14:21; Jb 19:15; Ps 69:8; Lam 5:2) or “stranger” (Gn 15:13; Ex 2:22; Lv 25:35). Another Hebrew word means “dweller” (Lv 25:35; 1 Chr 29:15; Ps 39:12) or “settler.” For the most part, however, it is r...","summary_en":"FOREIGNER Noncitizen or alien, temporary guest, sojourner, or stranger. The Hebrew word meaning “foreigner” is rendered correctly on all occasions in the rsv, but the kjv uses it in its truest sense on only two occasions (Dt 15:3; Ob 1:11). In most cases the kjv translates the word as “alien” (Dt 14:21; Jb 19:15; Ps 69:8; Lam 5:2) or “stranger” (Gn 15:13; Ex 2:22; Lv 25:35). Another Hebrew word means “dweller” (Lv 25:35; 1 Chr 29:15; Ps 39:12) or “settler.” For the most part, however, it is r...","source":"Articles\/F.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":53370,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ezechiel 44:9","title_en":"Study Note: Ezechiel 44:9","content_ro":"<p><strong>44:9<\/strong> <em>No foreigners:<\/em> This was not a blanket prohibition against non-Israelite access to the sanctuary. It only affected those who had <em>not been circumcised and have not surrendered themselves to the<\/em> <span>Lord<\/span>. Genuine converts could be part of the new Israel (see 47:22-23).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>44:9<\/strong> <em>No foreigners:<\/em> This was not a blanket prohibition against non-Israelite access to the sanctuary. It only affected those who had <em>not been circumcised and have not surrendered themselves to the<\/em> <span>Lord<\/span>. Genuine converts could be part of the new Israel (see 47:22-23).<\/p>","summary_ro":"44:9 No foreigners: This was not a blanket prohibition against non-Israelite access to the sanctuary. It only affected those who had not been circumcised and have not surrendered themselves to the Lord. Genuine converts could be part of the new Israel (see 47:22-23).","summary_en":"44:9 No foreigners: This was not a blanket prohibition against non-Israelite access to the sanctuary. It only affected those who had not been circumcised and have not surrendered themselves to the Lord. Genuine converts could be part of the new Israel (see 47:22-23).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":80996,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ezechiel 44:9","title_en":"Study Note: Ezechiel 44:9","content_ro":"<p><strong>44:9<\/strong> <em>No foreigners:<\/em> This was not a blanket prohibition against non-Israelite access to the sanctuary. It only affected those who had <em>not been circumcised and have not surrendered themselves to the<\/em> <span>Lord<\/span>. Genuine converts could be part of the new Israel (see 47:22-23).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>44:9<\/strong> <em>No foreigners:<\/em> This was not a blanket prohibition against non-Israelite access to the sanctuary. It only affected those who had <em>not been circumcised and have not surrendered themselves to the<\/em> <span>Lord<\/span>. Genuine converts could be part of the new Israel (see 47:22-23).<\/p>","summary_ro":"44:9 No foreigners: This was not a blanket prohibition against non-Israelite access to the sanctuary. It only affected those who had not been circumcised and have not surrendered themselves to the Lord. Genuine converts could be part of the new Israel (see 47:22-23).","summary_en":"44:9 No foreigners: This was not a blanket prohibition against non-Israelite access to the sanctuary. It only affected those who had not been circumcised and have not surrendered themselves to the Lord. Genuine converts could be part of the new Israel (see 47:22-23).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":108622,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ezechiel 44:9","title_en":"Study Note: Ezechiel 44:9","content_ro":"<p><strong>44:9<\/strong> <em>No foreigners:<\/em> This was not a blanket prohibition against non-Israelite access to the sanctuary. It only affected those who had <em>not been circumcised and have not surrendered themselves to the<\/em> <span>Lord<\/span>. Genuine converts could be part of the new Israel (see 47:22-23).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>44:9<\/strong> <em>No foreigners:<\/em> This was not a blanket prohibition against non-Israelite access to the sanctuary. It only affected those who had <em>not been circumcised and have not surrendered themselves to the<\/em> <span>Lord<\/span>. Genuine converts could be part of the new Israel (see 47:22-23).<\/p>","summary_ro":"44:9 No foreigners: This was not a blanket prohibition against non-Israelite access to the sanctuary. It only affected those who had not been circumcised and have not surrendered themselves to the Lord. Genuine converts could be part of the new Israel (see 47:22-23).","summary_en":"44:9 No foreigners: This was not a blanket prohibition against non-Israelite access to the sanctuary. It only affected those who had not been circumcised and have not surrendered themselves to the Lord. Genuine converts could be part of the new Israel (see 47:22-23).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":136248,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ezechiel 44:9","title_en":"Study Note: Ezechiel 44:9","content_ro":"<p><strong>44:9<\/strong> <em>No foreigners:<\/em> This was not a blanket prohibition against non-Israelite access to the sanctuary. It only affected those who had <em>not been circumcised and have not surrendered themselves to the<\/em> <span>Lord<\/span>. Genuine converts could be part of the new Israel (see 47:22-23).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>44:9<\/strong> <em>No foreigners:<\/em> This was not a blanket prohibition against non-Israelite access to the sanctuary. It only affected those who had <em>not been circumcised and have not surrendered themselves to the<\/em> <span>Lord<\/span>. Genuine converts could be part of the new Israel (see 47:22-23).<\/p>","summary_ro":"44:9 No foreigners: This was not a blanket prohibition against non-Israelite access to the sanctuary. It only affected those who had not been circumcised and have not surrendered themselves to the Lord. Genuine converts could be part of the new Israel (see 47:22-23).","summary_en":"44:9 No foreigners: This was not a blanket prohibition against non-Israelite access to the sanctuary. It only affected those who had not been circumcised and have not surrendered themselves to the Lord. Genuine converts could be part of the new Israel (see 47:22-23).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"10":[{"id":38880,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Zadok","title_en":"Zadok","content_ro":"<h3>ZADOK<\/h3>\n<p>Common OT name meaning “righteous one.”<\/p>\n<p>1. David’s priest, probably the most famous and influential of Israel’s high priests apart from Aaron. He first appeared at the time of Absalom’s revolt, when he and his fellow priest Abiathar showed their loyalty to David by coming to him with the ark, fully prepared to share his exile (2 Sm 15:24-29). David refused their offer and sent them back to Jerusalem to act in his interests.<\/p>\n<p>In 2 Samuel 8:17, Zadok is listed as the son of Ahitub, who is noted in 1 Samuel 14:3 as the grandson of Eli. In the genealogies of Chronicles, Zadok’s descent through Ahitub is traced back to Eleazar, the eldest son of Aaron (1 Chr 6:1-8, 50-53; Ezr 7:2-5), but with no reference to Eli. A slight problem emerges in that Zadok replaces the banished Abiathar, a descendant of Eli. This is regarded as the fulfillment of an earlier prophecy that the tenure of the high priestly office by Eli’s family would be broken in favor of a different branch of Aaron’s family (1 Sm 2:30-36; 1 Kgs 2:26-27).<\/p>\n<p>In both summaries of David’s court officials (2 Sm 8:17; 20:25), Zadok is listed as one of David’s two principal priests, an office held throughout the latter part of David’s reign. When David was near death, a power struggle over the throne was precipitated by Adonijah, David’s oldest surviving son. With the support of Joab, the commander of the army, and the priest Abiathar, David’s long-standing friend, Adonijah declared himself king (1 Kgs 1:5-10). Nathan the prophet promptly intervened with Bathsheba as Solomon’s advocate. Zadok and Benaiah, the captain of the mercenary troops, supported Solomon. Adonijah’s cause was hopeless once David had indicated his approval of Nathan’s plans. Consequently, the discredited Abiathar was banished (2:26-27), leaving the loyal Zadok as Solomon’s chief priest (2:35; 4:4).<\/p>\n<p>In the centuries that followed, the descendants of Zadok preserved this dominance, and as Jerusalem’s prestige increased, so did their status. Azariah, the chief priest in Hezekiah’s reign, was a Zadokite (2 Chr 31:10). Ezekiel restricted the main priestly functions to the “sons of Zadok,” demoting the Levites generally to the rank of “temple caretakers” because of their apostasy during the monarchy (Ez 44:10-16). When the Jews came under Seleucid domination in the early second century <span>BC<\/span>, the high priesthood, regarded as a political appointment, was taken away from the Zadokites. Conservative elements, however, like the Qumran covenanters, continued to look for its restoration.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> David; Israel, History of.<\/p>\n<li>2. Father-in-law of Uzziah and grandfather of Jotham, kings of Judah (2 Kgs 15:32-33; 2 Chr 27:1).<\/li>\n<li>3. Descendant of Zadok, David’s priest (1 Chr 6:12; 9:11; Neh 11:11).<\/li>\n<li>4. Young man of exceptional courage, the leader of a contingent that joined David at Hebron against Saul (1 Chr 12:28).<\/li>\n<li>5. Son of Baana, who helped to repair the wall of Jerusalem in Nehemiah’s time (Neh 3:4).<\/li>\n<li>6. Son of Immer, who also shared in Nehemiah’s rebuilding operations (Neh 3:29).<\/li>\n<li>7. Signatory to Nehemiah’s covenant (Neh 10:21) and perhaps identifiable with #5 or #6 above.<\/li>\n<li>8. One of three treasurers appointed by Nehemiah during his second term of office, called the scribe (Neh 13:13).<\/li>\n<li>9. Ancestor of Christ (Mt 1:14). <em>See<\/em> Genealogy of Jesus Christ.<\/li>","content_en":"<h3>ZADOK<\/h3>\n<p>Common OT name meaning “righteous one.”<\/p>\n<p>1. David’s priest, probably the most famous and influential of Israel’s high priests apart from Aaron. He first appeared at the time of Absalom’s revolt, when he and his fellow priest Abiathar showed their loyalty to David by coming to him with the ark, fully prepared to share his exile (2 Sm 15:24-29). David refused their offer and sent them back to Jerusalem to act in his interests.<\/p>\n<p>In 2 Samuel 8:17, Zadok is listed as the son of Ahitub, who is noted in 1 Samuel 14:3 as the grandson of Eli. In the genealogies of Chronicles, Zadok’s descent through Ahitub is traced back to Eleazar, the eldest son of Aaron (1 Chr 6:1-8, 50-53; Ezr 7:2-5), but with no reference to Eli. A slight problem emerges in that Zadok replaces the banished Abiathar, a descendant of Eli. This is regarded as the fulfillment of an earlier prophecy that the tenure of the high priestly office by Eli’s family would be broken in favor of a different branch of Aaron’s family (1 Sm 2:30-36; 1 Kgs 2:26-27).<\/p>\n<p>In both summaries of David’s court officials (2 Sm 8:17; 20:25), Zadok is listed as one of David’s two principal priests, an office held throughout the latter part of David’s reign. When David was near death, a power struggle over the throne was precipitated by Adonijah, David’s oldest surviving son. With the support of Joab, the commander of the army, and the priest Abiathar, David’s long-standing friend, Adonijah declared himself king (1 Kgs 1:5-10). Nathan the prophet promptly intervened with Bathsheba as Solomon’s advocate. Zadok and Benaiah, the captain of the mercenary troops, supported Solomon. Adonijah’s cause was hopeless once David had indicated his approval of Nathan’s plans. Consequently, the discredited Abiathar was banished (2:26-27), leaving the loyal Zadok as Solomon’s chief priest (2:35; 4:4).<\/p>\n<p>In the centuries that followed, the descendants of Zadok preserved this dominance, and as Jerusalem’s prestige increased, so did their status. Azariah, the chief priest in Hezekiah’s reign, was a Zadokite (2 Chr 31:10). Ezekiel restricted the main priestly functions to the “sons of Zadok,” demoting the Levites generally to the rank of “temple caretakers” because of their apostasy during the monarchy (Ez 44:10-16). When the Jews came under Seleucid domination in the early second century <span>BC<\/span>, the high priesthood, regarded as a political appointment, was taken away from the Zadokites. Conservative elements, however, like the Qumran covenanters, continued to look for its restoration.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> David; Israel, History of.<\/p>\n<li>2. Father-in-law of Uzziah and grandfather of Jotham, kings of Judah (2 Kgs 15:32-33; 2 Chr 27:1).<\/li>\n<li>3. Descendant of Zadok, David’s priest (1 Chr 6:12; 9:11; Neh 11:11).<\/li>\n<li>4. Young man of exceptional courage, the leader of a contingent that joined David at Hebron against Saul (1 Chr 12:28).<\/li>\n<li>5. Son of Baana, who helped to repair the wall of Jerusalem in Nehemiah’s time (Neh 3:4).<\/li>\n<li>6. Son of Immer, who also shared in Nehemiah’s rebuilding operations (Neh 3:29).<\/li>\n<li>7. Signatory to Nehemiah’s covenant (Neh 10:21) and perhaps identifiable with #5 or #6 above.<\/li>\n<li>8. One of three treasurers appointed by Nehemiah during his second term of office, called the scribe (Neh 13:13).<\/li>\n<li>9. Ancestor of Christ (Mt 1:14). <em>See<\/em> Genealogy of Jesus Christ.<\/li>","summary_ro":"ZADOK Common OT name meaning “righteous one.” 1. David’s priest, probably the most famous and influential of Israel’s high priests apart from Aaron. He first appeared at the time of Absalom’s revolt, when he and his fellow priest Abiathar showed their loyalty to David by coming to him with the ark, fully prepared to share his exile (2 Sm 15:24-29). David refused their offer and sent them back to Jerusalem to act in his interests. In 2 Samuel 8:17, Zadok is listed as the son of Ahitub, who is ...","summary_en":"ZADOK Common OT name meaning “righteous one.” 1. David’s priest, probably the most famous and influential of Israel’s high priests apart from Aaron. He first appeared at the time of Absalom’s revolt, when he and his fellow priest Abiathar showed their loyalty to David by coming to him with the ark, fully prepared to share his exile (2 Sm 15:24-29). David refused their offer and sent them back to Jerusalem to act in his interests. In 2 Samuel 8:17, Zadok is listed as the son of Ahitub, who is ...","source":"Articles\/Z.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":53371,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ezechiel 44:10","title_en":"Study Note: Ezechiel 44:10","content_ro":"<p><strong>44:10<\/strong> <em>when Israel strayed away from me to worship idols:<\/em> The people had a long history of failing to follow God’s plan for worship, including the specific sin of employing foreigners as temple guards (44:8).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>44:10<\/strong> <em>when Israel strayed away from me to worship idols:<\/em> The people had a long history of failing to follow God’s plan for worship, including the specific sin of employing foreigners as temple guards (44:8).<\/p>","summary_ro":"44:10 when Israel strayed away from me to worship idols: The people had a long history of failing to follow God’s plan for worship, including the specific sin of employing foreigners as temple guards (44:8).","summary_en":"44:10 when Israel strayed away from me to worship idols: The people had a long history of failing to follow God’s plan for worship, including the specific sin of employing foreigners as temple guards (44:8).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":80997,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ezechiel 44:10","title_en":"Study Note: Ezechiel 44:10","content_ro":"<p><strong>44:10<\/strong> <em>when Israel strayed away from me to worship idols:<\/em> The people had a long history of failing to follow God’s plan for worship, including the specific sin of employing foreigners as temple guards (44:8).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>44:10<\/strong> <em>when Israel strayed away from me to worship idols:<\/em> The people had a long history of failing to follow God’s plan for worship, including the specific sin of employing foreigners as temple guards (44:8).<\/p>","summary_ro":"44:10 when Israel strayed away from me to worship idols: The people had a long history of failing to follow God’s plan for worship, including the specific sin of employing foreigners as temple guards (44:8).","summary_en":"44:10 when Israel strayed away from me to worship idols: The people had a long history of failing to follow God’s plan for worship, including the specific sin of employing foreigners as temple guards (44:8).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":108623,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ezechiel 44:10","title_en":"Study Note: Ezechiel 44:10","content_ro":"<p><strong>44:10<\/strong> <em>when Israel strayed away from me to worship idols:<\/em> The people had a long history of failing to follow God’s plan for worship, including the specific sin of employing foreigners as temple guards (44:8).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>44:10<\/strong> <em>when Israel strayed away from me to worship idols:<\/em> The people had a long history of failing to follow God’s plan for worship, including the specific sin of employing foreigners as temple guards (44:8).<\/p>","summary_ro":"44:10 when Israel strayed away from me to worship idols: The people had a long history of failing to follow God’s plan for worship, including the specific sin of employing foreigners as temple guards (44:8).","summary_en":"44:10 when Israel strayed away from me to worship idols: The people had a long history of failing to follow God’s plan for worship, including the specific sin of employing foreigners as temple guards (44:8).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":136249,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ezechiel 44:10","title_en":"Study Note: Ezechiel 44:10","content_ro":"<p><strong>44:10<\/strong> <em>when Israel strayed away from me to worship idols:<\/em> The people had a long history of failing to follow God’s plan for worship, including the specific sin of employing foreigners as temple guards (44:8).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>44:10<\/strong> <em>when Israel strayed away from me to worship idols:<\/em> The people had a long history of failing to follow God’s plan for worship, including the specific sin of employing foreigners as temple guards (44:8).<\/p>","summary_ro":"44:10 when Israel strayed away from me to worship idols: The people had a long history of failing to follow God’s plan for worship, including the specific sin of employing foreigners as temple guards (44:8).","summary_en":"44:10 when Israel strayed away from me to worship idols: The people had a long history of failing to follow God’s plan for worship, including the specific sin of employing foreigners as temple guards (44:8).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"11":[{"id":34411,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Servant","title_en":"Servant","content_ro":"<h3>SERVANT<\/h3>\n<p>A person under obligation to serve a master, who in turn would provide a measure of protection. Some servants were slaves under legal bondage; others were servants voluntarily. It is not always possible to distinguish among “servant,” “slave,” “bondman,” and “bondwoman.” Several words in both Hebrew and Greek have been translated “servant,” although newer translations sometimes prefer other words.<\/p>\n<p>The Hebrew word for “lad,” “youth,” or “boy” often means servant (Ex 33:11; Nm 22:22; 2 Kgs 4:12). A word meaning “free-born servant” referred to the servants of the Lord, like the Levites (Ezr 8:17; Is 61:6; Ez 44:11) or priests (Ex 28:35; Jl 1:9; 2:17). Sometimes ministers of the king are called servants (1 Chr 27:1; Prv 29:12), as are angels who minister before the Lord (Pss 103:21; 104:4). The hired servant or hireling was also considered a free person (Ex 12:45; Jb 7:1; Mal 3:5).<\/p>\n<p>The most common Hebrew term, occurring nearly 800 times in the OT, denotes a slave held in bondage (Gn 9:25; 12:16; Ex 20:17; Dt 5:15; 15:17). Yet the same word is used for people of noble rank, such as ministers and advisers to the king (2 Kgs 22:12; 2 Chr 34:20; Neh 2:10) or a servant of God (Gn 24:14; Nm 12:7; Jos 1:7; 2 Kgs 21:8), in such expressions as “Moses [or also David, Isaiah, Israel, Job, etc.] my servant.” One of the noblest expressions is “the servant of Yahweh [the <span>Lord<\/span>]” (Dt 34:5; Jos 1:13; 8:31-33; Is 49:1-6; 50:4-9; 52:13–53:12). The proper name Obadiah means “servant of Yahweh.”<\/p>\n<p>The NT variously defines servant as a hired servant or hireling (Mk 1:20; Lk 15:17-19; Jn 10:12-14), more widely as a slave (Mt 8:9; 10:24-25; 13:27-28; Mk 10:44; 12:2-4; Lk 7:2-3, 8-10; Jn 4:51; 8:34; 13:16; Eph 6:5; Col 1:7), and also as a domestic servant (Lk 16:13).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Slave, Slavery.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>SERVANT<\/h3>\n<p>A person under obligation to serve a master, who in turn would provide a measure of protection. Some servants were slaves under legal bondage; others were servants voluntarily. It is not always possible to distinguish among “servant,” “slave,” “bondman,” and “bondwoman.” Several words in both Hebrew and Greek have been translated “servant,” although newer translations sometimes prefer other words.<\/p>\n<p>The Hebrew word for “lad,” “youth,” or “boy” often means servant (Ex 33:11; Nm 22:22; 2 Kgs 4:12). A word meaning “free-born servant” referred to the servants of the Lord, like the Levites (Ezr 8:17; Is 61:6; Ez 44:11) or priests (Ex 28:35; Jl 1:9; 2:17). Sometimes ministers of the king are called servants (1 Chr 27:1; Prv 29:12), as are angels who minister before the Lord (Pss 103:21; 104:4). The hired servant or hireling was also considered a free person (Ex 12:45; Jb 7:1; Mal 3:5).<\/p>\n<p>The most common Hebrew term, occurring nearly 800 times in the OT, denotes a slave held in bondage (Gn 9:25; 12:16; Ex 20:17; Dt 5:15; 15:17). Yet the same word is used for people of noble rank, such as ministers and advisers to the king (2 Kgs 22:12; 2 Chr 34:20; Neh 2:10) or a servant of God (Gn 24:14; Nm 12:7; Jos 1:7; 2 Kgs 21:8), in such expressions as “Moses [or also David, Isaiah, Israel, Job, etc.] my servant.” One of the noblest expressions is “the servant of Yahweh [the <span>Lord<\/span>]” (Dt 34:5; Jos 1:13; 8:31-33; Is 49:1-6; 50:4-9; 52:13–53:12). The proper name Obadiah means “servant of Yahweh.”<\/p>\n<p>The NT variously defines servant as a hired servant or hireling (Mk 1:20; Lk 15:17-19; Jn 10:12-14), more widely as a slave (Mt 8:9; 10:24-25; 13:27-28; Mk 10:44; 12:2-4; Lk 7:2-3, 8-10; Jn 4:51; 8:34; 13:16; Eph 6:5; Col 1:7), and also as a domestic servant (Lk 16:13).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Slave, Slavery.<\/p>","summary_ro":"SERVANT A person under obligation to serve a master, who in turn would provide a measure of protection. Some servants were slaves under legal bondage; others were servants voluntarily. It is not always possible to distinguish among “servant,” “slave,” “bondman,” and “bondwoman.” Several words in both Hebrew and Greek have been translated “servant,” although newer translations sometimes prefer other words. The Hebrew word for “lad,” “youth,” or “boy” often means servant (Ex 33:11; Nm 22:22; 2 ...","summary_en":"SERVANT A person under obligation to serve a master, who in turn would provide a measure of protection. Some servants were slaves under legal bondage; others were servants voluntarily. It is not always possible to distinguish among “servant,” “slave,” “bondman,” and “bondwoman.” Several words in both Hebrew and Greek have been translated “servant,” although newer translations sometimes prefer other words. The Hebrew word for “lad,” “youth,” or “boy” often means servant (Ex 33:11; Nm 22:22; 2 ...","source":"Articles\/S.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"12":[{"id":36387,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Block*, Stumbling","title_en":"Block*, Stumbling","content_ro":"<h3>STUMBLING BLOCK*<\/h3>\n<p>Term used both literally and figuratively to refer to anything that might cause one to stumble.<\/p>\n<p>The phrase is used literally in Leviticus 19:14, where the people of Israel are admonished not to “put a stumbling block before the blind,” but to “fear the Lord your God.” An isolated figurative use occurs in Jeremiah 6:21, where God promises to put a stumbling block before the people of Israel if they do not heed his warnings.<\/p>\n<p>The most common OT usage, however, is found in Ezekiel, where the phrase is used to refer to idols and idolatry: “Son of man, these men have taken their idols into their hearts, and set the stumbling block of their iniquity before their faces; should I let myself be inquired of at all by them?” (Ez 14:3, <span>rsv<\/span>; also 7:19; 44:12).<\/p>\n<p>In the NT the term essentially retains its Hebraic meaning. Even so, the phrase is employed figuratively to speak of the difficulties encountered by many Jews in believing Jesus to be the Son of God: “But we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles” (1 Cor 1:23, <span>rsv<\/span>; see also Rom 9:31-32). In Romans 11:11-12, Paul says that this resistance is actually part of God’s plan to spread his riches to the world. Finally, 1 Corinthians 8:9 uses “stumbling block” to speak of some practices that might in themselves be appropriate but might also have the unintended effect of offending a weaker brother (see also Rom 14:13).<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>STUMBLING BLOCK*<\/h3>\n<p>Term used both literally and figuratively to refer to anything that might cause one to stumble.<\/p>\n<p>The phrase is used literally in Leviticus 19:14, where the people of Israel are admonished not to “put a stumbling block before the blind,” but to “fear the Lord your God.” An isolated figurative use occurs in Jeremiah 6:21, where God promises to put a stumbling block before the people of Israel if they do not heed his warnings.<\/p>\n<p>The most common OT usage, however, is found in Ezekiel, where the phrase is used to refer to idols and idolatry: “Son of man, these men have taken their idols into their hearts, and set the stumbling block of their iniquity before their faces; should I let myself be inquired of at all by them?” (Ez 14:3, <span>rsv<\/span>; also 7:19; 44:12).<\/p>\n<p>In the NT the term essentially retains its Hebraic meaning. Even so, the phrase is employed figuratively to speak of the difficulties encountered by many Jews in believing Jesus to be the Son of God: “But we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles” (1 Cor 1:23, <span>rsv<\/span>; see also Rom 9:31-32). In Romans 11:11-12, Paul says that this resistance is actually part of God’s plan to spread his riches to the world. Finally, 1 Corinthians 8:9 uses “stumbling block” to speak of some practices that might in themselves be appropriate but might also have the unintended effect of offending a weaker brother (see also Rom 14:13).<\/p>","summary_ro":"STUMBLING BLOCK* Term used both literally and figuratively to refer to anything that might cause one to stumble. The phrase is used literally in Leviticus 19:14, where the people of Israel are admonished not to “put a stumbling block before the blind,” but to “fear the Lord your God.” An isolated figurative use occurs in Jeremiah 6:21, where God promises to put a stumbling block before the people of Israel if they do not heed his warnings. The most common OT usage, however, is found in Ezekie...","summary_en":"STUMBLING BLOCK* Term used both literally and figuratively to refer to anything that might cause one to stumble. The phrase is used literally in Leviticus 19:14, where the people of Israel are admonished not to “put a stumbling block before the blind,” but to “fear the Lord your God.” An isolated figurative use occurs in Jeremiah 6:21, where God promises to put a stumbling block before the people of Israel if they do not heed his warnings. The most common OT usage, however, is found in Ezekie...","source":"Articles\/S.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":53372,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ezechiel 44:12","title_en":"Study Note: Ezechiel 44:12","content_ro":"<p><strong>44:12-14<\/strong> The Levites had <em>encouraged<\/em> . . . <em>Israel to fall into deep sin<\/em> by abandoning the Lord and worshiping idols. One of the <em>consequences<\/em> of that sin was that they could no longer enter the inner court of the Temple like the priests. However, by God’s grace, they would still have a significant ministry in serving the people and slaughtering their sacrifices. • The people as a whole were placed at a greater distance from God because of their idolatry. Prior to the Exile they would have slaughtered their own sacrifices (see Lev 1:5, 11); now they must hand them over to the Levites to be slaughtered on their behalf.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>44:12-14<\/strong> The Levites had <em>encouraged<\/em> . . . <em>Israel to fall into deep sin<\/em> by abandoning the Lord and worshiping idols. One of the <em>consequences<\/em> of that sin was that they could no longer enter the inner court of the Temple like the priests. However, by God’s grace, they would still have a significant ministry in serving the people and slaughtering their sacrifices. • The people as a whole were placed at a greater distance from God because of their idolatry. Prior to the Exile they would have slaughtered their own sacrifices (see Lev 1:5, 11); now they must hand them over to the Levites to be slaughtered on their behalf.<\/p>","summary_ro":"44:12-14 The Levites had encouraged . . . Israel to fall into deep sin by abandoning the Lord and worshiping idols. One of the consequences of that sin was that they could no longer enter the inner court of the Temple like the priests. However, by God’s grace, they would still have a significant ministry in serving the people and slaughtering their sacrifices. • The people as a whole were placed at a greater distance from God because of their idolatry. Prior to the Exile they would have slaug...","summary_en":"44:12-14 The Levites had encouraged . . . Israel to fall into deep sin by abandoning the Lord and worshiping idols. One of the consequences of that sin was that they could no longer enter the inner court of the Temple like the priests. However, by God’s grace, they would still have a significant ministry in serving the people and slaughtering their sacrifices. • The people as a whole were placed at a greater distance from God because of their idolatry. Prior to the Exile they would have slaug...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":80998,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ezechiel 44:12","title_en":"Study Note: Ezechiel 44:12","content_ro":"<p><strong>44:12-14<\/strong> The Levites had <em>encouraged<\/em> . . . <em>Israel to fall into deep sin<\/em> by abandoning the Lord and worshiping idols. One of the <em>consequences<\/em> of that sin was that they could no longer enter the inner court of the Temple like the priests. However, by God’s grace, they would still have a significant ministry in serving the people and slaughtering their sacrifices. • The people as a whole were placed at a greater distance from God because of their idolatry. Prior to the Exile they would have slaughtered their own sacrifices (see Lev 1:5, 11); now they must hand them over to the Levites to be slaughtered on their behalf.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>44:12-14<\/strong> The Levites had <em>encouraged<\/em> . . . <em>Israel to fall into deep sin<\/em> by abandoning the Lord and worshiping idols. One of the <em>consequences<\/em> of that sin was that they could no longer enter the inner court of the Temple like the priests. However, by God’s grace, they would still have a significant ministry in serving the people and slaughtering their sacrifices. • The people as a whole were placed at a greater distance from God because of their idolatry. Prior to the Exile they would have slaughtered their own sacrifices (see Lev 1:5, 11); now they must hand them over to the Levites to be slaughtered on their behalf.<\/p>","summary_ro":"44:12-14 The Levites had encouraged . . . Israel to fall into deep sin by abandoning the Lord and worshiping idols. One of the consequences of that sin was that they could no longer enter the inner court of the Temple like the priests. However, by God’s grace, they would still have a significant ministry in serving the people and slaughtering their sacrifices. • The people as a whole were placed at a greater distance from God because of their idolatry. Prior to the Exile they would have slaug...","summary_en":"44:12-14 The Levites had encouraged . . . Israel to fall into deep sin by abandoning the Lord and worshiping idols. One of the consequences of that sin was that they could no longer enter the inner court of the Temple like the priests. However, by God’s grace, they would still have a significant ministry in serving the people and slaughtering their sacrifices. • The people as a whole were placed at a greater distance from God because of their idolatry. Prior to the Exile they would have slaug...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":108624,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ezechiel 44:12","title_en":"Study Note: Ezechiel 44:12","content_ro":"<p><strong>44:12-14<\/strong> The Levites had <em>encouraged<\/em> . . . <em>Israel to fall into deep sin<\/em> by abandoning the Lord and worshiping idols. One of the <em>consequences<\/em> of that sin was that they could no longer enter the inner court of the Temple like the priests. However, by God’s grace, they would still have a significant ministry in serving the people and slaughtering their sacrifices. • The people as a whole were placed at a greater distance from God because of their idolatry. Prior to the Exile they would have slaughtered their own sacrifices (see Lev 1:5, 11); now they must hand them over to the Levites to be slaughtered on their behalf.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>44:12-14<\/strong> The Levites had <em>encouraged<\/em> . . . <em>Israel to fall into deep sin<\/em> by abandoning the Lord and worshiping idols. One of the <em>consequences<\/em> of that sin was that they could no longer enter the inner court of the Temple like the priests. However, by God’s grace, they would still have a significant ministry in serving the people and slaughtering their sacrifices. • The people as a whole were placed at a greater distance from God because of their idolatry. Prior to the Exile they would have slaughtered their own sacrifices (see Lev 1:5, 11); now they must hand them over to the Levites to be slaughtered on their behalf.<\/p>","summary_ro":"44:12-14 The Levites had encouraged . . . Israel to fall into deep sin by abandoning the Lord and worshiping idols. One of the consequences of that sin was that they could no longer enter the inner court of the Temple like the priests. However, by God’s grace, they would still have a significant ministry in serving the people and slaughtering their sacrifices. • The people as a whole were placed at a greater distance from God because of their idolatry. Prior to the Exile they would have slaug...","summary_en":"44:12-14 The Levites had encouraged . . . Israel to fall into deep sin by abandoning the Lord and worshiping idols. One of the consequences of that sin was that they could no longer enter the inner court of the Temple like the priests. However, by God’s grace, they would still have a significant ministry in serving the people and slaughtering their sacrifices. • The people as a whole were placed at a greater distance from God because of their idolatry. Prior to the Exile they would have slaug...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":136250,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ezechiel 44:12","title_en":"Study Note: Ezechiel 44:12","content_ro":"<p><strong>44:12-14<\/strong> The Levites had <em>encouraged<\/em> . . . <em>Israel to fall into deep sin<\/em> by abandoning the Lord and worshiping idols. One of the <em>consequences<\/em> of that sin was that they could no longer enter the inner court of the Temple like the priests. However, by God’s grace, they would still have a significant ministry in serving the people and slaughtering their sacrifices. • The people as a whole were placed at a greater distance from God because of their idolatry. Prior to the Exile they would have slaughtered their own sacrifices (see Lev 1:5, 11); now they must hand them over to the Levites to be slaughtered on their behalf.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>44:12-14<\/strong> The Levites had <em>encouraged<\/em> . . . <em>Israel to fall into deep sin<\/em> by abandoning the Lord and worshiping idols. One of the <em>consequences<\/em> of that sin was that they could no longer enter the inner court of the Temple like the priests. However, by God’s grace, they would still have a significant ministry in serving the people and slaughtering their sacrifices. • The people as a whole were placed at a greater distance from God because of their idolatry. Prior to the Exile they would have slaughtered their own sacrifices (see Lev 1:5, 11); now they must hand them over to the Levites to be slaughtered on their behalf.<\/p>","summary_ro":"44:12-14 The Levites had encouraged . . . Israel to fall into deep sin by abandoning the Lord and worshiping idols. One of the consequences of that sin was that they could no longer enter the inner court of the Temple like the priests. However, by God’s grace, they would still have a significant ministry in serving the people and slaughtering their sacrifices. • The people as a whole were placed at a greater distance from God because of their idolatry. Prior to the Exile they would have slaug...","summary_en":"44:12-14 The Levites had encouraged . . . Israel to fall into deep sin by abandoning the Lord and worshiping idols. One of the consequences of that sin was that they could no longer enter the inner court of the Temple like the priests. However, by God’s grace, they would still have a significant ministry in serving the people and slaughtering their sacrifices. • The people as a whole were placed at a greater distance from God because of their idolatry. Prior to the Exile they would have slaug...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"15":[{"id":41028,"type":"profile","type_label":"Profil","type_icon":"👤","type_color":"#f59e0b","title_ro":"Eleazar","title_en":"Eleazar","content_ro":"<h3>Eleazar<\/h3>\n<p>Eleazar was the third son of Aaron, the first high priest (Exod 6:23). Eleazar’s two older brothers, Nadab and Abihu, offended God by offering incense in a different way than what God had commanded (Lev 10:1-7). Because of their disobedience, God killed them. Since Eleazar was the next oldest son, he was now in line to succeed his father as high priest. He performed priestly duties during his father’s lifetime, and he helped his father and Moses when some Levites rebelled because they wanted equal status with Aaron’s priestly family (Num 16:36-40).<\/p>\n<p>Aaron died in the wilderness a short time before the Israelites entered the Promised Land. He was not allowed to enter because he and Moses had rebelled against God by striking the rock at Meribah (20:1-13). Before Aaron’s death, he, Moses, and Eleazar went up on Mount Hor, where Moses removed the priestly garments from Aaron and put them on his son (20:22-29).<\/p>\n<p>After this, Eleazar served as high priest for the rest of his life, which included the time of Canaan’s conquest. When it was time to divide the land among the tribes, Eleazar and Joshua cast the sacred lots to determine where each tribe would settle (Josh 14:1-5). When Eleazar died, he was succeeded by his son Phinehas, who had distinguished himself by his covenant faithfulness when Israel had turned to the gods of Moab (Num 25). Eleazar’s descendants included Zadok, the faithful priest who replaced Abiathar (1 Kgs 2:26-27, 35; see 1 Chr 6:3-8, 50-53), and Ezra, who was instrumental in reestablishing Judea after the Exile (see Ezra 7:1-5). In Ezekiel’s ideal temple, only the descendants of Eleazar through Zadok would be permitted to serve (Ezek 44:15).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Exod 6:23-25; Lev 10:6-7; Num 3:1-4; 16:36-40; 20:22-26; 26:1-4; Josh 14:1<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Eleazar<\/h3>\n<p>Eleazar was the third son of Aaron, the first high priest (Exod 6:23). Eleazar’s two older brothers, Nadab and Abihu, offended God by offering incense in a different way than what God had commanded (Lev 10:1-7). Because of their disobedience, God killed them. Since Eleazar was the next oldest son, he was now in line to succeed his father as high priest. He performed priestly duties during his father’s lifetime, and he helped his father and Moses when some Levites rebelled because they wanted equal status with Aaron’s priestly family (Num 16:36-40).<\/p>\n<p>Aaron died in the wilderness a short time before the Israelites entered the Promised Land. He was not allowed to enter because he and Moses had rebelled against God by striking the rock at Meribah (20:1-13). Before Aaron’s death, he, Moses, and Eleazar went up on Mount Hor, where Moses removed the priestly garments from Aaron and put them on his son (20:22-29).<\/p>\n<p>After this, Eleazar served as high priest for the rest of his life, which included the time of Canaan’s conquest. When it was time to divide the land among the tribes, Eleazar and Joshua cast the sacred lots to determine where each tribe would settle (Josh 14:1-5). When Eleazar died, he was succeeded by his son Phinehas, who had distinguished himself by his covenant faithfulness when Israel had turned to the gods of Moab (Num 25). Eleazar’s descendants included Zadok, the faithful priest who replaced Abiathar (1 Kgs 2:26-27, 35; see 1 Chr 6:3-8, 50-53), and Ezra, who was instrumental in reestablishing Judea after the Exile (see Ezra 7:1-5). In Ezekiel’s ideal temple, only the descendants of Eleazar through Zadok would be permitted to serve (Ezek 44:15).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Exod 6:23-25; Lev 10:6-7; Num 3:1-4; 16:36-40; 20:22-26; 26:1-4; Josh 14:1<\/p>","summary_ro":"Eleazar Eleazar was the third son of Aaron, the first high priest (Exod 6:23). Eleazar’s two older brothers, Nadab and Abihu, offended God by offering incense in a different way than what God had commanded (Lev 10:1-7). Because of their disobedience, God killed them. Since Eleazar was the next oldest son, he was now in line to succeed his father as high priest. He performed priestly duties during his father’s lifetime, and he helped his father and Moses when some Levites rebelled because they...","summary_en":"Eleazar Eleazar was the third son of Aaron, the first high priest (Exod 6:23). Eleazar’s two older brothers, Nadab and Abihu, offended God by offering incense in a different way than what God had commanded (Lev 10:1-7). Because of their disobedience, God killed them. Since Eleazar was the next oldest son, he was now in line to succeed his father as high priest. He performed priestly duties during his father’s lifetime, and he helped his father and Moses when some Levites rebelled because they...","source":"Profiles.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":41391,"type":"profile","type_label":"Profil","type_icon":"👤","type_color":"#f59e0b","title_ro":"Zadok","title_en":"Zadok","content_ro":"<h3>Zadok<\/h3>\n<p>Zadok was an important transitional figure in the history of Israel’s priesthood. Since he seemingly appears out of nowhere in the narrative of 2 Samuel (8:17), some scholars suggest that he was not really born into a priestly family. However, there is no reason to doubt the biblical record that he was Aaron’s descendant (1 Chr 6:1-15, 50-53). Zadok’s family line is traced back to Eleazar, Aaron’s son (1 Chr 6:4-8; 24:3; Ezra 7:2-5). Zadok served alongside Abiathar, a descendant of Eli. Zadok and Abiathar were priests of Israel under King David (2 Sam 8:17; 20:25).<\/p>\n<p>When Absalom revolted against King David, both Zadok and Abiathar showed their loyalty to David by taking the Ark to him, fully prepared to share in his exile (15:24-29). Instead, David sent them to Jerusalem as his spies.<\/p>\n<p>Later, when David’s son Adonijah tried to seize the aged David’s throne with the support of Joab and Abiathar, Zadok wisely refrained from supporting him (1 Kgs 1:5-10). Abiathar was banished (1 Kgs 2:26-27), fulfilling the prophecy that Eli’s family would be removed from the priesthood (1 Sam 2:27-36). In this same prophecy, God said, “I will raise up a faithful priest who will serve me and do what I desire. I will establish his family, and they will be priests to my anointed kings forever” (1 Sam 2:35).<\/p>\n<p>The loyal Zadok fulfilled this prophecy and became the sole high priest under Solomon (1 Kgs 2:35). Zadok’s descendants served as Israel’s priests throughout the monarchy and beyond. Azariah, chief priest during Hezekiah’s reign, was of Zadok’s line (2 Chr 31:10). During the Exile, Ezekiel’s eschatological vision of the new Temple refers to Zadok’s priestly line (Ezek 40:46; 43:19; 44:15; 48:11). When the Jews later came under Seleucid domination in the early 100s <span>BC<\/span>, the high priesthood, by then regarded as a political appointment, was taken away from Zadok’s descendants. As a result of Ezekiel’s prophecies, Jewish groups such as those responsible for the Dead Sea Scrolls continued to await the restoration of Zadok’s line to the high priesthood. The New Testament teaches that the office of the high priest now rests on Jesus Christ (Heb 9:11; 10:12-25).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>2 Sam 8:17; 15:23-37; 1 Kgs 1:5-53; 2:35; 1 Chr 6:1-15, 50-53; Ezra 7:2; Ezek 40:46; 43:19; 44:15; 48:11<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Zadok<\/h3>\n<p>Zadok was an important transitional figure in the history of Israel’s priesthood. Since he seemingly appears out of nowhere in the narrative of 2 Samuel (8:17), some scholars suggest that he was not really born into a priestly family. However, there is no reason to doubt the biblical record that he was Aaron’s descendant (1 Chr 6:1-15, 50-53). Zadok’s family line is traced back to Eleazar, Aaron’s son (1 Chr 6:4-8; 24:3; Ezra 7:2-5). Zadok served alongside Abiathar, a descendant of Eli. Zadok and Abiathar were priests of Israel under King David (2 Sam 8:17; 20:25).<\/p>\n<p>When Absalom revolted against King David, both Zadok and Abiathar showed their loyalty to David by taking the Ark to him, fully prepared to share in his exile (15:24-29). Instead, David sent them to Jerusalem as his spies.<\/p>\n<p>Later, when David’s son Adonijah tried to seize the aged David’s throne with the support of Joab and Abiathar, Zadok wisely refrained from supporting him (1 Kgs 1:5-10). Abiathar was banished (1 Kgs 2:26-27), fulfilling the prophecy that Eli’s family would be removed from the priesthood (1 Sam 2:27-36). In this same prophecy, God said, “I will raise up a faithful priest who will serve me and do what I desire. I will establish his family, and they will be priests to my anointed kings forever” (1 Sam 2:35).<\/p>\n<p>The loyal Zadok fulfilled this prophecy and became the sole high priest under Solomon (1 Kgs 2:35). Zadok’s descendants served as Israel’s priests throughout the monarchy and beyond. Azariah, chief priest during Hezekiah’s reign, was of Zadok’s line (2 Chr 31:10). During the Exile, Ezekiel’s eschatological vision of the new Temple refers to Zadok’s priestly line (Ezek 40:46; 43:19; 44:15; 48:11). When the Jews later came under Seleucid domination in the early 100s <span>BC<\/span>, the high priesthood, by then regarded as a political appointment, was taken away from Zadok’s descendants. As a result of Ezekiel’s prophecies, Jewish groups such as those responsible for the Dead Sea Scrolls continued to await the restoration of Zadok’s line to the high priesthood. The New Testament teaches that the office of the high priest now rests on Jesus Christ (Heb 9:11; 10:12-25).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>2 Sam 8:17; 15:23-37; 1 Kgs 1:5-53; 2:35; 1 Chr 6:1-15, 50-53; Ezra 7:2; Ezek 40:46; 43:19; 44:15; 48:11<\/p>","summary_ro":"Zadok Zadok was an important transitional figure in the history of Israel’s priesthood. Since he seemingly appears out of nowhere in the narrative of 2 Samuel (8:17), some scholars suggest that he was not really born into a priestly family. However, there is no reason to doubt the biblical record that he was Aaron’s descendant (1 Chr 6:1-15, 50-53). Zadok’s family line is traced back to Eleazar, Aaron’s son (1 Chr 6:4-8; 24:3; Ezra 7:2-5). Zadok served alongside Abiathar, a descendant of Eli....","summary_en":"Zadok Zadok was an important transitional figure in the history of Israel’s priesthood. Since he seemingly appears out of nowhere in the narrative of 2 Samuel (8:17), some scholars suggest that he was not really born into a priestly family. However, there is no reason to doubt the biblical record that he was Aaron’s descendant (1 Chr 6:1-15, 50-53). Zadok’s family line is traced back to Eleazar, Aaron’s son (1 Chr 6:4-8; 24:3; Ezra 7:2-5). Zadok served alongside Abiathar, a descendant of Eli....","source":"Profiles.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":68654,"type":"profile","type_label":"Profil","type_icon":"👤","type_color":"#f59e0b","title_ro":"Eleazar","title_en":"Eleazar","content_ro":"<h3>Eleazar<\/h3>\n<p>Eleazar was the third son of Aaron, the first high priest (Exod 6:23). Eleazar’s two older brothers, Nadab and Abihu, offended God by offering incense in a different way than what God had commanded (Lev 10:1-7). Because of their disobedience, God killed them. Since Eleazar was the next oldest son, he was now in line to succeed his father as high priest. He performed priestly duties during his father’s lifetime, and he helped his father and Moses when some Levites rebelled because they wanted equal status with Aaron’s priestly family (Num 16:36-40).<\/p>\n<p>Aaron died in the wilderness a short time before the Israelites entered the Promised Land. He was not allowed to enter because he and Moses had rebelled against God by striking the rock at Meribah (20:1-13). Before Aaron’s death, he, Moses, and Eleazar went up on Mount Hor, where Moses removed the priestly garments from Aaron and put them on his son (20:22-29).<\/p>\n<p>After this, Eleazar served as high priest for the rest of his life, which included the time of Canaan’s conquest. When it was time to divide the land among the tribes, Eleazar and Joshua cast the sacred lots to determine where each tribe would settle (Josh 14:1-5). When Eleazar died, he was succeeded by his son Phinehas, who had distinguished himself by his covenant faithfulness when Israel had turned to the gods of Moab (Num 25). Eleazar’s descendants included Zadok, the faithful priest who replaced Abiathar (1 Kgs 2:26-27, 35; see 1 Chr 6:3-8, 50-53), and Ezra, who was instrumental in reestablishing Judea after the Exile (see Ezra 7:1-5). In Ezekiel’s ideal temple, only the descendants of Eleazar through Zadok would be permitted to serve (Ezek 44:15).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Exod 6:23-25; Lev 10:6-7; Num 3:1-4; 16:36-40; 20:22-26; 26:1-4; Josh 14:1<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Eleazar<\/h3>\n<p>Eleazar was the third son of Aaron, the first high priest (Exod 6:23). Eleazar’s two older brothers, Nadab and Abihu, offended God by offering incense in a different way than what God had commanded (Lev 10:1-7). Because of their disobedience, God killed them. Since Eleazar was the next oldest son, he was now in line to succeed his father as high priest. He performed priestly duties during his father’s lifetime, and he helped his father and Moses when some Levites rebelled because they wanted equal status with Aaron’s priestly family (Num 16:36-40).<\/p>\n<p>Aaron died in the wilderness a short time before the Israelites entered the Promised Land. He was not allowed to enter because he and Moses had rebelled against God by striking the rock at Meribah (20:1-13). Before Aaron’s death, he, Moses, and Eleazar went up on Mount Hor, where Moses removed the priestly garments from Aaron and put them on his son (20:22-29).<\/p>\n<p>After this, Eleazar served as high priest for the rest of his life, which included the time of Canaan’s conquest. When it was time to divide the land among the tribes, Eleazar and Joshua cast the sacred lots to determine where each tribe would settle (Josh 14:1-5). When Eleazar died, he was succeeded by his son Phinehas, who had distinguished himself by his covenant faithfulness when Israel had turned to the gods of Moab (Num 25). Eleazar’s descendants included Zadok, the faithful priest who replaced Abiathar (1 Kgs 2:26-27, 35; see 1 Chr 6:3-8, 50-53), and Ezra, who was instrumental in reestablishing Judea after the Exile (see Ezra 7:1-5). In Ezekiel’s ideal temple, only the descendants of Eleazar through Zadok would be permitted to serve (Ezek 44:15).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Exod 6:23-25; Lev 10:6-7; Num 3:1-4; 16:36-40; 20:22-26; 26:1-4; Josh 14:1<\/p>","summary_ro":"Eleazar Eleazar was the third son of Aaron, the first high priest (Exod 6:23). Eleazar’s two older brothers, Nadab and Abihu, offended God by offering incense in a different way than what God had commanded (Lev 10:1-7). Because of their disobedience, God killed them. Since Eleazar was the next oldest son, he was now in line to succeed his father as high priest. He performed priestly duties during his father’s lifetime, and he helped his father and Moses when some Levites rebelled because they...","summary_en":"Eleazar Eleazar was the third son of Aaron, the first high priest (Exod 6:23). Eleazar’s two older brothers, Nadab and Abihu, offended God by offering incense in a different way than what God had commanded (Lev 10:1-7). Because of their disobedience, God killed them. Since Eleazar was the next oldest son, he was now in line to succeed his father as high priest. He performed priestly duties during his father’s lifetime, and he helped his father and Moses when some Levites rebelled because they...","source":"Profiles.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":69017,"type":"profile","type_label":"Profil","type_icon":"👤","type_color":"#f59e0b","title_ro":"Zadok","title_en":"Zadok","content_ro":"<h3>Zadok<\/h3>\n<p>Zadok was an important transitional figure in the history of Israel’s priesthood. Since he seemingly appears out of nowhere in the narrative of 2 Samuel (8:17), some scholars suggest that he was not really born into a priestly family. However, there is no reason to doubt the biblical record that he was Aaron’s descendant (1 Chr 6:1-15, 50-53). Zadok’s family line is traced back to Eleazar, Aaron’s son (1 Chr 6:4-8; 24:3; Ezra 7:2-5). Zadok served alongside Abiathar, a descendant of Eli. Zadok and Abiathar were priests of Israel under King David (2 Sam 8:17; 20:25).<\/p>\n<p>When Absalom revolted against King David, both Zadok and Abiathar showed their loyalty to David by taking the Ark to him, fully prepared to share in his exile (15:24-29). Instead, David sent them to Jerusalem as his spies.<\/p>\n<p>Later, when David’s son Adonijah tried to seize the aged David’s throne with the support of Joab and Abiathar, Zadok wisely refrained from supporting him (1 Kgs 1:5-10). Abiathar was banished (1 Kgs 2:26-27), fulfilling the prophecy that Eli’s family would be removed from the priesthood (1 Sam 2:27-36). In this same prophecy, God said, “I will raise up a faithful priest who will serve me and do what I desire. I will establish his family, and they will be priests to my anointed kings forever” (1 Sam 2:35).<\/p>\n<p>The loyal Zadok fulfilled this prophecy and became the sole high priest under Solomon (1 Kgs 2:35). Zadok’s descendants served as Israel’s priests throughout the monarchy and beyond. Azariah, chief priest during Hezekiah’s reign, was of Zadok’s line (2 Chr 31:10). During the Exile, Ezekiel’s eschatological vision of the new Temple refers to Zadok’s priestly line (Ezek 40:46; 43:19; 44:15; 48:11). When the Jews later came under Seleucid domination in the early 100s <span>BC<\/span>, the high priesthood, by then regarded as a political appointment, was taken away from Zadok’s descendants. As a result of Ezekiel’s prophecies, Jewish groups such as those responsible for the Dead Sea Scrolls continued to await the restoration of Zadok’s line to the high priesthood. The New Testament teaches that the office of the high priest now rests on Jesus Christ (Heb 9:11; 10:12-25).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>2 Sam 8:17; 15:23-37; 1 Kgs 1:5-53; 2:35; 1 Chr 6:1-15, 50-53; Ezra 7:2; Ezek 40:46; 43:19; 44:15; 48:11<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Zadok<\/h3>\n<p>Zadok was an important transitional figure in the history of Israel’s priesthood. Since he seemingly appears out of nowhere in the narrative of 2 Samuel (8:17), some scholars suggest that he was not really born into a priestly family. However, there is no reason to doubt the biblical record that he was Aaron’s descendant (1 Chr 6:1-15, 50-53). Zadok’s family line is traced back to Eleazar, Aaron’s son (1 Chr 6:4-8; 24:3; Ezra 7:2-5). Zadok served alongside Abiathar, a descendant of Eli. Zadok and Abiathar were priests of Israel under King David (2 Sam 8:17; 20:25).<\/p>\n<p>When Absalom revolted against King David, both Zadok and Abiathar showed their loyalty to David by taking the Ark to him, fully prepared to share in his exile (15:24-29). Instead, David sent them to Jerusalem as his spies.<\/p>\n<p>Later, when David’s son Adonijah tried to seize the aged David’s throne with the support of Joab and Abiathar, Zadok wisely refrained from supporting him (1 Kgs 1:5-10). Abiathar was banished (1 Kgs 2:26-27), fulfilling the prophecy that Eli’s family would be removed from the priesthood (1 Sam 2:27-36). In this same prophecy, God said, “I will raise up a faithful priest who will serve me and do what I desire. I will establish his family, and they will be priests to my anointed kings forever” (1 Sam 2:35).<\/p>\n<p>The loyal Zadok fulfilled this prophecy and became the sole high priest under Solomon (1 Kgs 2:35). Zadok’s descendants served as Israel’s priests throughout the monarchy and beyond. Azariah, chief priest during Hezekiah’s reign, was of Zadok’s line (2 Chr 31:10). During the Exile, Ezekiel’s eschatological vision of the new Temple refers to Zadok’s priestly line (Ezek 40:46; 43:19; 44:15; 48:11). When the Jews later came under Seleucid domination in the early 100s <span>BC<\/span>, the high priesthood, by then regarded as a political appointment, was taken away from Zadok’s descendants. As a result of Ezekiel’s prophecies, Jewish groups such as those responsible for the Dead Sea Scrolls continued to await the restoration of Zadok’s line to the high priesthood. The New Testament teaches that the office of the high priest now rests on Jesus Christ (Heb 9:11; 10:12-25).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>2 Sam 8:17; 15:23-37; 1 Kgs 1:5-53; 2:35; 1 Chr 6:1-15, 50-53; Ezra 7:2; Ezek 40:46; 43:19; 44:15; 48:11<\/p>","summary_ro":"Zadok Zadok was an important transitional figure in the history of Israel’s priesthood. Since he seemingly appears out of nowhere in the narrative of 2 Samuel (8:17), some scholars suggest that he was not really born into a priestly family. However, there is no reason to doubt the biblical record that he was Aaron’s descendant (1 Chr 6:1-15, 50-53). Zadok’s family line is traced back to Eleazar, Aaron’s son (1 Chr 6:4-8; 24:3; Ezra 7:2-5). Zadok served alongside Abiathar, a descendant of Eli....","summary_en":"Zadok Zadok was an important transitional figure in the history of Israel’s priesthood. Since he seemingly appears out of nowhere in the narrative of 2 Samuel (8:17), some scholars suggest that he was not really born into a priestly family. However, there is no reason to doubt the biblical record that he was Aaron’s descendant (1 Chr 6:1-15, 50-53). Zadok’s family line is traced back to Eleazar, Aaron’s son (1 Chr 6:4-8; 24:3; Ezra 7:2-5). Zadok served alongside Abiathar, a descendant of Eli....","source":"Profiles.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":96280,"type":"profile","type_label":"Profil","type_icon":"👤","type_color":"#f59e0b","title_ro":"Eleazar","title_en":"Eleazar","content_ro":"<h3>Eleazar<\/h3>\n<p>Eleazar was the third son of Aaron, the first high priest (Exod 6:23). Eleazar’s two older brothers, Nadab and Abihu, offended God by offering incense in a different way than what God had commanded (Lev 10:1-7). Because of their disobedience, God killed them. Since Eleazar was the next oldest son, he was now in line to succeed his father as high priest. He performed priestly duties during his father’s lifetime, and he helped his father and Moses when some Levites rebelled because they wanted equal status with Aaron’s priestly family (Num 16:36-40).<\/p>\n<p>Aaron died in the wilderness a short time before the Israelites entered the Promised Land. He was not allowed to enter because he and Moses had rebelled against God by striking the rock at Meribah (20:1-13). Before Aaron’s death, he, Moses, and Eleazar went up on Mount Hor, where Moses removed the priestly garments from Aaron and put them on his son (20:22-29).<\/p>\n<p>After this, Eleazar served as high priest for the rest of his life, which included the time of Canaan’s conquest. When it was time to divide the land among the tribes, Eleazar and Joshua cast the sacred lots to determine where each tribe would settle (Josh 14:1-5). When Eleazar died, he was succeeded by his son Phinehas, who had distinguished himself by his covenant faithfulness when Israel had turned to the gods of Moab (Num 25). Eleazar’s descendants included Zadok, the faithful priest who replaced Abiathar (1 Kgs 2:26-27, 35; see 1 Chr 6:3-8, 50-53), and Ezra, who was instrumental in reestablishing Judea after the Exile (see Ezra 7:1-5). In Ezekiel’s ideal temple, only the descendants of Eleazar through Zadok would be permitted to serve (Ezek 44:15).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Exod 6:23-25; Lev 10:6-7; Num 3:1-4; 16:36-40; 20:22-26; 26:1-4; Josh 14:1<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Eleazar<\/h3>\n<p>Eleazar was the third son of Aaron, the first high priest (Exod 6:23). Eleazar’s two older brothers, Nadab and Abihu, offended God by offering incense in a different way than what God had commanded (Lev 10:1-7). Because of their disobedience, God killed them. Since Eleazar was the next oldest son, he was now in line to succeed his father as high priest. He performed priestly duties during his father’s lifetime, and he helped his father and Moses when some Levites rebelled because they wanted equal status with Aaron’s priestly family (Num 16:36-40).<\/p>\n<p>Aaron died in the wilderness a short time before the Israelites entered the Promised Land. He was not allowed to enter because he and Moses had rebelled against God by striking the rock at Meribah (20:1-13). Before Aaron’s death, he, Moses, and Eleazar went up on Mount Hor, where Moses removed the priestly garments from Aaron and put them on his son (20:22-29).<\/p>\n<p>After this, Eleazar served as high priest for the rest of his life, which included the time of Canaan’s conquest. When it was time to divide the land among the tribes, Eleazar and Joshua cast the sacred lots to determine where each tribe would settle (Josh 14:1-5). When Eleazar died, he was succeeded by his son Phinehas, who had distinguished himself by his covenant faithfulness when Israel had turned to the gods of Moab (Num 25). Eleazar’s descendants included Zadok, the faithful priest who replaced Abiathar (1 Kgs 2:26-27, 35; see 1 Chr 6:3-8, 50-53), and Ezra, who was instrumental in reestablishing Judea after the Exile (see Ezra 7:1-5). In Ezekiel’s ideal temple, only the descendants of Eleazar through Zadok would be permitted to serve (Ezek 44:15).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Exod 6:23-25; Lev 10:6-7; Num 3:1-4; 16:36-40; 20:22-26; 26:1-4; Josh 14:1<\/p>","summary_ro":"Eleazar Eleazar was the third son of Aaron, the first high priest (Exod 6:23). Eleazar’s two older brothers, Nadab and Abihu, offended God by offering incense in a different way than what God had commanded (Lev 10:1-7). Because of their disobedience, God killed them. Since Eleazar was the next oldest son, he was now in line to succeed his father as high priest. He performed priestly duties during his father’s lifetime, and he helped his father and Moses when some Levites rebelled because they...","summary_en":"Eleazar Eleazar was the third son of Aaron, the first high priest (Exod 6:23). Eleazar’s two older brothers, Nadab and Abihu, offended God by offering incense in a different way than what God had commanded (Lev 10:1-7). Because of their disobedience, God killed them. Since Eleazar was the next oldest son, he was now in line to succeed his father as high priest. He performed priestly duties during his father’s lifetime, and he helped his father and Moses when some Levites rebelled because they...","source":"Profiles.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":96643,"type":"profile","type_label":"Profil","type_icon":"👤","type_color":"#f59e0b","title_ro":"Zadok","title_en":"Zadok","content_ro":"<h3>Zadok<\/h3>\n<p>Zadok was an important transitional figure in the history of Israel’s priesthood. Since he seemingly appears out of nowhere in the narrative of 2 Samuel (8:17), some scholars suggest that he was not really born into a priestly family. However, there is no reason to doubt the biblical record that he was Aaron’s descendant (1 Chr 6:1-15, 50-53). Zadok’s family line is traced back to Eleazar, Aaron’s son (1 Chr 6:4-8; 24:3; Ezra 7:2-5). Zadok served alongside Abiathar, a descendant of Eli. Zadok and Abiathar were priests of Israel under King David (2 Sam 8:17; 20:25).<\/p>\n<p>When Absalom revolted against King David, both Zadok and Abiathar showed their loyalty to David by taking the Ark to him, fully prepared to share in his exile (15:24-29). Instead, David sent them to Jerusalem as his spies.<\/p>\n<p>Later, when David’s son Adonijah tried to seize the aged David’s throne with the support of Joab and Abiathar, Zadok wisely refrained from supporting him (1 Kgs 1:5-10). Abiathar was banished (1 Kgs 2:26-27), fulfilling the prophecy that Eli’s family would be removed from the priesthood (1 Sam 2:27-36). In this same prophecy, God said, “I will raise up a faithful priest who will serve me and do what I desire. I will establish his family, and they will be priests to my anointed kings forever” (1 Sam 2:35).<\/p>\n<p>The loyal Zadok fulfilled this prophecy and became the sole high priest under Solomon (1 Kgs 2:35). Zadok’s descendants served as Israel’s priests throughout the monarchy and beyond. Azariah, chief priest during Hezekiah’s reign, was of Zadok’s line (2 Chr 31:10). During the Exile, Ezekiel’s eschatological vision of the new Temple refers to Zadok’s priestly line (Ezek 40:46; 43:19; 44:15; 48:11). When the Jews later came under Seleucid domination in the early 100s <span>BC<\/span>, the high priesthood, by then regarded as a political appointment, was taken away from Zadok’s descendants. As a result of Ezekiel’s prophecies, Jewish groups such as those responsible for the Dead Sea Scrolls continued to await the restoration of Zadok’s line to the high priesthood. The New Testament teaches that the office of the high priest now rests on Jesus Christ (Heb 9:11; 10:12-25).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>2 Sam 8:17; 15:23-37; 1 Kgs 1:5-53; 2:35; 1 Chr 6:1-15, 50-53; Ezra 7:2; Ezek 40:46; 43:19; 44:15; 48:11<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Zadok<\/h3>\n<p>Zadok was an important transitional figure in the history of Israel’s priesthood. Since he seemingly appears out of nowhere in the narrative of 2 Samuel (8:17), some scholars suggest that he was not really born into a priestly family. However, there is no reason to doubt the biblical record that he was Aaron’s descendant (1 Chr 6:1-15, 50-53). Zadok’s family line is traced back to Eleazar, Aaron’s son (1 Chr 6:4-8; 24:3; Ezra 7:2-5). Zadok served alongside Abiathar, a descendant of Eli. Zadok and Abiathar were priests of Israel under King David (2 Sam 8:17; 20:25).<\/p>\n<p>When Absalom revolted against King David, both Zadok and Abiathar showed their loyalty to David by taking the Ark to him, fully prepared to share in his exile (15:24-29). Instead, David sent them to Jerusalem as his spies.<\/p>\n<p>Later, when David’s son Adonijah tried to seize the aged David’s throne with the support of Joab and Abiathar, Zadok wisely refrained from supporting him (1 Kgs 1:5-10). Abiathar was banished (1 Kgs 2:26-27), fulfilling the prophecy that Eli’s family would be removed from the priesthood (1 Sam 2:27-36). In this same prophecy, God said, “I will raise up a faithful priest who will serve me and do what I desire. I will establish his family, and they will be priests to my anointed kings forever” (1 Sam 2:35).<\/p>\n<p>The loyal Zadok fulfilled this prophecy and became the sole high priest under Solomon (1 Kgs 2:35). Zadok’s descendants served as Israel’s priests throughout the monarchy and beyond. Azariah, chief priest during Hezekiah’s reign, was of Zadok’s line (2 Chr 31:10). During the Exile, Ezekiel’s eschatological vision of the new Temple refers to Zadok’s priestly line (Ezek 40:46; 43:19; 44:15; 48:11). When the Jews later came under Seleucid domination in the early 100s <span>BC<\/span>, the high priesthood, by then regarded as a political appointment, was taken away from Zadok’s descendants. As a result of Ezekiel’s prophecies, Jewish groups such as those responsible for the Dead Sea Scrolls continued to await the restoration of Zadok’s line to the high priesthood. The New Testament teaches that the office of the high priest now rests on Jesus Christ (Heb 9:11; 10:12-25).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>2 Sam 8:17; 15:23-37; 1 Kgs 1:5-53; 2:35; 1 Chr 6:1-15, 50-53; Ezra 7:2; Ezek 40:46; 43:19; 44:15; 48:11<\/p>","summary_ro":"Zadok Zadok was an important transitional figure in the history of Israel’s priesthood. Since he seemingly appears out of nowhere in the narrative of 2 Samuel (8:17), some scholars suggest that he was not really born into a priestly family. However, there is no reason to doubt the biblical record that he was Aaron’s descendant (1 Chr 6:1-15, 50-53). Zadok’s family line is traced back to Eleazar, Aaron’s son (1 Chr 6:4-8; 24:3; Ezra 7:2-5). Zadok served alongside Abiathar, a descendant of Eli....","summary_en":"Zadok Zadok was an important transitional figure in the history of Israel’s priesthood. Since he seemingly appears out of nowhere in the narrative of 2 Samuel (8:17), some scholars suggest that he was not really born into a priestly family. However, there is no reason to doubt the biblical record that he was Aaron’s descendant (1 Chr 6:1-15, 50-53). Zadok’s family line is traced back to Eleazar, Aaron’s son (1 Chr 6:4-8; 24:3; Ezra 7:2-5). Zadok served alongside Abiathar, a descendant of Eli....","source":"Profiles.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":123906,"type":"profile","type_label":"Profil","type_icon":"👤","type_color":"#f59e0b","title_ro":"Eleazar","title_en":"Eleazar","content_ro":"<h3>Eleazar<\/h3>\n<p>Eleazar was the third son of Aaron, the first high priest (Exod 6:23). Eleazar’s two older brothers, Nadab and Abihu, offended God by offering incense in a different way than what God had commanded (Lev 10:1-7). Because of their disobedience, God killed them. Since Eleazar was the next oldest son, he was now in line to succeed his father as high priest. He performed priestly duties during his father’s lifetime, and he helped his father and Moses when some Levites rebelled because they wanted equal status with Aaron’s priestly family (Num 16:36-40).<\/p>\n<p>Aaron died in the wilderness a short time before the Israelites entered the Promised Land. He was not allowed to enter because he and Moses had rebelled against God by striking the rock at Meribah (20:1-13). Before Aaron’s death, he, Moses, and Eleazar went up on Mount Hor, where Moses removed the priestly garments from Aaron and put them on his son (20:22-29).<\/p>\n<p>After this, Eleazar served as high priest for the rest of his life, which included the time of Canaan’s conquest. When it was time to divide the land among the tribes, Eleazar and Joshua cast the sacred lots to determine where each tribe would settle (Josh 14:1-5). When Eleazar died, he was succeeded by his son Phinehas, who had distinguished himself by his covenant faithfulness when Israel had turned to the gods of Moab (Num 25). Eleazar’s descendants included Zadok, the faithful priest who replaced Abiathar (1 Kgs 2:26-27, 35; see 1 Chr 6:3-8, 50-53), and Ezra, who was instrumental in reestablishing Judea after the Exile (see Ezra 7:1-5). In Ezekiel’s ideal temple, only the descendants of Eleazar through Zadok would be permitted to serve (Ezek 44:15).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Exod 6:23-25; Lev 10:6-7; Num 3:1-4; 16:36-40; 20:22-26; 26:1-4; Josh 14:1<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Eleazar<\/h3>\n<p>Eleazar was the third son of Aaron, the first high priest (Exod 6:23). Eleazar’s two older brothers, Nadab and Abihu, offended God by offering incense in a different way than what God had commanded (Lev 10:1-7). Because of their disobedience, God killed them. Since Eleazar was the next oldest son, he was now in line to succeed his father as high priest. He performed priestly duties during his father’s lifetime, and he helped his father and Moses when some Levites rebelled because they wanted equal status with Aaron’s priestly family (Num 16:36-40).<\/p>\n<p>Aaron died in the wilderness a short time before the Israelites entered the Promised Land. He was not allowed to enter because he and Moses had rebelled against God by striking the rock at Meribah (20:1-13). Before Aaron’s death, he, Moses, and Eleazar went up on Mount Hor, where Moses removed the priestly garments from Aaron and put them on his son (20:22-29).<\/p>\n<p>After this, Eleazar served as high priest for the rest of his life, which included the time of Canaan’s conquest. When it was time to divide the land among the tribes, Eleazar and Joshua cast the sacred lots to determine where each tribe would settle (Josh 14:1-5). When Eleazar died, he was succeeded by his son Phinehas, who had distinguished himself by his covenant faithfulness when Israel had turned to the gods of Moab (Num 25). Eleazar’s descendants included Zadok, the faithful priest who replaced Abiathar (1 Kgs 2:26-27, 35; see 1 Chr 6:3-8, 50-53), and Ezra, who was instrumental in reestablishing Judea after the Exile (see Ezra 7:1-5). In Ezekiel’s ideal temple, only the descendants of Eleazar through Zadok would be permitted to serve (Ezek 44:15).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Exod 6:23-25; Lev 10:6-7; Num 3:1-4; 16:36-40; 20:22-26; 26:1-4; Josh 14:1<\/p>","summary_ro":"Eleazar Eleazar was the third son of Aaron, the first high priest (Exod 6:23). Eleazar’s two older brothers, Nadab and Abihu, offended God by offering incense in a different way than what God had commanded (Lev 10:1-7). Because of their disobedience, God killed them. Since Eleazar was the next oldest son, he was now in line to succeed his father as high priest. He performed priestly duties during his father’s lifetime, and he helped his father and Moses when some Levites rebelled because they...","summary_en":"Eleazar Eleazar was the third son of Aaron, the first high priest (Exod 6:23). Eleazar’s two older brothers, Nadab and Abihu, offended God by offering incense in a different way than what God had commanded (Lev 10:1-7). Because of their disobedience, God killed them. Since Eleazar was the next oldest son, he was now in line to succeed his father as high priest. He performed priestly duties during his father’s lifetime, and he helped his father and Moses when some Levites rebelled because they...","source":"Profiles.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":124269,"type":"profile","type_label":"Profil","type_icon":"👤","type_color":"#f59e0b","title_ro":"Zadok","title_en":"Zadok","content_ro":"<h3>Zadok<\/h3>\n<p>Zadok was an important transitional figure in the history of Israel’s priesthood. Since he seemingly appears out of nowhere in the narrative of 2 Samuel (8:17), some scholars suggest that he was not really born into a priestly family. However, there is no reason to doubt the biblical record that he was Aaron’s descendant (1 Chr 6:1-15, 50-53). Zadok’s family line is traced back to Eleazar, Aaron’s son (1 Chr 6:4-8; 24:3; Ezra 7:2-5). Zadok served alongside Abiathar, a descendant of Eli. Zadok and Abiathar were priests of Israel under King David (2 Sam 8:17; 20:25).<\/p>\n<p>When Absalom revolted against King David, both Zadok and Abiathar showed their loyalty to David by taking the Ark to him, fully prepared to share in his exile (15:24-29). Instead, David sent them to Jerusalem as his spies.<\/p>\n<p>Later, when David’s son Adonijah tried to seize the aged David’s throne with the support of Joab and Abiathar, Zadok wisely refrained from supporting him (1 Kgs 1:5-10). Abiathar was banished (1 Kgs 2:26-27), fulfilling the prophecy that Eli’s family would be removed from the priesthood (1 Sam 2:27-36). In this same prophecy, God said, “I will raise up a faithful priest who will serve me and do what I desire. I will establish his family, and they will be priests to my anointed kings forever” (1 Sam 2:35).<\/p>\n<p>The loyal Zadok fulfilled this prophecy and became the sole high priest under Solomon (1 Kgs 2:35). Zadok’s descendants served as Israel’s priests throughout the monarchy and beyond. Azariah, chief priest during Hezekiah’s reign, was of Zadok’s line (2 Chr 31:10). During the Exile, Ezekiel’s eschatological vision of the new Temple refers to Zadok’s priestly line (Ezek 40:46; 43:19; 44:15; 48:11). When the Jews later came under Seleucid domination in the early 100s <span>BC<\/span>, the high priesthood, by then regarded as a political appointment, was taken away from Zadok’s descendants. As a result of Ezekiel’s prophecies, Jewish groups such as those responsible for the Dead Sea Scrolls continued to await the restoration of Zadok’s line to the high priesthood. The New Testament teaches that the office of the high priest now rests on Jesus Christ (Heb 9:11; 10:12-25).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>2 Sam 8:17; 15:23-37; 1 Kgs 1:5-53; 2:35; 1 Chr 6:1-15, 50-53; Ezra 7:2; Ezek 40:46; 43:19; 44:15; 48:11<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Zadok<\/h3>\n<p>Zadok was an important transitional figure in the history of Israel’s priesthood. Since he seemingly appears out of nowhere in the narrative of 2 Samuel (8:17), some scholars suggest that he was not really born into a priestly family. However, there is no reason to doubt the biblical record that he was Aaron’s descendant (1 Chr 6:1-15, 50-53). Zadok’s family line is traced back to Eleazar, Aaron’s son (1 Chr 6:4-8; 24:3; Ezra 7:2-5). Zadok served alongside Abiathar, a descendant of Eli. Zadok and Abiathar were priests of Israel under King David (2 Sam 8:17; 20:25).<\/p>\n<p>When Absalom revolted against King David, both Zadok and Abiathar showed their loyalty to David by taking the Ark to him, fully prepared to share in his exile (15:24-29). Instead, David sent them to Jerusalem as his spies.<\/p>\n<p>Later, when David’s son Adonijah tried to seize the aged David’s throne with the support of Joab and Abiathar, Zadok wisely refrained from supporting him (1 Kgs 1:5-10). Abiathar was banished (1 Kgs 2:26-27), fulfilling the prophecy that Eli’s family would be removed from the priesthood (1 Sam 2:27-36). In this same prophecy, God said, “I will raise up a faithful priest who will serve me and do what I desire. I will establish his family, and they will be priests to my anointed kings forever” (1 Sam 2:35).<\/p>\n<p>The loyal Zadok fulfilled this prophecy and became the sole high priest under Solomon (1 Kgs 2:35). Zadok’s descendants served as Israel’s priests throughout the monarchy and beyond. Azariah, chief priest during Hezekiah’s reign, was of Zadok’s line (2 Chr 31:10). During the Exile, Ezekiel’s eschatological vision of the new Temple refers to Zadok’s priestly line (Ezek 40:46; 43:19; 44:15; 48:11). When the Jews later came under Seleucid domination in the early 100s <span>BC<\/span>, the high priesthood, by then regarded as a political appointment, was taken away from Zadok’s descendants. As a result of Ezekiel’s prophecies, Jewish groups such as those responsible for the Dead Sea Scrolls continued to await the restoration of Zadok’s line to the high priesthood. The New Testament teaches that the office of the high priest now rests on Jesus Christ (Heb 9:11; 10:12-25).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>2 Sam 8:17; 15:23-37; 1 Kgs 1:5-53; 2:35; 1 Chr 6:1-15, 50-53; Ezra 7:2; Ezek 40:46; 43:19; 44:15; 48:11<\/p>","summary_ro":"Zadok Zadok was an important transitional figure in the history of Israel’s priesthood. Since he seemingly appears out of nowhere in the narrative of 2 Samuel (8:17), some scholars suggest that he was not really born into a priestly family. However, there is no reason to doubt the biblical record that he was Aaron’s descendant (1 Chr 6:1-15, 50-53). Zadok’s family line is traced back to Eleazar, Aaron’s son (1 Chr 6:4-8; 24:3; Ezra 7:2-5). Zadok served alongside Abiathar, a descendant of Eli....","summary_en":"Zadok Zadok was an important transitional figure in the history of Israel’s priesthood. Since he seemingly appears out of nowhere in the narrative of 2 Samuel (8:17), some scholars suggest that he was not really born into a priestly family. However, there is no reason to doubt the biblical record that he was Aaron’s descendant (1 Chr 6:1-15, 50-53). Zadok’s family line is traced back to Eleazar, Aaron’s son (1 Chr 6:4-8; 24:3; Ezra 7:2-5). Zadok served alongside Abiathar, a descendant of Eli....","source":"Profiles.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":10373,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Eleazar","title_en":"Eleazar","content_ro":"<h3>ELEAZAR<\/h3>\n<li>1. Third of Aaron’s four sons (Ex 6:23). Eleazar (“God has helped”) was consecrated as a priest with his brothers and Aaron in the Sinai (Ex 28:1; Lv 8:2, 13). When his brothers Nadab and Abihu were killed by God as they offered “unholy fire” to the Lord (Lv 10:1-7), Eleazar and Ithamar took leading positions as Aaron’s sons (Nm 3:1-4).<\/li>\n<p>Eleazar is described as “chief of the leaders of the Levites” (Nm 3:32). Under his supervision were the sanctuary and its vessels (4:16; 16:37-39; 19:3-4). Eleazar was installed as high priest by Moses when Aaron died on Mt Hor (Nm 20:25-28; Dt 10:6). He was then considered Moses’ assistant (Nm 26:1-3, 63; 27:2, 21). Joshua was commissioned by Moses in the presence of Eleazar (27:18-23). In the conquest of Canaan, Joshua and Eleazar served together as leaders. It was Eleazar’s function as Joshua’s counselor to inquire of the Lord (v 21). He also had his share in the census taking at Shittim. He took part in the partitioning of Canaan, the east bank (34:17), and the west bank (Jos 14:1; 17:4; 19:51; 21:1).<\/p>\n<p>When Eleazar died, he was highly regarded and memorialized in the land of Ephraim (Jos 24:33); his son Phinehas followed him as high priest.<\/p>\n<p>In the oversight of the priests, 16 divisions were assigned to Eleazar’s descendants and eight to Ithamar’s (1 Chr 24). The ancestry of the prominent priests Zadok and Ezra is traced to Eleazar (1 Chr 6:3-15, 50-53; 24:3; Ezr 7:1-5). In King Solomon’s time the priests of Zadok replaced Abiathar, a descendant of Ithamar (1 Kgs 2:26-27, 35). The descendants of Eleazar would be the only ones permitted to minister in Ezekiel’s ideal temple (Ez 44:15).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Aaron.<\/p>\n<li>2. Abinadab’s son, charged with caring for the ark by the people of Kiriath-jearim, when it was brought from Beth-shemesh and placed in the “house of Abinadab on the hill” (1 Sm 7:1).<\/li>\n<li>3. Dodo’s son, one of the three mighty men whose exploits against the Philistines gained him great fame (2 Sm 23:9; 1 Chr 11:12).<\/li>\n<li>4. Merarite Levite, son of Mahli. Eleazar died without sons, so his daughters were married to their first cousins (1 Chr 23:21-22; 24:28).<\/li>\n<li>5. Priest descended from Phinehas. This Eleazar helped inventory the temple treasure on returning from the exile with Ezra (Ezr 8:33).<\/li>\n<li>6. Parosh’s son, listed with others who divorced their foreign wives in the reform under Ezra (Ezr 10:25).<\/li>\n<li>7. Priest in attendance at the dedication of the rebuilt walls of Jerusalem following the exile (Neh 12:42).<\/li>\n<li>8. Person in the lineage of Joseph, husband of Mary (Mt 1:15). <em>See<\/em> Genealogy of Jesus Christ.<\/li>","content_en":"<h3>ELEAZAR<\/h3>\n<li>1. Third of Aaron’s four sons (Ex 6:23). Eleazar (“God has helped”) was consecrated as a priest with his brothers and Aaron in the Sinai (Ex 28:1; Lv 8:2, 13). When his brothers Nadab and Abihu were killed by God as they offered “unholy fire” to the Lord (Lv 10:1-7), Eleazar and Ithamar took leading positions as Aaron’s sons (Nm 3:1-4).<\/li>\n<p>Eleazar is described as “chief of the leaders of the Levites” (Nm 3:32). Under his supervision were the sanctuary and its vessels (4:16; 16:37-39; 19:3-4). Eleazar was installed as high priest by Moses when Aaron died on Mt Hor (Nm 20:25-28; Dt 10:6). He was then considered Moses’ assistant (Nm 26:1-3, 63; 27:2, 21). Joshua was commissioned by Moses in the presence of Eleazar (27:18-23). In the conquest of Canaan, Joshua and Eleazar served together as leaders. It was Eleazar’s function as Joshua’s counselor to inquire of the Lord (v 21). He also had his share in the census taking at Shittim. He took part in the partitioning of Canaan, the east bank (34:17), and the west bank (Jos 14:1; 17:4; 19:51; 21:1).<\/p>\n<p>When Eleazar died, he was highly regarded and memorialized in the land of Ephraim (Jos 24:33); his son Phinehas followed him as high priest.<\/p>\n<p>In the oversight of the priests, 16 divisions were assigned to Eleazar’s descendants and eight to Ithamar’s (1 Chr 24). The ancestry of the prominent priests Zadok and Ezra is traced to Eleazar (1 Chr 6:3-15, 50-53; 24:3; Ezr 7:1-5). In King Solomon’s time the priests of Zadok replaced Abiathar, a descendant of Ithamar (1 Kgs 2:26-27, 35). The descendants of Eleazar would be the only ones permitted to minister in Ezekiel’s ideal temple (Ez 44:15).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Aaron.<\/p>\n<li>2. Abinadab’s son, charged with caring for the ark by the people of Kiriath-jearim, when it was brought from Beth-shemesh and placed in the “house of Abinadab on the hill” (1 Sm 7:1).<\/li>\n<li>3. Dodo’s son, one of the three mighty men whose exploits against the Philistines gained him great fame (2 Sm 23:9; 1 Chr 11:12).<\/li>\n<li>4. Merarite Levite, son of Mahli. Eleazar died without sons, so his daughters were married to their first cousins (1 Chr 23:21-22; 24:28).<\/li>\n<li>5. Priest descended from Phinehas. This Eleazar helped inventory the temple treasure on returning from the exile with Ezra (Ezr 8:33).<\/li>\n<li>6. Parosh’s son, listed with others who divorced their foreign wives in the reform under Ezra (Ezr 10:25).<\/li>\n<li>7. Priest in attendance at the dedication of the rebuilt walls of Jerusalem following the exile (Neh 12:42).<\/li>\n<li>8. Person in the lineage of Joseph, husband of Mary (Mt 1:15). <em>See<\/em> Genealogy of Jesus Christ.<\/li>","summary_ro":"ELEAZAR 1. Third of Aaron’s four sons (Ex 6:23). Eleazar (“God has helped”) was consecrated as a priest with his brothers and Aaron in the Sinai (Ex 28:1; Lv 8:2, 13). When his brothers Nadab and Abihu were killed by God as they offered “unholy fire” to the Lord (Lv 10:1-7), Eleazar and Ithamar took leading positions as Aaron’s sons (Nm 3:1-4). Eleazar is described as “chief of the leaders of the Levites” (Nm 3:32). Under his supervision were the sanctuary and its vessels (4:16; 16:37-39; 19:...","summary_en":"ELEAZAR 1. Third of Aaron’s four sons (Ex 6:23). Eleazar (“God has helped”) was consecrated as a priest with his brothers and Aaron in the Sinai (Ex 28:1; Lv 8:2, 13). When his brothers Nadab and Abihu were killed by God as they offered “unholy fire” to the Lord (Lv 10:1-7), Eleazar and Ithamar took leading positions as Aaron’s sons (Nm 3:1-4). Eleazar is described as “chief of the leaders of the Levites” (Nm 3:32). Under his supervision were the sanctuary and its vessels (4:16; 16:37-39; 19:...","source":"Articles\/E.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":33492,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Sadducees","title_en":"Sadducees","content_ro":"<h3>SADDUCEES<\/h3>\n<p>Jewish sect cited 14 times in the NT, not referred to in the OT.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheirHistory\">Their History<\/p>\n<p>A number of suggestions have been made as to the origin of the name. First, it has been connected with the Hebrew word for “righteous” (<span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">saddik<\/span>). This is difficult from an etymological point of view, as there would have been a change from <em>i<\/em> to <em>u<\/em> in the word. Nor is there reason to think that they made such a claim to be the “righteous ones.” Second, the name has been connected with Zadok (sometimes written <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">Saddouk<\/span> in Greek), a priest in the days of David (2 Sm 8:17; 15:24-29) who anointed Solomon (1 Kgs 1:32-39) and in his reign became chief priest (2:35). He is said to have descended from Eleazar, the son of Aaron (1 Chr 6:3-8), and Zadokite priests seem to have been responsible for priestly duties in the temple until the exile. In the blueprints for the restoration of the worship of the temple (Ez 40–48), it is the Zadokite priesthood that is again given charge to minister as “Levitical priests” (44:15-16; 48:11-12). After the exile, we read of Joshua (Jeshua) the son of Jehozadak as high priest (Hg 1:1), and his lineage was traced back to Zadok (1 Chr 6:8-15). The significance of the Zadokite priesthood continues to be stressed in writings of the early second century <span>BC<\/span>, but it is by no means clear that the Sadducees made a stand for the Zadokite priesthood. It may be added that the double <em>d<\/em> in the word is not readily explained by this view of Sadducean origins.<\/p>\n<p>Third, a late rabbinic tradition is that the Sadducees took their name from another Zadok who lived in the second century <span>BC<\/span>. There is little to commend this view.<\/p>\n<p>Finally, the British NT scholar T. W. Manson suggested that their name is to be connected with the Greek word <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">sundikoi<\/span><em>,<\/em> meaning “members of the council,” thus designating the Sadducees as councillors under the Hasmonean rulers.<\/p>\n<p>The first historical knowledge of the Sadducees is in the time of Jonathan Maccabeus, who led the Jewish struggle against the Seleucids from 160 to 143 <span>BC<\/span>. Josephus (<em>Antiquities<\/em> 13.5.9) said that they were a party at this time, and that when John Hyrcanus was head of the Jewish state (135–104 <span>BC<\/span>) there was strife between the Pharisees and the Sadducees (<em>Antiquities<\/em> 13.10.6). It is possible that the Sadducees stood in some sense for the Zadokite priesthood or for the claim that the Jerusalem priesthood of their day was Zadokite in origin, but this is far from clear. Josephus says that the Sadducees had the rich on their side, while the Pharisees had a following among the common people. In the days of Salome Alexandra (76–67 <span>BC<\/span>), the Pharisees were in the ascendancy, but when Judea became a Roman province and Roman governors began to put one high priest down and raise another up, it appears that most of the high priests were from high-born Sadducean families. While they could temporize with the Romans, these Sadducean families had power and influence in the land. As hostilities developed between the Jews and their Roman overlords, the influence of the Sadducees declined. After the fall of Jerusalem to the Romans in <span>AD<\/span> 70, the Sadducees fade from history.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"IntheNewTestament\">In the New Testament<\/p>\n<p>In the Gospel narrative they first appeared, together with Pharisees, at John’s baptism. He addressed them as “sons of snakes” and challenged them to show repentance in their lives (Mt 3:7-10). Later, the Sadducees came along with some Pharisees to “test” Jesus, asking him to show them a sign from heaven (16:1). Jesus told his disciples to beware of the Sadducees (vv 6, 11-12).<\/p>\n<p>A great difference begins to emerge between Pharisees and Sadducees in Matthew 22:23-33 (cf. Mk 12:18-27; Lk 20:27-38). The Sadducees, who, like others, wanted to embarrass Jesus with their questions, came with a trick question that showed their doubts concerning the resurrection of the dead. The Sadducees were described in this context as those who say there is no resurrection after death. They cited the case of a woman who had seven brothers as her husbands in succession. “Whose wife will she be in the resurrection?” they asked, implying that because of such a problem, the resurrection could not be a reality. Jesus answered by speaking of the error of their view caused by their ignorance of the Scriptures and of God’s power.<\/p>\n<p>In the early days of the church in Jerusalem, the priests and the captain of the temple police and the Sadducees became annoyed because the disciples were proclaiming the resurrection from the dead (Acts 4:1-2). The Sadducees seem to have led the opposition to the apostles and their preaching. Later the high priest and Sadducees determined to arrest the apostles and put them in the prison (5:17). The only other reference to them in the NT is in Acts 23:6-8, in the record of Paul’s trial before the Jewish Sanhedrin. On that occasion, Paul deliberately spoke about his belief in the resurrection so as to cause a division between the Pharisees and the Sadducees, who did not believe in resurrection.<\/p>\n<p>Thus from these NT passages one realizes something of the basic tenets of the Sadducees, of their prominence among the high priestly families, and of the differences between Pharisees and Sadducees.<\/p>\n<p>Josephus, the Jewish historian who wrote in the closing years of the first century <span>AD<\/span>, adds to the information in the NT about this party. He said that the Sadducees, in contrast to the Pharisees and Essenes, gave no place to the overruling providence of God but emphasized that all that happens to us is the result of the good or evil that we do (<em>Antiquities<\/em> 13.5.9; <em>War<\/em> 2.8.14). Josephus, in a way comparable to the NT, spoke of the Sadducees’ rejection of “the immortal duration of the soul, and the punishments and rewards in Hades” (<em>War<\/em> 2.8.14). “Souls die with the bodies” was what they said (<em>Antiquities<\/em> 18.1.4). Early Christian writers—Hippolytus, Origen, and Jerome—said that the Sadducees accepted only the Pentateuch and not the other OT books. It would seem, however, that they were not opposed to other OT books as a whole (though it is doubtful whether they accepted books such as Daniel, with its clear statement of the resurrection of the dead), but rather that they opposed the legal regulations introduced by the Pharisees and were saying that only the OT law should be considered mandatory. In this, as in their stand against belief in angels and in life after death, they appear to have regarded the Pharisees as innovators and themselves as conservatives.<\/p>\n<p>The other main source of knowledge about the Sadducees is the Mishnah, the collection of the teaching of the rabbis, put down in writing in the second century <span>AD<\/span>. The Sadducees opposed many of the detailed regulations that the Pharisees sought to impose on the people (<em>Parah<\/em> 3.3,7). It also indicates that they had a greater tendency to compromise with the ways of the Gentiles than other Jewish parties (<em>Niddah<\/em> 4.2).<\/p>\n<p><em>See<\/em> Essenes; Judaism; Pharisees.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>SADDUCEES<\/h3>\n<p>Jewish sect cited 14 times in the NT, not referred to in the OT.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheirHistory\">Their History<\/p>\n<p>A number of suggestions have been made as to the origin of the name. First, it has been connected with the Hebrew word for “righteous” (<span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">saddik<\/span>). This is difficult from an etymological point of view, as there would have been a change from <em>i<\/em> to <em>u<\/em> in the word. Nor is there reason to think that they made such a claim to be the “righteous ones.” Second, the name has been connected with Zadok (sometimes written <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">Saddouk<\/span> in Greek), a priest in the days of David (2 Sm 8:17; 15:24-29) who anointed Solomon (1 Kgs 1:32-39) and in his reign became chief priest (2:35). He is said to have descended from Eleazar, the son of Aaron (1 Chr 6:3-8), and Zadokite priests seem to have been responsible for priestly duties in the temple until the exile. In the blueprints for the restoration of the worship of the temple (Ez 40–48), it is the Zadokite priesthood that is again given charge to minister as “Levitical priests” (44:15-16; 48:11-12). After the exile, we read of Joshua (Jeshua) the son of Jehozadak as high priest (Hg 1:1), and his lineage was traced back to Zadok (1 Chr 6:8-15). The significance of the Zadokite priesthood continues to be stressed in writings of the early second century <span>BC<\/span>, but it is by no means clear that the Sadducees made a stand for the Zadokite priesthood. It may be added that the double <em>d<\/em> in the word is not readily explained by this view of Sadducean origins.<\/p>\n<p>Third, a late rabbinic tradition is that the Sadducees took their name from another Zadok who lived in the second century <span>BC<\/span>. There is little to commend this view.<\/p>\n<p>Finally, the British NT scholar T. W. Manson suggested that their name is to be connected with the Greek word <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">sundikoi<\/span><em>,<\/em> meaning “members of the council,” thus designating the Sadducees as councillors under the Hasmonean rulers.<\/p>\n<p>The first historical knowledge of the Sadducees is in the time of Jonathan Maccabeus, who led the Jewish struggle against the Seleucids from 160 to 143 <span>BC<\/span>. Josephus (<em>Antiquities<\/em> 13.5.9) said that they were a party at this time, and that when John Hyrcanus was head of the Jewish state (135–104 <span>BC<\/span>) there was strife between the Pharisees and the Sadducees (<em>Antiquities<\/em> 13.10.6). It is possible that the Sadducees stood in some sense for the Zadokite priesthood or for the claim that the Jerusalem priesthood of their day was Zadokite in origin, but this is far from clear. Josephus says that the Sadducees had the rich on their side, while the Pharisees had a following among the common people. In the days of Salome Alexandra (76–67 <span>BC<\/span>), the Pharisees were in the ascendancy, but when Judea became a Roman province and Roman governors began to put one high priest down and raise another up, it appears that most of the high priests were from high-born Sadducean families. While they could temporize with the Romans, these Sadducean families had power and influence in the land. As hostilities developed between the Jews and their Roman overlords, the influence of the Sadducees declined. After the fall of Jerusalem to the Romans in <span>AD<\/span> 70, the Sadducees fade from history.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"IntheNewTestament\">In the New Testament<\/p>\n<p>In the Gospel narrative they first appeared, together with Pharisees, at John’s baptism. He addressed them as “sons of snakes” and challenged them to show repentance in their lives (Mt 3:7-10). Later, the Sadducees came along with some Pharisees to “test” Jesus, asking him to show them a sign from heaven (16:1). Jesus told his disciples to beware of the Sadducees (vv 6, 11-12).<\/p>\n<p>A great difference begins to emerge between Pharisees and Sadducees in Matthew 22:23-33 (cf. Mk 12:18-27; Lk 20:27-38). The Sadducees, who, like others, wanted to embarrass Jesus with their questions, came with a trick question that showed their doubts concerning the resurrection of the dead. The Sadducees were described in this context as those who say there is no resurrection after death. They cited the case of a woman who had seven brothers as her husbands in succession. “Whose wife will she be in the resurrection?” they asked, implying that because of such a problem, the resurrection could not be a reality. Jesus answered by speaking of the error of their view caused by their ignorance of the Scriptures and of God’s power.<\/p>\n<p>In the early days of the church in Jerusalem, the priests and the captain of the temple police and the Sadducees became annoyed because the disciples were proclaiming the resurrection from the dead (Acts 4:1-2). The Sadducees seem to have led the opposition to the apostles and their preaching. Later the high priest and Sadducees determined to arrest the apostles and put them in the prison (5:17). The only other reference to them in the NT is in Acts 23:6-8, in the record of Paul’s trial before the Jewish Sanhedrin. On that occasion, Paul deliberately spoke about his belief in the resurrection so as to cause a division between the Pharisees and the Sadducees, who did not believe in resurrection.<\/p>\n<p>Thus from these NT passages one realizes something of the basic tenets of the Sadducees, of their prominence among the high priestly families, and of the differences between Pharisees and Sadducees.<\/p>\n<p>Josephus, the Jewish historian who wrote in the closing years of the first century <span>AD<\/span>, adds to the information in the NT about this party. He said that the Sadducees, in contrast to the Pharisees and Essenes, gave no place to the overruling providence of God but emphasized that all that happens to us is the result of the good or evil that we do (<em>Antiquities<\/em> 13.5.9; <em>War<\/em> 2.8.14). Josephus, in a way comparable to the NT, spoke of the Sadducees’ rejection of “the immortal duration of the soul, and the punishments and rewards in Hades” (<em>War<\/em> 2.8.14). “Souls die with the bodies” was what they said (<em>Antiquities<\/em> 18.1.4). Early Christian writers—Hippolytus, Origen, and Jerome—said that the Sadducees accepted only the Pentateuch and not the other OT books. It would seem, however, that they were not opposed to other OT books as a whole (though it is doubtful whether they accepted books such as Daniel, with its clear statement of the resurrection of the dead), but rather that they opposed the legal regulations introduced by the Pharisees and were saying that only the OT law should be considered mandatory. In this, as in their stand against belief in angels and in life after death, they appear to have regarded the Pharisees as innovators and themselves as conservatives.<\/p>\n<p>The other main source of knowledge about the Sadducees is the Mishnah, the collection of the teaching of the rabbis, put down in writing in the second century <span>AD<\/span>. The Sadducees opposed many of the detailed regulations that the Pharisees sought to impose on the people (<em>Parah<\/em> 3.3,7). It also indicates that they had a greater tendency to compromise with the ways of the Gentiles than other Jewish parties (<em>Niddah<\/em> 4.2).<\/p>\n<p><em>See<\/em> Essenes; Judaism; Pharisees.<\/p>","summary_ro":"SADDUCEES Jewish sect cited 14 times in the NT, not referred to in the OT. Their History A number of suggestions have been made as to the origin of the name. First, it has been connected with the Hebrew word for “righteous” (saddik). This is difficult from an etymological point of view, as there would have been a change from i to u in the word. Nor is there reason to think that they made such a claim to be the “righteous ones.” Second, the name has been connected with Zadok (sometimes written...","summary_en":"SADDUCEES Jewish sect cited 14 times in the NT, not referred to in the OT. Their History A number of suggestions have been made as to the origin of the name. First, it has been connected with the Hebrew word for “righteous” (saddik). This is difficult from an etymological point of view, as there would have been a change from i to u in the word. Nor is there reason to think that they made such a claim to be the “righteous ones.” Second, the name has been connected with Zadok (sometimes written...","source":"Articles\/S.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":53373,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ezechiel 44:15","title_en":"Study Note: Ezechiel 44:15","content_ro":"<p><strong>44:15-16<\/strong> In contrast to the Levites and the people who abandoned the Lord for idols, the <em>Levitical priests of the family of Zadok<\/em> remained faithful to the Lord. Zadok was the high priest of Solomon’s day. His family’s reward was renewed access to the inner courtyard, where they were to perform the crucial sacrificial rituals nearer to the presence of God. A repeated theme in these chapters is that those who were faithful in the past would be rewarded with closer access to God and greater privilege in his presence, while those who were unfaithful would be kept at a greater distance.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>44:15-16<\/strong> In contrast to the Levites and the people who abandoned the Lord for idols, the <em>Levitical priests of the family of Zadok<\/em> remained faithful to the Lord. Zadok was the high priest of Solomon’s day. His family’s reward was renewed access to the inner courtyard, where they were to perform the crucial sacrificial rituals nearer to the presence of God. A repeated theme in these chapters is that those who were faithful in the past would be rewarded with closer access to God and greater privilege in his presence, while those who were unfaithful would be kept at a greater distance.<\/p>","summary_ro":"44:15-16 In contrast to the Levites and the people who abandoned the Lord for idols, the Levitical priests of the family of Zadok remained faithful to the Lord. Zadok was the high priest of Solomon’s day. His family’s reward was renewed access to the inner courtyard, where they were to perform the crucial sacrificial rituals nearer to the presence of God. A repeated theme in these chapters is that those who were faithful in the past would be rewarded with closer access to God and greater priv...","summary_en":"44:15-16 In contrast to the Levites and the people who abandoned the Lord for idols, the Levitical priests of the family of Zadok remained faithful to the Lord. Zadok was the high priest of Solomon’s day. His family’s reward was renewed access to the inner courtyard, where they were to perform the crucial sacrificial rituals nearer to the presence of God. A repeated theme in these chapters is that those who were faithful in the past would be rewarded with closer access to God and greater priv...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":80999,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ezechiel 44:15","title_en":"Study Note: Ezechiel 44:15","content_ro":"<p><strong>44:15-16<\/strong> In contrast to the Levites and the people who abandoned the Lord for idols, the <em>Levitical priests of the family of Zadok<\/em> remained faithful to the Lord. Zadok was the high priest of Solomon’s day. His family’s reward was renewed access to the inner courtyard, where they were to perform the crucial sacrificial rituals nearer to the presence of God. A repeated theme in these chapters is that those who were faithful in the past would be rewarded with closer access to God and greater privilege in his presence, while those who were unfaithful would be kept at a greater distance.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>44:15-16<\/strong> In contrast to the Levites and the people who abandoned the Lord for idols, the <em>Levitical priests of the family of Zadok<\/em> remained faithful to the Lord. Zadok was the high priest of Solomon’s day. His family’s reward was renewed access to the inner courtyard, where they were to perform the crucial sacrificial rituals nearer to the presence of God. A repeated theme in these chapters is that those who were faithful in the past would be rewarded with closer access to God and greater privilege in his presence, while those who were unfaithful would be kept at a greater distance.<\/p>","summary_ro":"44:15-16 In contrast to the Levites and the people who abandoned the Lord for idols, the Levitical priests of the family of Zadok remained faithful to the Lord. Zadok was the high priest of Solomon’s day. His family’s reward was renewed access to the inner courtyard, where they were to perform the crucial sacrificial rituals nearer to the presence of God. A repeated theme in these chapters is that those who were faithful in the past would be rewarded with closer access to God and greater priv...","summary_en":"44:15-16 In contrast to the Levites and the people who abandoned the Lord for idols, the Levitical priests of the family of Zadok remained faithful to the Lord. Zadok was the high priest of Solomon’s day. His family’s reward was renewed access to the inner courtyard, where they were to perform the crucial sacrificial rituals nearer to the presence of God. A repeated theme in these chapters is that those who were faithful in the past would be rewarded with closer access to God and greater priv...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":108625,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ezechiel 44:15","title_en":"Study Note: Ezechiel 44:15","content_ro":"<p><strong>44:15-16<\/strong> In contrast to the Levites and the people who abandoned the Lord for idols, the <em>Levitical priests of the family of Zadok<\/em> remained faithful to the Lord. Zadok was the high priest of Solomon’s day. His family’s reward was renewed access to the inner courtyard, where they were to perform the crucial sacrificial rituals nearer to the presence of God. A repeated theme in these chapters is that those who were faithful in the past would be rewarded with closer access to God and greater privilege in his presence, while those who were unfaithful would be kept at a greater distance.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>44:15-16<\/strong> In contrast to the Levites and the people who abandoned the Lord for idols, the <em>Levitical priests of the family of Zadok<\/em> remained faithful to the Lord. Zadok was the high priest of Solomon’s day. His family’s reward was renewed access to the inner courtyard, where they were to perform the crucial sacrificial rituals nearer to the presence of God. A repeated theme in these chapters is that those who were faithful in the past would be rewarded with closer access to God and greater privilege in his presence, while those who were unfaithful would be kept at a greater distance.<\/p>","summary_ro":"44:15-16 In contrast to the Levites and the people who abandoned the Lord for idols, the Levitical priests of the family of Zadok remained faithful to the Lord. Zadok was the high priest of Solomon’s day. His family’s reward was renewed access to the inner courtyard, where they were to perform the crucial sacrificial rituals nearer to the presence of God. A repeated theme in these chapters is that those who were faithful in the past would be rewarded with closer access to God and greater priv...","summary_en":"44:15-16 In contrast to the Levites and the people who abandoned the Lord for idols, the Levitical priests of the family of Zadok remained faithful to the Lord. Zadok was the high priest of Solomon’s day. His family’s reward was renewed access to the inner courtyard, where they were to perform the crucial sacrificial rituals nearer to the presence of God. A repeated theme in these chapters is that those who were faithful in the past would be rewarded with closer access to God and greater priv...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":136251,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ezechiel 44:15","title_en":"Study Note: Ezechiel 44:15","content_ro":"<p><strong>44:15-16<\/strong> In contrast to the Levites and the people who abandoned the Lord for idols, the <em>Levitical priests of the family of Zadok<\/em> remained faithful to the Lord. Zadok was the high priest of Solomon’s day. His family’s reward was renewed access to the inner courtyard, where they were to perform the crucial sacrificial rituals nearer to the presence of God. A repeated theme in these chapters is that those who were faithful in the past would be rewarded with closer access to God and greater privilege in his presence, while those who were unfaithful would be kept at a greater distance.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>44:15-16<\/strong> In contrast to the Levites and the people who abandoned the Lord for idols, the <em>Levitical priests of the family of Zadok<\/em> remained faithful to the Lord. Zadok was the high priest of Solomon’s day. His family’s reward was renewed access to the inner courtyard, where they were to perform the crucial sacrificial rituals nearer to the presence of God. A repeated theme in these chapters is that those who were faithful in the past would be rewarded with closer access to God and greater privilege in his presence, while those who were unfaithful would be kept at a greater distance.<\/p>","summary_ro":"44:15-16 In contrast to the Levites and the people who abandoned the Lord for idols, the Levitical priests of the family of Zadok remained faithful to the Lord. Zadok was the high priest of Solomon’s day. His family’s reward was renewed access to the inner courtyard, where they were to perform the crucial sacrificial rituals nearer to the presence of God. A repeated theme in these chapters is that those who were faithful in the past would be rewarded with closer access to God and greater priv...","summary_en":"44:15-16 In contrast to the Levites and the people who abandoned the Lord for idols, the Levitical priests of the family of Zadok remained faithful to the Lord. Zadok was the high priest of Solomon’s day. His family’s reward was renewed access to the inner courtyard, where they were to perform the crucial sacrificial rituals nearer to the presence of God. A repeated theme in these chapters is that those who were faithful in the past would be rewarded with closer access to God and greater priv...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"17":[{"id":38570,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Wool","title_en":"Wool","content_ro":"<h3>WOOL<\/h3>\n<p>Important commodity of the ancient Near East. King Mesha of Moab, a sheep breeder, annually sent the wool of 100,000 rams as tribute to King Ahab of Israel (2 Kgs 3:4), and the people of Damascus traded wool with Tyre’s merchants (Ez 27:18). Woolen garments were commonly worn by the Israelites (Lv 13:47-59; Is 51:8; Hos 2:5, 9), though woolen garments mingled with linen fabric were forbidden (Dt 22:11). In fact, wearing wool was prohibited entirely for Israelite priests serving in the sanctuary’s inner court (Ez 44:17).<\/p>\n<p>Wool is sometimes a biblical symbol for whiteness and purity, it is a simile for redemption (Is 1:18), for the hair of the Ancient of Days (Dn 7:9), and for the hair and head of the Son of Man (Rv 1:14).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Cloth and Cloth Manufacturing.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>WOOL<\/h3>\n<p>Important commodity of the ancient Near East. King Mesha of Moab, a sheep breeder, annually sent the wool of 100,000 rams as tribute to King Ahab of Israel (2 Kgs 3:4), and the people of Damascus traded wool with Tyre’s merchants (Ez 27:18). Woolen garments were commonly worn by the Israelites (Lv 13:47-59; Is 51:8; Hos 2:5, 9), though woolen garments mingled with linen fabric were forbidden (Dt 22:11). In fact, wearing wool was prohibited entirely for Israelite priests serving in the sanctuary’s inner court (Ez 44:17).<\/p>\n<p>Wool is sometimes a biblical symbol for whiteness and purity, it is a simile for redemption (Is 1:18), for the hair of the Ancient of Days (Dn 7:9), and for the hair and head of the Son of Man (Rv 1:14).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Cloth and Cloth Manufacturing.<\/p>","summary_ro":"WOOL Important commodity of the ancient Near East. King Mesha of Moab, a sheep breeder, annually sent the wool of 100,000 rams as tribute to King Ahab of Israel (2 Kgs 3:4), and the people of Damascus traded wool with Tyre’s merchants (Ez 27:18). Woolen garments were commonly worn by the Israelites (Lv 13:47-59; Is 51:8; Hos 2:5, 9), though woolen garments mingled with linen fabric were forbidden (Dt 22:11). In fact, wearing wool was prohibited entirely for Israelite priests serving in the sa...","summary_en":"WOOL Important commodity of the ancient Near East. King Mesha of Moab, a sheep breeder, annually sent the wool of 100,000 rams as tribute to King Ahab of Israel (2 Kgs 3:4), and the people of Damascus traded wool with Tyre’s merchants (Ez 27:18). Woolen garments were commonly worn by the Israelites (Lv 13:47-59; Is 51:8; Hos 2:5, 9), though woolen garments mingled with linen fabric were forbidden (Dt 22:11). In fact, wearing wool was prohibited entirely for Israelite priests serving in the sa...","source":"Articles\/W.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":53374,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ezechiel 44:17","title_en":"Study Note: Ezechiel 44:17","content_ro":"<p><strong>44:17-19<\/strong> The privileged access of the priests carried heightened responsibilities for holiness. Their behavior was far more restricted than that of the people in general. They had to wear <em>linen<\/em> rather than <em>wool<\/em> so that their bodies would not be defiled by sweat (see study note on 36:17), and they were to maintain a separate wardrobe of sacred garments. • <em>endanger . . . by transmitting holiness to them:<\/em> Holiness was a contagious quality that could be conveyed to anything with which it came into contact. The problem with this is that if a sacred object transmitted holiness to a profane object or person, there could be fatal consequences (cp. Lev 10:1-3; 1 Sam 6:19; 2 Sam 6:6-7).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>44:17-19<\/strong> The privileged access of the priests carried heightened responsibilities for holiness. Their behavior was far more restricted than that of the people in general. They had to wear <em>linen<\/em> rather than <em>wool<\/em> so that their bodies would not be defiled by sweat (see study note on 36:17), and they were to maintain a separate wardrobe of sacred garments. • <em>endanger . . . by transmitting holiness to them:<\/em> Holiness was a contagious quality that could be conveyed to anything with which it came into contact. The problem with this is that if a sacred object transmitted holiness to a profane object or person, there could be fatal consequences (cp. Lev 10:1-3; 1 Sam 6:19; 2 Sam 6:6-7).<\/p>","summary_ro":"44:17-19 The privileged access of the priests carried heightened responsibilities for holiness. Their behavior was far more restricted than that of the people in general. They had to wear linen rather than wool so that their bodies would not be defiled by sweat (see study note on 36:17), and they were to maintain a separate wardrobe of sacred garments. • endanger . . . by transmitting holiness to them: Holiness was a contagious quality that could be conveyed to anything with which it came int...","summary_en":"44:17-19 The privileged access of the priests carried heightened responsibilities for holiness. Their behavior was far more restricted than that of the people in general. They had to wear linen rather than wool so that their bodies would not be defiled by sweat (see study note on 36:17), and they were to maintain a separate wardrobe of sacred garments. • endanger . . . by transmitting holiness to them: Holiness was a contagious quality that could be conveyed to anything with which it came int...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":81000,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ezechiel 44:17","title_en":"Study Note: Ezechiel 44:17","content_ro":"<p><strong>44:17-19<\/strong> The privileged access of the priests carried heightened responsibilities for holiness. Their behavior was far more restricted than that of the people in general. They had to wear <em>linen<\/em> rather than <em>wool<\/em> so that their bodies would not be defiled by sweat (see study note on 36:17), and they were to maintain a separate wardrobe of sacred garments. • <em>endanger . . . by transmitting holiness to them:<\/em> Holiness was a contagious quality that could be conveyed to anything with which it came into contact. The problem with this is that if a sacred object transmitted holiness to a profane object or person, there could be fatal consequences (cp. Lev 10:1-3; 1 Sam 6:19; 2 Sam 6:6-7).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>44:17-19<\/strong> The privileged access of the priests carried heightened responsibilities for holiness. Their behavior was far more restricted than that of the people in general. They had to wear <em>linen<\/em> rather than <em>wool<\/em> so that their bodies would not be defiled by sweat (see study note on 36:17), and they were to maintain a separate wardrobe of sacred garments. • <em>endanger . . . by transmitting holiness to them:<\/em> Holiness was a contagious quality that could be conveyed to anything with which it came into contact. The problem with this is that if a sacred object transmitted holiness to a profane object or person, there could be fatal consequences (cp. Lev 10:1-3; 1 Sam 6:19; 2 Sam 6:6-7).<\/p>","summary_ro":"44:17-19 The privileged access of the priests carried heightened responsibilities for holiness. Their behavior was far more restricted than that of the people in general. They had to wear linen rather than wool so that their bodies would not be defiled by sweat (see study note on 36:17), and they were to maintain a separate wardrobe of sacred garments. • endanger . . . by transmitting holiness to them: Holiness was a contagious quality that could be conveyed to anything with which it came int...","summary_en":"44:17-19 The privileged access of the priests carried heightened responsibilities for holiness. Their behavior was far more restricted than that of the people in general. They had to wear linen rather than wool so that their bodies would not be defiled by sweat (see study note on 36:17), and they were to maintain a separate wardrobe of sacred garments. • endanger . . . by transmitting holiness to them: Holiness was a contagious quality that could be conveyed to anything with which it came int...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":108626,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ezechiel 44:17","title_en":"Study Note: Ezechiel 44:17","content_ro":"<p><strong>44:17-19<\/strong> The privileged access of the priests carried heightened responsibilities for holiness. Their behavior was far more restricted than that of the people in general. They had to wear <em>linen<\/em> rather than <em>wool<\/em> so that their bodies would not be defiled by sweat (see study note on 36:17), and they were to maintain a separate wardrobe of sacred garments. • <em>endanger . . . by transmitting holiness to them:<\/em> Holiness was a contagious quality that could be conveyed to anything with which it came into contact. The problem with this is that if a sacred object transmitted holiness to a profane object or person, there could be fatal consequences (cp. Lev 10:1-3; 1 Sam 6:19; 2 Sam 6:6-7).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>44:17-19<\/strong> The privileged access of the priests carried heightened responsibilities for holiness. Their behavior was far more restricted than that of the people in general. They had to wear <em>linen<\/em> rather than <em>wool<\/em> so that their bodies would not be defiled by sweat (see study note on 36:17), and they were to maintain a separate wardrobe of sacred garments. • <em>endanger . . . by transmitting holiness to them:<\/em> Holiness was a contagious quality that could be conveyed to anything with which it came into contact. The problem with this is that if a sacred object transmitted holiness to a profane object or person, there could be fatal consequences (cp. Lev 10:1-3; 1 Sam 6:19; 2 Sam 6:6-7).<\/p>","summary_ro":"44:17-19 The privileged access of the priests carried heightened responsibilities for holiness. Their behavior was far more restricted than that of the people in general. They had to wear linen rather than wool so that their bodies would not be defiled by sweat (see study note on 36:17), and they were to maintain a separate wardrobe of sacred garments. • endanger . . . by transmitting holiness to them: Holiness was a contagious quality that could be conveyed to anything with which it came int...","summary_en":"44:17-19 The privileged access of the priests carried heightened responsibilities for holiness. Their behavior was far more restricted than that of the people in general. They had to wear linen rather than wool so that their bodies would not be defiled by sweat (see study note on 36:17), and they were to maintain a separate wardrobe of sacred garments. • endanger . . . by transmitting holiness to them: Holiness was a contagious quality that could be conveyed to anything with which it came int...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":136252,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ezechiel 44:17","title_en":"Study Note: Ezechiel 44:17","content_ro":"<p><strong>44:17-19<\/strong> The privileged access of the priests carried heightened responsibilities for holiness. Their behavior was far more restricted than that of the people in general. They had to wear <em>linen<\/em> rather than <em>wool<\/em> so that their bodies would not be defiled by sweat (see study note on 36:17), and they were to maintain a separate wardrobe of sacred garments. • <em>endanger . . . by transmitting holiness to them:<\/em> Holiness was a contagious quality that could be conveyed to anything with which it came into contact. The problem with this is that if a sacred object transmitted holiness to a profane object or person, there could be fatal consequences (cp. Lev 10:1-3; 1 Sam 6:19; 2 Sam 6:6-7).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>44:17-19<\/strong> The privileged access of the priests carried heightened responsibilities for holiness. Their behavior was far more restricted than that of the people in general. They had to wear <em>linen<\/em> rather than <em>wool<\/em> so that their bodies would not be defiled by sweat (see study note on 36:17), and they were to maintain a separate wardrobe of sacred garments. • <em>endanger . . . by transmitting holiness to them:<\/em> Holiness was a contagious quality that could be conveyed to anything with which it came into contact. The problem with this is that if a sacred object transmitted holiness to a profane object or person, there could be fatal consequences (cp. Lev 10:1-3; 1 Sam 6:19; 2 Sam 6:6-7).<\/p>","summary_ro":"44:17-19 The privileged access of the priests carried heightened responsibilities for holiness. Their behavior was far more restricted than that of the people in general. They had to wear linen rather than wool so that their bodies would not be defiled by sweat (see study note on 36:17), and they were to maintain a separate wardrobe of sacred garments. • endanger . . . by transmitting holiness to them: Holiness was a contagious quality that could be conveyed to anything with which it came int...","summary_en":"44:17-19 The privileged access of the priests carried heightened responsibilities for holiness. Their behavior was far more restricted than that of the people in general. They had to wear linen rather than wool so that their bodies would not be defiled by sweat (see study note on 36:17), and they were to maintain a separate wardrobe of sacred garments. • endanger . . . by transmitting holiness to them: Holiness was a contagious quality that could be conveyed to anything with which it came int...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"20":[{"id":53375,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ezechiel 44:20","title_en":"Study Note: Ezechiel 44:20","content_ro":"<p><strong>44:20-27<\/strong> The priests were to avoid contact with death, either by <em>being in the presence of a dead person<\/em> or through the ritual mourning practices in which they would <em>shave their heads<\/em> or <em>let their hair grow<\/em> completely free. They <em>must not drink wine before entering the inner courtyard<\/em> to avoid the risk of potentially fatal alcohol-induced errors (see Lev 10:9). The priests were restricted in marriage to <em>virgins of Israel<\/em> or to <em>widows of the priests<\/em> to ensure the continuing purity of the priestly line. In all of these ways, the priests were to model the radical distinction between <em>holy<\/em> and <em>common<\/em> and between the <em>ceremonially clean and unclean<\/em> for the people.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>44:20-27<\/strong> The priests were to avoid contact with death, either by <em>being in the presence of a dead person<\/em> or through the ritual mourning practices in which they would <em>shave their heads<\/em> or <em>let their hair grow<\/em> completely free. They <em>must not drink wine before entering the inner courtyard<\/em> to avoid the risk of potentially fatal alcohol-induced errors (see Lev 10:9). The priests were restricted in marriage to <em>virgins of Israel<\/em> or to <em>widows of the priests<\/em> to ensure the continuing purity of the priestly line. In all of these ways, the priests were to model the radical distinction between <em>holy<\/em> and <em>common<\/em> and between the <em>ceremonially clean and unclean<\/em> for the people.<\/p>","summary_ro":"44:20-27 The priests were to avoid contact with death, either by being in the presence of a dead person or through the ritual mourning practices in which they would shave their heads or let their hair grow completely free. They must not drink wine before entering the inner courtyard to avoid the risk of potentially fatal alcohol-induced errors (see Lev 10:9). The priests were restricted in marriage to virgins of Israel or to widows of the priests to ensure the continuing purity of the priestl...","summary_en":"44:20-27 The priests were to avoid contact with death, either by being in the presence of a dead person or through the ritual mourning practices in which they would shave their heads or let their hair grow completely free. They must not drink wine before entering the inner courtyard to avoid the risk of potentially fatal alcohol-induced errors (see Lev 10:9). The priests were restricted in marriage to virgins of Israel or to widows of the priests to ensure the continuing purity of the priestl...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":81001,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ezechiel 44:20","title_en":"Study Note: Ezechiel 44:20","content_ro":"<p><strong>44:20-27<\/strong> The priests were to avoid contact with death, either by <em>being in the presence of a dead person<\/em> or through the ritual mourning practices in which they would <em>shave their heads<\/em> or <em>let their hair grow<\/em> completely free. They <em>must not drink wine before entering the inner courtyard<\/em> to avoid the risk of potentially fatal alcohol-induced errors (see Lev 10:9). The priests were restricted in marriage to <em>virgins of Israel<\/em> or to <em>widows of the priests<\/em> to ensure the continuing purity of the priestly line. In all of these ways, the priests were to model the radical distinction between <em>holy<\/em> and <em>common<\/em> and between the <em>ceremonially clean and unclean<\/em> for the people.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>44:20-27<\/strong> The priests were to avoid contact with death, either by <em>being in the presence of a dead person<\/em> or through the ritual mourning practices in which they would <em>shave their heads<\/em> or <em>let their hair grow<\/em> completely free. They <em>must not drink wine before entering the inner courtyard<\/em> to avoid the risk of potentially fatal alcohol-induced errors (see Lev 10:9). The priests were restricted in marriage to <em>virgins of Israel<\/em> or to <em>widows of the priests<\/em> to ensure the continuing purity of the priestly line. In all of these ways, the priests were to model the radical distinction between <em>holy<\/em> and <em>common<\/em> and between the <em>ceremonially clean and unclean<\/em> for the people.<\/p>","summary_ro":"44:20-27 The priests were to avoid contact with death, either by being in the presence of a dead person or through the ritual mourning practices in which they would shave their heads or let their hair grow completely free. They must not drink wine before entering the inner courtyard to avoid the risk of potentially fatal alcohol-induced errors (see Lev 10:9). The priests were restricted in marriage to virgins of Israel or to widows of the priests to ensure the continuing purity of the priestl...","summary_en":"44:20-27 The priests were to avoid contact with death, either by being in the presence of a dead person or through the ritual mourning practices in which they would shave their heads or let their hair grow completely free. They must not drink wine before entering the inner courtyard to avoid the risk of potentially fatal alcohol-induced errors (see Lev 10:9). The priests were restricted in marriage to virgins of Israel or to widows of the priests to ensure the continuing purity of the priestl...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":108627,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ezechiel 44:20","title_en":"Study Note: Ezechiel 44:20","content_ro":"<p><strong>44:20-27<\/strong> The priests were to avoid contact with death, either by <em>being in the presence of a dead person<\/em> or through the ritual mourning practices in which they would <em>shave their heads<\/em> or <em>let their hair grow<\/em> completely free. They <em>must not drink wine before entering the inner courtyard<\/em> to avoid the risk of potentially fatal alcohol-induced errors (see Lev 10:9). The priests were restricted in marriage to <em>virgins of Israel<\/em> or to <em>widows of the priests<\/em> to ensure the continuing purity of the priestly line. In all of these ways, the priests were to model the radical distinction between <em>holy<\/em> and <em>common<\/em> and between the <em>ceremonially clean and unclean<\/em> for the people.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>44:20-27<\/strong> The priests were to avoid contact with death, either by <em>being in the presence of a dead person<\/em> or through the ritual mourning practices in which they would <em>shave their heads<\/em> or <em>let their hair grow<\/em> completely free. They <em>must not drink wine before entering the inner courtyard<\/em> to avoid the risk of potentially fatal alcohol-induced errors (see Lev 10:9). The priests were restricted in marriage to <em>virgins of Israel<\/em> or to <em>widows of the priests<\/em> to ensure the continuing purity of the priestly line. In all of these ways, the priests were to model the radical distinction between <em>holy<\/em> and <em>common<\/em> and between the <em>ceremonially clean and unclean<\/em> for the people.<\/p>","summary_ro":"44:20-27 The priests were to avoid contact with death, either by being in the presence of a dead person or through the ritual mourning practices in which they would shave their heads or let their hair grow completely free. They must not drink wine before entering the inner courtyard to avoid the risk of potentially fatal alcohol-induced errors (see Lev 10:9). The priests were restricted in marriage to virgins of Israel or to widows of the priests to ensure the continuing purity of the priestl...","summary_en":"44:20-27 The priests were to avoid contact with death, either by being in the presence of a dead person or through the ritual mourning practices in which they would shave their heads or let their hair grow completely free. They must not drink wine before entering the inner courtyard to avoid the risk of potentially fatal alcohol-induced errors (see Lev 10:9). The priests were restricted in marriage to virgins of Israel or to widows of the priests to ensure the continuing purity of the priestl...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":136253,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ezechiel 44:20","title_en":"Study Note: Ezechiel 44:20","content_ro":"<p><strong>44:20-27<\/strong> The priests were to avoid contact with death, either by <em>being in the presence of a dead person<\/em> or through the ritual mourning practices in which they would <em>shave their heads<\/em> or <em>let their hair grow<\/em> completely free. They <em>must not drink wine before entering the inner courtyard<\/em> to avoid the risk of potentially fatal alcohol-induced errors (see Lev 10:9). The priests were restricted in marriage to <em>virgins of Israel<\/em> or to <em>widows of the priests<\/em> to ensure the continuing purity of the priestly line. In all of these ways, the priests were to model the radical distinction between <em>holy<\/em> and <em>common<\/em> and between the <em>ceremonially clean and unclean<\/em> for the people.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>44:20-27<\/strong> The priests were to avoid contact with death, either by <em>being in the presence of a dead person<\/em> or through the ritual mourning practices in which they would <em>shave their heads<\/em> or <em>let their hair grow<\/em> completely free. They <em>must not drink wine before entering the inner courtyard<\/em> to avoid the risk of potentially fatal alcohol-induced errors (see Lev 10:9). The priests were restricted in marriage to <em>virgins of Israel<\/em> or to <em>widows of the priests<\/em> to ensure the continuing purity of the priestly line. In all of these ways, the priests were to model the radical distinction between <em>holy<\/em> and <em>common<\/em> and between the <em>ceremonially clean and unclean<\/em> for the people.<\/p>","summary_ro":"44:20-27 The priests were to avoid contact with death, either by being in the presence of a dead person or through the ritual mourning practices in which they would shave their heads or let their hair grow completely free. They must not drink wine before entering the inner courtyard to avoid the risk of potentially fatal alcohol-induced errors (see Lev 10:9). The priests were restricted in marriage to virgins of Israel or to widows of the priests to ensure the continuing purity of the priestl...","summary_en":"44:20-27 The priests were to avoid contact with death, either by being in the presence of a dead person or through the ritual mourning practices in which they would shave their heads or let their hair grow completely free. They must not drink wine before entering the inner courtyard to avoid the risk of potentially fatal alcohol-induced errors (see Lev 10:9). The priests were restricted in marriage to virgins of Israel or to widows of the priests to ensure the continuing purity of the priestl...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"22":[{"id":23808,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Period*, Maccabean","title_en":"Period*, Maccabean","content_ro":"<h3>MACCABEAN PERIOD*<\/h3>\n<p>Period of Israel’s history when the Maccabeans fought for Israel’s freedom and governed the country. This period lasted from 167 <span>BC<\/span> to approximately 40 <span>BC<\/span>, when the priest Mattathias and his descendants, particularly his son Judas, surnamed Maccabeus, were active opponents of all attempts to introduce Hellenistic practices into Jewish life and religion.<\/p>\n<p>From the conquest of Alexander the Great in 332 <span>BC<\/span>, Judea became alternately a pawn and a battleground as the Egyptian descendants of Ptolemy, the Syrians, and later the Romans vied for political control. The Ptolemies, though directing activities from Egypt rather than from Athens, were themselves Greeks and, like the Syrian kings of the Seleucid dynasty, were descendants of Alexander’s generals. Thus the Ptolemies were also Hellenists. They believed in the superiority of everything Greek. They encouraged the extension of learning and built the library of Alexandria to develop a center of Greek culture in competition with Athens itself.<\/p>\n<p>The aim of the pro-Greeks or Hellenists was to introduce Greek culture to the Near East, to establish Greek-style cities and colonies, and to encourage intermarriage between Greeks and Asians. In this way nationalism would be engulfed in the overall Greek plan, national heritage would be lost, and national or regional religions would give way to the legends and symbolism of the colorful Greek gods.<\/p>\n<p>Judah represented a small nation in this vast picture. The chances for the survival of the religion, heritage, or political freedom of this group would have appeared to be minimal. In their favor, however, was the faith and assurance that God was with his people and that, if they followed his dictates, they would survive. They realized that as a people they might face suffering and exile, but they knew that, if they held firm in their faith, the nucleus of a nation would be preserved. They were also upheld in their attitude by the belief that the coming of the Messiah was imminent.<\/p>\n<p>Before 200 <span>BC<\/span>, neither Egypt nor Syria seemed able to gain long-term control over Judea, until an agreement was reached assigning the jurisdiction to Syria, and this was supported by Judea. In appreciation, Antiochus the Great of Syria canceled Judean taxes for three years and promised compensation for the cities destroyed in the preceding battles. Priests, scribes, and temple singers were exempted from certain taxes, and duties on imported timber were removed temporarily to facilitate reconstruction in Jerusalem. Money was made available for sacrifices, and many Jewish prisoners were freed.<\/p>\n<p>By 175 <span>BC<\/span>, the picture had changed considerably. Antiochus IV Epiphanes had gained the throne of Syria by assassinating both his brother and the rightful heir to the kingdom. Prior to this, Antiochus IV had lived in Athens and had also been held hostage in Rome for 14 years. He understood and respected the political power of Rome, and to prevent a takeover of the Near East, he decided to expand his own position by conquering Egypt and bringing the entire area under Syrian control. Impressed by Greek philosophy and traditions, he aimed to use a program of Hellenization as a tool to unite the diverse peoples under his control. A dangerous madman, he would stop at nothing to achieve his political ends.<\/p>\n<p>The most influential position in Jerusalem at the time was that of the high priest. It seemed to be as much a political as a religious office. Traditionally the high priest had been a descendant of Aaron, and during this period of unrest, it was essential for the position to be held by a strong and inspiring leader, firm in his own faith, who could be an example and help to rally those who opposed the encroachments of Hellenism. Thus the right to select the high priest became vested in the one who held military control over the area. When Syrian power was strong, the king attempted to install his own nominee as high priest. When Syria was involved in internal political squabbles or external military engagements, or was being defeated by the followers of Judas Maccabeus, the Jewish people were permitted temporarily to choose their own high priest and simultaneously to enjoy a certain amount of political independence and relief from taxes.<\/p>\n<p>It is understandable, therefore, just how upset the Jews were when Antiochus first attempted to install his own nominee, Menelaus, as high priest. Since he was not of the line of Aaron, he had no claim to the position, having actually obtained it by making Antiochus a high monetary offer that swelled the coffers of the financially impoverished king. While Antiochus was busy invading Egypt, the people of Jerusalem took advantage of the opportunity to oust Menelaus and reinstate the former high priest. In revenge, Antiochus ordered that the city be sacked. Many of the inhabitants were killed, the temple was desecrated, and its treasure was removed. After this, the city was left in the hands of a Syrian military commander (1 Macc 1:20-29; 2 Macc 5:14-22; Josephus’s <em>Antiquities<\/em> 12.5.3).<\/p>\n<p>Still eager to obtain control of Egypt, Antiochus invaded it again, but retreated rapidly when he received orders to do so from the Senate in Rome. Fearful of the power and extent of Roman authority, he determined to secure the loyalty of the Jewish state by pressing his program of Hellenization. He thus hoped to use Judea as a partial buffer between himself and Rome.<\/p>\n<p>The observance of the Sabbath, religious festivals, sacrifices, and the circumcision of male children were forbidden by law, and copies of the Torah were destroyed. Altars to Greek gods were set up, and the Jews were ordered to eat the flesh of pigs, which was prohibited to them (2 Macc 6:18; see Lv 11:7). The temple in Jerusalem became a shrine dedicated to Zeus, and a pig was offered in sacrifice on the altar (1 Macc 1:41-64; 2 Macc 6:1-11; see Dn 11:31-32).<\/p>\n<p>In each Judean village an altar was set up and sacrifice offered under the watchful eye of a Syrian officer. In 166 <span>BC<\/span>, when the time came for Mattathias, an aged priest with five sons, to offer a sacrifice of unclean flesh to a pagan god, he refused on behalf of himself and his sons. In anger Mattathias killed both an apostate Jew, who had offered sacrifice, and the Syrian officer supervising the enactment of the new law. Prior to this, resistance had been steady but isolated, and although there were those who accepted the edict, many refused and faced death for their faith (1 Macc 1:60; 2:29-37; 2 Macc 6:18-31).<\/p>\n<p>Mattathias called upon supporters of the Hebrew law to follow him (1 Macc 2:15-27), and he and his sons fled to the hills. Mattathias was joined by an ardent religious group called the Hasidim, and together with other supporters, they waged a most successful guerrilla war from bases in the Judean hills.<\/p>\n<p>Attacks were made on isolated villages, heathen altars were torn down, and uncircumcised Jewish boys were circumcised. With the death of Mattathias in 166 <span>BC<\/span>, a more warlike phase of the struggle began under the direction of his son Judas Maccabeus, who became the symbol of Jewish resistance. He was a leader who waged a vigorous campaign in a righteous cause. He brought into focus the nationalistic sentiment of his people, and above all he was successful in the face of huge odds. His forays were more than a thorn in the flesh to Antiochus, for Judas’s tactics and victories earned the respect of his friends and fear of his enemies.<\/p>\n<p>The success of Judas gave him virtual control of the country. He immediately set about the restoration of the temple. The altar that had been used for sacrifice to Zeus was destroyed, and faithful priests rededicated the temple so that daily worship could be resumed (1 Macc 4:36-59; 2 Macc 10:1-8; Josephus’s <em>Antiquities<\/em> 12.7.6-7). The practice of the Jewish faith was restored in symbolism and in fact for all to see, with the institution of the Feast of Dedication or Lights (Hanukkah). With the spiritual house in order, Judas set about rebuilding the city walls so that Jerusalem would be able to withstand the next Syrian onslaught.<\/p>\n<p>Then Judas and his brothers broadened their sights, hoping to secure freedom not only for Judea but for the whole of Palestine. Therefore, attacks were made against the Idumeans in Transjordan (1 Macc 5:1-8) and against Philistia (vv 9-68; Josephus’s <em>Antiquities<\/em> 12.8.1-6). Judas then set about achieving political freedom for Judea. He opposed the appointment of a high priest who, although of the line of Aaron, was a Hellenist (1 Macc 7:14; 2 Macc 14:3-7; Josephus’s <em>Antiquities<\/em> 12.9.7). The Hasidim broke ranks with Judas and accepted the new high priest, but certain promises were not honored, and 60 of them were slain. The remainder realized their mistake and rededicated their allegiance to Judas (1 Macc 7:15-20; Josephus’s <em>Antiquities<\/em> 12.10.2). A Syrian army that was dispatched to secure the high priest’s position in Jerusalem was destroyed, and the Syrians, together with their priestly nominee, fled ignominiously.<\/p>\n<p>Throughout the period, Rome was an overshadowing presence, and Judas hoped to use the might of Rome for his own political advantage in the perennial fight against Syria. A warning was sent to Demetrius stating that Judas was under the protection of Rome, but it arrived after a huge Syrian army had set out on a mission of revenge. Some of the Maccabean army deserted before the mighty hordes of Syria, and in the ensuing battle Judas was killed.<\/p>\n<p>While the Maccabeans regrouped under Judas’s younger brother, Jonathan, the Syrians and the Hellenists were in control of Jerusalem, rebuilding the walls and strengthening other cities against a possible Maccabean attack. Over the next few years, the Syrians suffered a defeat, and their support of the Hellenists in Judea was weakened. No new high priest was appointed by the Syrians, to the satisfaction of Jonathan, who did not want to see his own authority curtailed. When the Maccabees gained the ascendancy once more, they punished the Hellenists (1 Macc 9:23-73; Josephus’s <em>Antiquities<\/em> 13.1.1-6), and for the following five years there was peace.<\/p>\n<p>From 152 <span>BC<\/span>, Syria was embroiled in internal struggles, both major factions vying for Jonathan’s support, while he in turn used the situation to strengthen his own position. Promises to Jonathan from these two factions ranged from the title of high priest to exemption from taxes and an increase in territory. Ultimately Jonathan was appointed high priest, being the first of the Maccabees to be offered this prestigious position. Judas would probably have liked the office as a crown to his military successes, but his family was not of the house of Aaron, and at that time the people would not have been prepared to accept him as high priest.<\/p>\n<p>As the throne of Syria changed hands through death in battle and assassination, Jonathan sided first with one faction, then with the other. He also sent an embassy to Rome to reconfirm his support in that quarter. Jonathan was then held hostage and murdered by the Syrians and was succeeded by Mattathias’s sole surviving son, Simon, in 143 <span>BC<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p>Simon extracted a treaty from the young Syrian king Demetrius II whereby Judea became virtually independent and considerably larger in territory. Simon was even given the right to mint coinage (1 Macc 15:6), a sure sign of independence, but as soon as Antiochus came to power in 139 <span>BC<\/span>, the right was withdrawn. In the period of peace that followed Simon’s treaty with Demetrius, many expected that the coming of the Messiah was near. They thought that perhaps he would be a descendant of Simon, despite the fact that the standards and tactics of some of the Maccabean leaders had been most questionable. Simon retained the title and office of high priest, and it became a hereditary position for his family.<\/p>\n<p>There was by no means universal support for Simon as high priest, however, even among the anti-Hellenists and the Hasidim, who had previously supported the Maccabeans. Some Jews also maintained that the priesthood should remain in the hands of the Aaronic line. The peace and relative prosperity continued until Simon was murdered by his son-in-law about 135 <span>BC<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p>Simon, the first of the Hasmonean line, was succeeded by his son John Hyrcanus. He was a strong ruler, despite the troubled period that opened his reign. Antiochus VII, who had gained the throne of Syria a few years previously, attacked Jerusalem, and although the city held out for a year, it finally succumbed. Judea once again became tributary to Syria, not regaining its freedom until the death of Antiochus, about 128 <span>BC<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p>At this time John Hyrcanus gained the enmity of the Hasidim (from then on known as Pharisees), whose disciple he had once been. It would seem likely that a claim to kingship had angered the Pharisees, who considered that this right rested with the Davidic line, whether or not there was a claimant ready to accept the throne.<\/p>\n<p>In his role as high priest, John Hyrcanus would have had close dealings with the Sadducees, a party as political as it was religious. It gained its support chiefly from the upper levels of society, whose descendants were the rulers of the Sanhedrin in NT times. The Pharisees, who observed the Torah in minute detail, must have constrained any ruler who tried to govern within their limitations.<\/p>\n<p>During the earlier Judean struggles, the Hasidim had sometimes sided with the Maccabeans but at other times had been content to remain quietly under the Syrian yoke so long as their freedom of worship was guaranteed. Under John Hyrcanus, however, they began to enjoy the privilege of influencing the national policy, and thriving on that taste of power they were reluctant to relinquish it. Their dismay at seeing political control pass into the hands of the Sadducees can be imagined.<\/p>\n<p>As dissension and dissatisfaction spread among the Pharisees, a leader emerged in Judea whom we know from the Qumran literature as the “Teacher of Righteousness.” As well as advocating strict adherence to the law, he taught that the present generation was the last generation and that final preparations for the imminent coming of the Messiah should be made. During the subsequent reign of Alexander Janneus, those who adhered strictly to the law were persecuted actively, and the “Teacher of Righteousness,” along with his immediate followers, left to set up their own establishment at Qumran in the Judean wilderness. They felt that since wickedness in the person of Alexander Janneus was prevailing, then God must have abandoned Israel and that he would, instead, be pleased to dwell with the surviving righteous remnant in Qumran.<\/p>\n<p>The group dissociated themselves completely from the Jewish leaders in Jerusalem by not finding it necessary to offer sacrifices in the temple and by resorting to the ancient calendar that had been preserved in Samaria, so that the great festivals were even celebrated on different dates. The success of the group also helped to undermine the authority of the temple and of the remainder of the Pharisees.<\/p>\n<p>After the death of John Hyrcanus, the throne passed to a younger son, Aristobulus, who reigned for one year only, and then to the eldest son, Alexander Janneus, in 103 <span>BC<\/span>. At this time Jewish hopes ran high. The Syrians were too involved in their own political turmoil to be a threat and the new king set out on a path of successful conquest. In the midst of fighting, torture, and death, he was in his element, and from what we know of his character, it would seem that there was ample reason why the throne had passed first to his younger brother.<\/p>\n<p>He was extremely successful, however, in extending the boundaries of the Jewish nation from the Mediterranean coast to the frontiers of Egypt. His success was dearly won, as he frequently lost almost as many troops as his enemy. Most of his army consisted of mercenaries, whose pay came from a heavy tax burden for the Jewish people.<\/p>\n<p>For six years he was engaged in a bitter civil war and remained feared and unpopular. He seemed to have little genuine interest in religion, and it was unacceptable to many that a man with such a lust for blood should hold the office of high priest. He had also married his brother’s widow, Alexandra (Salome), which although permitted under the laws of levirate marriage (Dt 25:5-10), was strictly forbidden to the high priest (Lv 21:13-14; cf. Ez 44:22). The bitter feelings of the people toward Alexander Janneus were seen in the year 90 <span>BC<\/span>, when festival pilgrims pelted him with lemons as he was attempting to perform his priestly function at the Feast of Tabernacles. He reacted predictably by turning his guards on the crowd and killing 6,000 people (Josephus’s <em>Antiquities<\/em> 13.13.5).<\/p>\n<p>Since the king was supported by the Sadducees, the loyalty of the people veered toward the Pharisees. As opposition to Alexander Janneus built up, Syrian help was requested from Demetrius III. Fifty thousand Jews were estimated to have been killed in the subsequent fighting. Alexander Janneus suffered a severe defeat at Shechem, but Demetrius withdrew, leaving the shattered Pharisaic party to face the terrible wrath of their king. Many were executed, and approximately 8,000 went into exile (Josephus’s <em>Antiquities<\/em> 14.14.2).<\/p>\n<p>The Pharisees considered that Alexander Janneus had secularized the Jewish kingdom. His own Hellenistic upbringing in Galilee did not endear him to them. They were concerned, too, not only with his conquests but also with his attempts to impose the Jewish religion on other groups by force. On his deathbed Alexander Janneus handed the throne over to his wife, Alexandra Salome, instructing her to make peace with the Pharisees by giving them a share of power. She may have been the daughter of a prominent Pharisee, and she certainly heeded the advice, relinquishing almost complete power to the Pharisaic party (Josephus’s <em>Antiquities<\/em> 13.16.2).<\/p>\n<p>Revenge was sweet for the Pharisees, and many of the old traditions of the Sadducees were set aside. The situation was complicated further by the fact that the queen’s elder son, Hyrcanus, supported the Pharisees, while the younger, Aristobulus, followed the Sadducees. Though high priest and heir apparent, Hyrcanus, the elder son, was quiet and lacking in ambition. Contrary to this, Aristobulus grew in the image of his father and was appointed commander of the army.<\/p>\n<p>The Sadducees, claiming threats to national security, obtained permission from the queen to occupy several strongholds in the country. During Alexandra’s nine-year reign, the law had been upheld and well administered by the Pharisees. But with the death of the queen in 67 <span>BC<\/span>, the stage was set for turmoil between her two sons.<\/p>\n<p>As Aristobulus gathered an army and attacked his brother, many of the troops deserted Hyrcanus and he relinquished both crown and priesthood to Aristobulus. Instead of being able to retire quietly to his country estate as he had hoped, Hyrcanus was still looked on by the Pharisees as their leader.<\/p>\n<p>An Idumean named Antipater, father of the future king Herod the Great, then schemed to restore Hyrcanus to his unwanted throne. Quite clearly, Antipater hoped to be the power behind the figurehead Hyrcanus. Antipater and Hyrcanus, with outside support, defeated Aristobulus and besieged him in Jerusalem. Many devout Jews, eager to abandon the squabbling and bitterness, left for a new life in Egypt. The siege of Jerusalem aroused the interest of the nearby Roman army, and both sides appealed for assistance, offering large bribes. The Roman commander decided to support Aristobulus, but two years later, in 63 <span>BC<\/span>, Pompey intervened personally.<\/p>\n<p>Aristobulus, having aroused the suspicion of the Romans, attempted to defy the might of the approaching army. Followers of Hyrcanus opened the gates of the city to the Romans, and the temple was stormed on the Sabbath after three months of resistance by the supporters of Aristobulus. Pompey marched sword in hand into the Holy of Holies but did not remove the temple treasure. Although Aristobulus was spared, many of his principal supporters were executed. Judea lost any semblance of authority over many of the surrounding areas, and it became a tributary to Rome.<\/p>\n<p>The amount paid to Rome in taxes, although substantial, must have seemed small compared with the taxes that had been necessary to underwrite the incessant fighting of the previous century. Judea then entered upon a period of relative calm. To the Romans, the area was unimportant in the sense that major trade routes now focused on Rome. The routes to the East were no longer either useful or accessible because of the political barriers to the east, and the north-south trade route to Egypt was declining in importance.<\/p>\n<p>In 57 <span>BC<\/span> Aristobulus raised a minor revolt, the only result of which seems to have been the whittling away of what little authority remained to Hyrcanus. Aristobulus and his supporters continued their unsuccessful attempts for several years, but to no avail.<\/p>\n<p>Antipater, meanwhile, continued firm in his support of Hyrcanus and of Rome. During the civil war that began in 49 <span>BC<\/span>, Antipater changed sides from Pompey to Caesar, acting in the name of Hyrcanus, and when Caesar was successful, the Jews were rewarded with a remission of Roman taxes.<\/p>\n<p>They were confirmed in their religious freedom, and in Jewish matters they were allowed to be tried in their own courts. They were also exempt from Roman military service. Their territory was increased, and they were permitted to raise their own taxes. Antipater was personally rewarded by the Romans, and as his authority increased, so did the hatred and distrust of him by the Sadducees. Antipater appointed his son Herod as governor of Galilee.<\/p>\n<p>Herod immediately undertook to rid the area bordering on Syria of a group of “brigands” or “Judean patriots” who were under the leadership of Hezekiah. They had considerable local support, but many of the group were subsequently captured, including their leader, and they were executed. Since under Jewish law no man could be executed without the sentence being sanctioned by the Sanhedrin, Herod himself was called to account by the Jewish elders of the Sanhedrin.<\/p>\n<p>During the years of turmoil that followed, Antigonus was responsible for the death of Hyrcanus. Herod went to Rome and was confirmed as king of the Jews by the Senate, while Antigonus, the last of the Hasmoneans, was executed in Antioch. Thus the stage was set for the coming of a new and strong religious leader for the Jewish people, the long-awaited Messiah.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>MACCABEAN PERIOD*<\/h3>\n<p>Period of Israel’s history when the Maccabeans fought for Israel’s freedom and governed the country. This period lasted from 167 <span>BC<\/span> to approximately 40 <span>BC<\/span>, when the priest Mattathias and his descendants, particularly his son Judas, surnamed Maccabeus, were active opponents of all attempts to introduce Hellenistic practices into Jewish life and religion.<\/p>\n<p>From the conquest of Alexander the Great in 332 <span>BC<\/span>, Judea became alternately a pawn and a battleground as the Egyptian descendants of Ptolemy, the Syrians, and later the Romans vied for political control. The Ptolemies, though directing activities from Egypt rather than from Athens, were themselves Greeks and, like the Syrian kings of the Seleucid dynasty, were descendants of Alexander’s generals. Thus the Ptolemies were also Hellenists. They believed in the superiority of everything Greek. They encouraged the extension of learning and built the library of Alexandria to develop a center of Greek culture in competition with Athens itself.<\/p>\n<p>The aim of the pro-Greeks or Hellenists was to introduce Greek culture to the Near East, to establish Greek-style cities and colonies, and to encourage intermarriage between Greeks and Asians. In this way nationalism would be engulfed in the overall Greek plan, national heritage would be lost, and national or regional religions would give way to the legends and symbolism of the colorful Greek gods.<\/p>\n<p>Judah represented a small nation in this vast picture. The chances for the survival of the religion, heritage, or political freedom of this group would have appeared to be minimal. In their favor, however, was the faith and assurance that God was with his people and that, if they followed his dictates, they would survive. They realized that as a people they might face suffering and exile, but they knew that, if they held firm in their faith, the nucleus of a nation would be preserved. They were also upheld in their attitude by the belief that the coming of the Messiah was imminent.<\/p>\n<p>Before 200 <span>BC<\/span>, neither Egypt nor Syria seemed able to gain long-term control over Judea, until an agreement was reached assigning the jurisdiction to Syria, and this was supported by Judea. In appreciation, Antiochus the Great of Syria canceled Judean taxes for three years and promised compensation for the cities destroyed in the preceding battles. Priests, scribes, and temple singers were exempted from certain taxes, and duties on imported timber were removed temporarily to facilitate reconstruction in Jerusalem. Money was made available for sacrifices, and many Jewish prisoners were freed.<\/p>\n<p>By 175 <span>BC<\/span>, the picture had changed considerably. Antiochus IV Epiphanes had gained the throne of Syria by assassinating both his brother and the rightful heir to the kingdom. Prior to this, Antiochus IV had lived in Athens and had also been held hostage in Rome for 14 years. He understood and respected the political power of Rome, and to prevent a takeover of the Near East, he decided to expand his own position by conquering Egypt and bringing the entire area under Syrian control. Impressed by Greek philosophy and traditions, he aimed to use a program of Hellenization as a tool to unite the diverse peoples under his control. A dangerous madman, he would stop at nothing to achieve his political ends.<\/p>\n<p>The most influential position in Jerusalem at the time was that of the high priest. It seemed to be as much a political as a religious office. Traditionally the high priest had been a descendant of Aaron, and during this period of unrest, it was essential for the position to be held by a strong and inspiring leader, firm in his own faith, who could be an example and help to rally those who opposed the encroachments of Hellenism. Thus the right to select the high priest became vested in the one who held military control over the area. When Syrian power was strong, the king attempted to install his own nominee as high priest. When Syria was involved in internal political squabbles or external military engagements, or was being defeated by the followers of Judas Maccabeus, the Jewish people were permitted temporarily to choose their own high priest and simultaneously to enjoy a certain amount of political independence and relief from taxes.<\/p>\n<p>It is understandable, therefore, just how upset the Jews were when Antiochus first attempted to install his own nominee, Menelaus, as high priest. Since he was not of the line of Aaron, he had no claim to the position, having actually obtained it by making Antiochus a high monetary offer that swelled the coffers of the financially impoverished king. While Antiochus was busy invading Egypt, the people of Jerusalem took advantage of the opportunity to oust Menelaus and reinstate the former high priest. In revenge, Antiochus ordered that the city be sacked. Many of the inhabitants were killed, the temple was desecrated, and its treasure was removed. After this, the city was left in the hands of a Syrian military commander (1 Macc 1:20-29; 2 Macc 5:14-22; Josephus’s <em>Antiquities<\/em> 12.5.3).<\/p>\n<p>Still eager to obtain control of Egypt, Antiochus invaded it again, but retreated rapidly when he received orders to do so from the Senate in Rome. Fearful of the power and extent of Roman authority, he determined to secure the loyalty of the Jewish state by pressing his program of Hellenization. He thus hoped to use Judea as a partial buffer between himself and Rome.<\/p>\n<p>The observance of the Sabbath, religious festivals, sacrifices, and the circumcision of male children were forbidden by law, and copies of the Torah were destroyed. Altars to Greek gods were set up, and the Jews were ordered to eat the flesh of pigs, which was prohibited to them (2 Macc 6:18; see Lv 11:7). The temple in Jerusalem became a shrine dedicated to Zeus, and a pig was offered in sacrifice on the altar (1 Macc 1:41-64; 2 Macc 6:1-11; see Dn 11:31-32).<\/p>\n<p>In each Judean village an altar was set up and sacrifice offered under the watchful eye of a Syrian officer. In 166 <span>BC<\/span>, when the time came for Mattathias, an aged priest with five sons, to offer a sacrifice of unclean flesh to a pagan god, he refused on behalf of himself and his sons. In anger Mattathias killed both an apostate Jew, who had offered sacrifice, and the Syrian officer supervising the enactment of the new law. Prior to this, resistance had been steady but isolated, and although there were those who accepted the edict, many refused and faced death for their faith (1 Macc 1:60; 2:29-37; 2 Macc 6:18-31).<\/p>\n<p>Mattathias called upon supporters of the Hebrew law to follow him (1 Macc 2:15-27), and he and his sons fled to the hills. Mattathias was joined by an ardent religious group called the Hasidim, and together with other supporters, they waged a most successful guerrilla war from bases in the Judean hills.<\/p>\n<p>Attacks were made on isolated villages, heathen altars were torn down, and uncircumcised Jewish boys were circumcised. With the death of Mattathias in 166 <span>BC<\/span>, a more warlike phase of the struggle began under the direction of his son Judas Maccabeus, who became the symbol of Jewish resistance. He was a leader who waged a vigorous campaign in a righteous cause. He brought into focus the nationalistic sentiment of his people, and above all he was successful in the face of huge odds. His forays were more than a thorn in the flesh to Antiochus, for Judas’s tactics and victories earned the respect of his friends and fear of his enemies.<\/p>\n<p>The success of Judas gave him virtual control of the country. He immediately set about the restoration of the temple. The altar that had been used for sacrifice to Zeus was destroyed, and faithful priests rededicated the temple so that daily worship could be resumed (1 Macc 4:36-59; 2 Macc 10:1-8; Josephus’s <em>Antiquities<\/em> 12.7.6-7). The practice of the Jewish faith was restored in symbolism and in fact for all to see, with the institution of the Feast of Dedication or Lights (Hanukkah). With the spiritual house in order, Judas set about rebuilding the city walls so that Jerusalem would be able to withstand the next Syrian onslaught.<\/p>\n<p>Then Judas and his brothers broadened their sights, hoping to secure freedom not only for Judea but for the whole of Palestine. Therefore, attacks were made against the Idumeans in Transjordan (1 Macc 5:1-8) and against Philistia (vv 9-68; Josephus’s <em>Antiquities<\/em> 12.8.1-6). Judas then set about achieving political freedom for Judea. He opposed the appointment of a high priest who, although of the line of Aaron, was a Hellenist (1 Macc 7:14; 2 Macc 14:3-7; Josephus’s <em>Antiquities<\/em> 12.9.7). The Hasidim broke ranks with Judas and accepted the new high priest, but certain promises were not honored, and 60 of them were slain. The remainder realized their mistake and rededicated their allegiance to Judas (1 Macc 7:15-20; Josephus’s <em>Antiquities<\/em> 12.10.2). A Syrian army that was dispatched to secure the high priest’s position in Jerusalem was destroyed, and the Syrians, together with their priestly nominee, fled ignominiously.<\/p>\n<p>Throughout the period, Rome was an overshadowing presence, and Judas hoped to use the might of Rome for his own political advantage in the perennial fight against Syria. A warning was sent to Demetrius stating that Judas was under the protection of Rome, but it arrived after a huge Syrian army had set out on a mission of revenge. Some of the Maccabean army deserted before the mighty hordes of Syria, and in the ensuing battle Judas was killed.<\/p>\n<p>While the Maccabeans regrouped under Judas’s younger brother, Jonathan, the Syrians and the Hellenists were in control of Jerusalem, rebuilding the walls and strengthening other cities against a possible Maccabean attack. Over the next few years, the Syrians suffered a defeat, and their support of the Hellenists in Judea was weakened. No new high priest was appointed by the Syrians, to the satisfaction of Jonathan, who did not want to see his own authority curtailed. When the Maccabees gained the ascendancy once more, they punished the Hellenists (1 Macc 9:23-73; Josephus’s <em>Antiquities<\/em> 13.1.1-6), and for the following five years there was peace.<\/p>\n<p>From 152 <span>BC<\/span>, Syria was embroiled in internal struggles, both major factions vying for Jonathan’s support, while he in turn used the situation to strengthen his own position. Promises to Jonathan from these two factions ranged from the title of high priest to exemption from taxes and an increase in territory. Ultimately Jonathan was appointed high priest, being the first of the Maccabees to be offered this prestigious position. Judas would probably have liked the office as a crown to his military successes, but his family was not of the house of Aaron, and at that time the people would not have been prepared to accept him as high priest.<\/p>\n<p>As the throne of Syria changed hands through death in battle and assassination, Jonathan sided first with one faction, then with the other. He also sent an embassy to Rome to reconfirm his support in that quarter. Jonathan was then held hostage and murdered by the Syrians and was succeeded by Mattathias’s sole surviving son, Simon, in 143 <span>BC<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p>Simon extracted a treaty from the young Syrian king Demetrius II whereby Judea became virtually independent and considerably larger in territory. Simon was even given the right to mint coinage (1 Macc 15:6), a sure sign of independence, but as soon as Antiochus came to power in 139 <span>BC<\/span>, the right was withdrawn. In the period of peace that followed Simon’s treaty with Demetrius, many expected that the coming of the Messiah was near. They thought that perhaps he would be a descendant of Simon, despite the fact that the standards and tactics of some of the Maccabean leaders had been most questionable. Simon retained the title and office of high priest, and it became a hereditary position for his family.<\/p>\n<p>There was by no means universal support for Simon as high priest, however, even among the anti-Hellenists and the Hasidim, who had previously supported the Maccabeans. Some Jews also maintained that the priesthood should remain in the hands of the Aaronic line. The peace and relative prosperity continued until Simon was murdered by his son-in-law about 135 <span>BC<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p>Simon, the first of the Hasmonean line, was succeeded by his son John Hyrcanus. He was a strong ruler, despite the troubled period that opened his reign. Antiochus VII, who had gained the throne of Syria a few years previously, attacked Jerusalem, and although the city held out for a year, it finally succumbed. Judea once again became tributary to Syria, not regaining its freedom until the death of Antiochus, about 128 <span>BC<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p>At this time John Hyrcanus gained the enmity of the Hasidim (from then on known as Pharisees), whose disciple he had once been. It would seem likely that a claim to kingship had angered the Pharisees, who considered that this right rested with the Davidic line, whether or not there was a claimant ready to accept the throne.<\/p>\n<p>In his role as high priest, John Hyrcanus would have had close dealings with the Sadducees, a party as political as it was religious. It gained its support chiefly from the upper levels of society, whose descendants were the rulers of the Sanhedrin in NT times. The Pharisees, who observed the Torah in minute detail, must have constrained any ruler who tried to govern within their limitations.<\/p>\n<p>During the earlier Judean struggles, the Hasidim had sometimes sided with the Maccabeans but at other times had been content to remain quietly under the Syrian yoke so long as their freedom of worship was guaranteed. Under John Hyrcanus, however, they began to enjoy the privilege of influencing the national policy, and thriving on that taste of power they were reluctant to relinquish it. Their dismay at seeing political control pass into the hands of the Sadducees can be imagined.<\/p>\n<p>As dissension and dissatisfaction spread among the Pharisees, a leader emerged in Judea whom we know from the Qumran literature as the “Teacher of Righteousness.” As well as advocating strict adherence to the law, he taught that the present generation was the last generation and that final preparations for the imminent coming of the Messiah should be made. During the subsequent reign of Alexander Janneus, those who adhered strictly to the law were persecuted actively, and the “Teacher of Righteousness,” along with his immediate followers, left to set up their own establishment at Qumran in the Judean wilderness. They felt that since wickedness in the person of Alexander Janneus was prevailing, then God must have abandoned Israel and that he would, instead, be pleased to dwell with the surviving righteous remnant in Qumran.<\/p>\n<p>The group dissociated themselves completely from the Jewish leaders in Jerusalem by not finding it necessary to offer sacrifices in the temple and by resorting to the ancient calendar that had been preserved in Samaria, so that the great festivals were even celebrated on different dates. The success of the group also helped to undermine the authority of the temple and of the remainder of the Pharisees.<\/p>\n<p>After the death of John Hyrcanus, the throne passed to a younger son, Aristobulus, who reigned for one year only, and then to the eldest son, Alexander Janneus, in 103 <span>BC<\/span>. At this time Jewish hopes ran high. The Syrians were too involved in their own political turmoil to be a threat and the new king set out on a path of successful conquest. In the midst of fighting, torture, and death, he was in his element, and from what we know of his character, it would seem that there was ample reason why the throne had passed first to his younger brother.<\/p>\n<p>He was extremely successful, however, in extending the boundaries of the Jewish nation from the Mediterranean coast to the frontiers of Egypt. His success was dearly won, as he frequently lost almost as many troops as his enemy. Most of his army consisted of mercenaries, whose pay came from a heavy tax burden for the Jewish people.<\/p>\n<p>For six years he was engaged in a bitter civil war and remained feared and unpopular. He seemed to have little genuine interest in religion, and it was unacceptable to many that a man with such a lust for blood should hold the office of high priest. He had also married his brother’s widow, Alexandra (Salome), which although permitted under the laws of levirate marriage (Dt 25:5-10), was strictly forbidden to the high priest (Lv 21:13-14; cf. Ez 44:22). The bitter feelings of the people toward Alexander Janneus were seen in the year 90 <span>BC<\/span>, when festival pilgrims pelted him with lemons as he was attempting to perform his priestly function at the Feast of Tabernacles. He reacted predictably by turning his guards on the crowd and killing 6,000 people (Josephus’s <em>Antiquities<\/em> 13.13.5).<\/p>\n<p>Since the king was supported by the Sadducees, the loyalty of the people veered toward the Pharisees. As opposition to Alexander Janneus built up, Syrian help was requested from Demetrius III. Fifty thousand Jews were estimated to have been killed in the subsequent fighting. Alexander Janneus suffered a severe defeat at Shechem, but Demetrius withdrew, leaving the shattered Pharisaic party to face the terrible wrath of their king. Many were executed, and approximately 8,000 went into exile (Josephus’s <em>Antiquities<\/em> 14.14.2).<\/p>\n<p>The Pharisees considered that Alexander Janneus had secularized the Jewish kingdom. His own Hellenistic upbringing in Galilee did not endear him to them. They were concerned, too, not only with his conquests but also with his attempts to impose the Jewish religion on other groups by force. On his deathbed Alexander Janneus handed the throne over to his wife, Alexandra Salome, instructing her to make peace with the Pharisees by giving them a share of power. She may have been the daughter of a prominent Pharisee, and she certainly heeded the advice, relinquishing almost complete power to the Pharisaic party (Josephus’s <em>Antiquities<\/em> 13.16.2).<\/p>\n<p>Revenge was sweet for the Pharisees, and many of the old traditions of the Sadducees were set aside. The situation was complicated further by the fact that the queen’s elder son, Hyrcanus, supported the Pharisees, while the younger, Aristobulus, followed the Sadducees. Though high priest and heir apparent, Hyrcanus, the elder son, was quiet and lacking in ambition. Contrary to this, Aristobulus grew in the image of his father and was appointed commander of the army.<\/p>\n<p>The Sadducees, claiming threats to national security, obtained permission from the queen to occupy several strongholds in the country. During Alexandra’s nine-year reign, the law had been upheld and well administered by the Pharisees. But with the death of the queen in 67 <span>BC<\/span>, the stage was set for turmoil between her two sons.<\/p>\n<p>As Aristobulus gathered an army and attacked his brother, many of the troops deserted Hyrcanus and he relinquished both crown and priesthood to Aristobulus. Instead of being able to retire quietly to his country estate as he had hoped, Hyrcanus was still looked on by the Pharisees as their leader.<\/p>\n<p>An Idumean named Antipater, father of the future king Herod the Great, then schemed to restore Hyrcanus to his unwanted throne. Quite clearly, Antipater hoped to be the power behind the figurehead Hyrcanus. Antipater and Hyrcanus, with outside support, defeated Aristobulus and besieged him in Jerusalem. Many devout Jews, eager to abandon the squabbling and bitterness, left for a new life in Egypt. The siege of Jerusalem aroused the interest of the nearby Roman army, and both sides appealed for assistance, offering large bribes. The Roman commander decided to support Aristobulus, but two years later, in 63 <span>BC<\/span>, Pompey intervened personally.<\/p>\n<p>Aristobulus, having aroused the suspicion of the Romans, attempted to defy the might of the approaching army. Followers of Hyrcanus opened the gates of the city to the Romans, and the temple was stormed on the Sabbath after three months of resistance by the supporters of Aristobulus. Pompey marched sword in hand into the Holy of Holies but did not remove the temple treasure. Although Aristobulus was spared, many of his principal supporters were executed. Judea lost any semblance of authority over many of the surrounding areas, and it became a tributary to Rome.<\/p>\n<p>The amount paid to Rome in taxes, although substantial, must have seemed small compared with the taxes that had been necessary to underwrite the incessant fighting of the previous century. Judea then entered upon a period of relative calm. To the Romans, the area was unimportant in the sense that major trade routes now focused on Rome. The routes to the East were no longer either useful or accessible because of the political barriers to the east, and the north-south trade route to Egypt was declining in importance.<\/p>\n<p>In 57 <span>BC<\/span> Aristobulus raised a minor revolt, the only result of which seems to have been the whittling away of what little authority remained to Hyrcanus. Aristobulus and his supporters continued their unsuccessful attempts for several years, but to no avail.<\/p>\n<p>Antipater, meanwhile, continued firm in his support of Hyrcanus and of Rome. During the civil war that began in 49 <span>BC<\/span>, Antipater changed sides from Pompey to Caesar, acting in the name of Hyrcanus, and when Caesar was successful, the Jews were rewarded with a remission of Roman taxes.<\/p>\n<p>They were confirmed in their religious freedom, and in Jewish matters they were allowed to be tried in their own courts. They were also exempt from Roman military service. Their territory was increased, and they were permitted to raise their own taxes. Antipater was personally rewarded by the Romans, and as his authority increased, so did the hatred and distrust of him by the Sadducees. Antipater appointed his son Herod as governor of Galilee.<\/p>\n<p>Herod immediately undertook to rid the area bordering on Syria of a group of “brigands” or “Judean patriots” who were under the leadership of Hezekiah. They had considerable local support, but many of the group were subsequently captured, including their leader, and they were executed. Since under Jewish law no man could be executed without the sentence being sanctioned by the Sanhedrin, Herod himself was called to account by the Jewish elders of the Sanhedrin.<\/p>\n<p>During the years of turmoil that followed, Antigonus was responsible for the death of Hyrcanus. Herod went to Rome and was confirmed as king of the Jews by the Senate, while Antigonus, the last of the Hasmoneans, was executed in Antioch. Thus the stage was set for the coming of a new and strong religious leader for the Jewish people, the long-awaited Messiah.<\/p>","summary_ro":"MACCABEAN PERIOD* Period of Israel’s history when the Maccabeans fought for Israel’s freedom and governed the country. This period lasted from 167 BC to approximately 40 BC, when the priest Mattathias and his descendants, particularly his son Judas, surnamed Maccabeus, were active opponents of all attempts to introduce Hellenistic practices into Jewish life and religion. From the conquest of Alexander the Great in 332 BC, Judea became alternately a pawn and a battleground as the Egyptian desc...","summary_en":"MACCABEAN PERIOD* Period of Israel’s history when the Maccabeans fought for Israel’s freedom and governed the country. This period lasted from 167 BC to approximately 40 BC, when the priest Mattathias and his descendants, particularly his son Judas, surnamed Maccabeus, were active opponents of all attempts to introduce Hellenistic practices into Jewish life and religion. From the conquest of Alexander the Great in 332 BC, Judea became alternately a pawn and a battleground as the Egyptian desc...","source":"Articles\/M.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"23":[{"id":36843,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Teacher","title_en":"Teacher","content_ro":"<h3>TEACHER<\/h3>\n<p>Teachers conserved the values and academia of a nation and passed them on to each new generation. In OT times the first teachers were often parents (Dt 6:7, 20-25; 11:19-21). Leaders like Moses and Aaron were charged with teaching the people (Lv 10:11), and later the priests and Levites had a teaching function (Dt 24:8; 33:8-10; 2 Chr 17:7-9; Ez 44:23; Mi 3:11). God himself was thought of as a teacher (Pss 25:8, 12; 27:11; 32:8; 86:11; Is 2:3).<\/p>\n<p>In the NT the Greek noun for “teacher” and the verb “to teach” are widely used. John the Baptist was called a teacher (Lk 3:12). The term is used more than 30 times of Jesus (Mt 4:23; 5:2; 7:29; 9:35; 11:1; Mk 1:21; 2:13; 4:1-2; 6:2, 6, 34; Lk 4:15, 31; 5:3; 6:6; Jn 6:59; 7:14, 28; etc.). People recognized his teaching as authoritative (Mt 7:29; Mk 1:22; Lk 4:32). Even as a boy of 12 he conversed in a profound way with the teachers of the law in the temple (Lk 2:46). These men were often associated with the Pharisees (5:17). Gamaliel was a Pharisee and a teacher of the law (Acts 5:34). The term “rabbi” was often used to denote teacher. The rabbi was held in great honor. In the early church the teacher was widely recognized (Acts 13:1; 1 Cor 12:28-29; Eph 4:11; 2 Tm 1:11; Jas 3:1).<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>TEACHER<\/h3>\n<p>Teachers conserved the values and academia of a nation and passed them on to each new generation. In OT times the first teachers were often parents (Dt 6:7, 20-25; 11:19-21). Leaders like Moses and Aaron were charged with teaching the people (Lv 10:11), and later the priests and Levites had a teaching function (Dt 24:8; 33:8-10; 2 Chr 17:7-9; Ez 44:23; Mi 3:11). God himself was thought of as a teacher (Pss 25:8, 12; 27:11; 32:8; 86:11; Is 2:3).<\/p>\n<p>In the NT the Greek noun for “teacher” and the verb “to teach” are widely used. John the Baptist was called a teacher (Lk 3:12). The term is used more than 30 times of Jesus (Mt 4:23; 5:2; 7:29; 9:35; 11:1; Mk 1:21; 2:13; 4:1-2; 6:2, 6, 34; Lk 4:15, 31; 5:3; 6:6; Jn 6:59; 7:14, 28; etc.). People recognized his teaching as authoritative (Mt 7:29; Mk 1:22; Lk 4:32). Even as a boy of 12 he conversed in a profound way with the teachers of the law in the temple (Lk 2:46). These men were often associated with the Pharisees (5:17). Gamaliel was a Pharisee and a teacher of the law (Acts 5:34). The term “rabbi” was often used to denote teacher. The rabbi was held in great honor. In the early church the teacher was widely recognized (Acts 13:1; 1 Cor 12:28-29; Eph 4:11; 2 Tm 1:11; Jas 3:1).<\/p>","summary_ro":"TEACHER Teachers conserved the values and academia of a nation and passed them on to each new generation. In OT times the first teachers were often parents (Dt 6:7, 20-25; 11:19-21). Leaders like Moses and Aaron were charged with teaching the people (Lv 10:11), and later the priests and Levites had a teaching function (Dt 24:8; 33:8-10; 2 Chr 17:7-9; Ez 44:23; Mi 3:11). God himself was thought of as a teacher (Pss 25:8, 12; 27:11; 32:8; 86:11; Is 2:3). In the NT the Greek noun for “teacher” a...","summary_en":"TEACHER Teachers conserved the values and academia of a nation and passed them on to each new generation. In OT times the first teachers were often parents (Dt 6:7, 20-25; 11:19-21). Leaders like Moses and Aaron were charged with teaching the people (Lv 10:11), and later the priests and Levites had a teaching function (Dt 24:8; 33:8-10; 2 Chr 17:7-9; Ez 44:23; Mi 3:11). God himself was thought of as a teacher (Pss 25:8, 12; 27:11; 32:8; 86:11; Is 2:3). In the NT the Greek noun for “teacher” a...","source":"Articles\/T.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"24":[{"id":33426,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Sabbath","title_en":"Sabbath","content_ro":"<h3>SABBATH<\/h3>\n<p>Derivation of a Hebrew word that means “cease” or “desist.” The Sabbath was a day (from Friday evening until Saturday evening in Jesus’ time) when all ordinary work stopped. The Scriptures relate that God gave his people the Sabbath as an opportunity to serve him and as a reminder of two great truths in the Bible—Creation and redemption.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"IntheOldTestament\">In the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>The relationship between Creation and the Sabbath is first expressed in Genesis 2:2-3. God “ceased” his work in Creation after six days and then “blessed” the seventh day and “declared it holy.” In the fourth commandment (Ex 20:8-11), God’s “blessing” and “setting aside” of the seventh day after Creation (the words used are the same as those in Genesis) form the basis of his demand that people should observe the seventh day as a day of Sabbath rest.<\/p>\n<p>The idea of God resting from his work is a startling one. It comes across even more vividly in Exodus 31:17, where the Lord tells Moses how he was refreshed by his day of rest. This picture of the Creator as a manual laborer is one the Bible often paints. No doubt it is presented in vividly human terms in Exodus to reinforce the fundamental Sabbath lesson that people must follow the pattern their Creator has set for them. One day’s rest in seven is a necessity for individuals, families, households, and even animals (Ex 20:10).<\/p>\n<p>The Sabbath’s setting in the biblical account of Creation implies that it is one of those OT standards that are meant for all people and not just for Israel. The inclusion of the Sabbath law in the Ten Commandments underlines this important truth. The Decalogue occupied a special place in OT law. Alone of all God’s instructions, it was spoken by his audible voice (Ex 20:1), written by his finger (31:18), and placed in the tabernacle ark at the heart of Israel’s worship (25:16). The NT, too, confirms the strong impression that the Decalogue as a whole embodies principles that are permanently valid for all people in all places at all times. Whether or not Sunday is recognized as the Christian Sabbath, one is obliged to accept the central principle of this biblical teaching as far as the Sabbath is concerned. God’s instructions require people to observe a regular weekly break from work.<\/p>\n<p>Significantly, the second main strand of the Bible’s Sabbath teaching—that of redemption—also features in a list of the Ten Commandments. The Sabbath law (already noted in Ex 20:8-11) reappears in Deuteronomy 5:12-15, but here a different reason is attached to its observance: “Remember that you were once slaves in Egypt and that the <span>Lord<\/span> your God brought you out with amazing power and mighty deeds. That is why the <span>Lord<\/span> your God has commanded you to observe the Sabbath day” (v 15, <span>nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>The differences between these two accounts of the fourth commandment are important. The first (Ex 20) is addressed, <em>through<\/em> Israel, to all people as created beings. The second (Dt 5) is directed <em>to<\/em> Israel as God’s redeemed people. So the Sabbath is God’s signpost, pointing not only to his goodness toward all people as their Creator but also to his mercy toward his chosen people as their Redeemer.<\/p>\n<p>There is one other significant point in Deuteronomy’s version of the Sabbath commandment that must not be missed. The prohibition of all work on the Sabbath day is followed by an explanatory note—“On that day no one in your household may do any kind of work. This includes you, your sons and daughters, your male and female servants, your oxen and donkeys and other livestock, and any foreigners living among you. All your male and female servants must rest as you do” (Dt 5:14, <span>nlt<\/span>). Practical concern for others is a feature of all the OT’s covenant teaching. So God’s loving concern for Israel in her Egyptian slavery must be matched by the Israelite family’s loving concern for those who served them. The Sabbath offered an ideal outlet for the practical expression of that concern. Jesus was especially keen to rescue this humanitarian side of Sabbath observance from the mass of callous regulations that threatened to suffocate it in his day (see, e.g., Mk 3:1-5).<\/p>\n<p>The OT’s provision for a “sabbatical year” develops this humanitarian theme further (see Ex 23:10-12; Lv 25:1-7; Dt 15:1-11; also the regulations for the “year of jubilee” in Lv 25:8-55). Every seventh year the land was to lie fallow and be uncultivated (Lv 25:4). It needed a regular rest just as much as the people it sustained. The primary purpose of this law was benevolent: “But you, your male and female slaves, your hired servants, and any foreigners who live with you may eat the produce that grows naturally during the Sabbath year. And your livestock and the wild animals will also be allowed to eat of the land’s bounty” (vv 6-7, <span>nlt<\/span>). Deuteronomy 15:1-11 extends the same humanitarian principle into the world of commerce. The sabbatical year must see the canceling of all debts within God’s redeemed community. For the tight-fisted who might be tempted to refuse a loan if the sabbatical year was imminent, the law added a warning and a promise: “Do not be mean-spirited and refuse someone a loan because the year of release is close at hand. If you refuse to make the loan and the needy person cries out to the <span>Lord<\/span>, you will be considered guilty of sin. Give freely without begrudging it, and the <span>Lord<\/span> your God will bless you in everything you do” (Dt 15:9-10, <span>nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>Observing the sabbatical year was obviously a great test of the people’s obedience to God and of their willingness to depend on him for their livelihood. Sometimes the temptation to turn a blind eye was too strong. But history testifies to Israel’s courage in observing the letter of this law on many occasions, despite threats of invasion and famine. Both Alexander the Great and the Romans excused Jews from paying taxes every seventh year in recognition of the depth of their religious convictions.<\/p>\n<p>Returning from the seventh year to the seventh day, the OT law codes go to considerable lengths to buttress the Sabbath ban on work by defining what may and may not be done by God’s people on the Sabbath day. The prohibitions were not meant to rule out activity of any kind. Their aim was to stop regular, everyday work, because if God had set aside the Sabbath (Ex 20:11), the most obvious way of profaning it was to treat it just like any other day. Rules were spelled out in specific terms that the farmer (34:21), the salesman (Jer 17:27), and even the housewife (Ex 35:2-3) would understand.<\/p>\n<p>The details may seem trivial, but obedience to the Sabbath law was seen as the main test of the people’s allegiance to the Lord. It was made quite clear that willful disobedience was a capital offense (Ex 35:2), and the fate of the person found gathering wood in defiance of Sabbath regulations showed that this was no idle threat (Nm 15:32-36).<\/p>\n<p>Hemmed in by so many rules and regulations (and with the death penalty overhanging all), the Sabbath easily could have become a day of fear—a day when the people were more afraid of committing an offense than worshiping the Lord and enjoying a weekly rest. But the Sabbath was intended to be a blessing, not a burden. Above everything else, it was a weekly sign that the Lord loved his people and wanted to draw them into an ever-closer relationship with himself. Those who valued that relationship enjoyed the Sabbath, calling it a delight (Is 58:13-14). Nowhere does the OT express its sheer joy in Sabbath worship more exuberantly than in Psalm 92, which has the title “A Song for the Sabbath.”<\/p>\n<p>The later prophets, were, however, far from blind to the darker side of human nature. They knew that a great deal of Sabbath observance was a sham. Many people treated the Sabbath day more as holiday than holy day, an opportunity for self-indulgence rather than delighting in the Lord (Is 58:13). Some greedy tradesmen found its restrictions an annoying irritant (Am 8:5).<\/p>\n<p>As God’s spokesman, the prophets did not shrink from exposing such neglect and abuse (Ez 22:26). Those who go through the motions of Sabbath worship with unrepentant hearts nauseate the Lord, Isaiah said (Is 1:10-15). As a symptom of rebellion against God, Jerusalem’s Sabbath breaking will bring destruction on the city, thunders Jeremiah (Jer 17:27). The Lord has been very forbearing with his people, warned Ezekiel, but prolonged neglect of his Sabbath makes judgment a certainty (Ez 20:12-24).<\/p>\n<p>When the ax of judgment fell (in the exile to Babylon, 586 <span>BC<\/span>), the surviving remnant of the nation took the lesson to heart. Sabbath keeping was one of the few distinctive marks faithful Jews could retain in a foreign land, so it assumed extra significance. At the prompting of prophets like Ezekiel, who set out rules for Sabbath worship in the rebuilt temple at Jerusalem (Ez 44:24; 45:17; 46:3), and under the leadership of men like Nehemiah, the returning exiles were more careful than their predecessors in observing the Sabbath day (Neh 10:31; 13:15-22).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"IntheNewTestament\">In the New Testament<\/p>\n<p>Prior to the first century, some Jews in Palestine developed several rules for promoting the observance of the Sabbath. Two tractates of the Mishnah are devoted exclusively to these Sabbath rules and regulations. Their main purpose is to define work (one tractate does so under 39 headings) in an attempt to show every Israelite what is and is not permitted on the Sabbath. Unfortunately, this led to such hairsplitting complexities and evasions that ecclesiastical lawyers often differed among themselves in their interpretations, with the inevitable result that the main purpose of the Sabbath became lost beneath a mass of legalistic detail. The rabbis themselves were aware of how much they were adding to the straightforward teaching of the OT. As one of them put it, “The rules about the sabbath . . . are as mountains hanging by a hair, for Scripture is scanty and the rules many.”<\/p>\n<p>Jesus had many confrontations with the Jewish religious leaders over Sabbath observances. From their perspective, Jesus was a Sabbath breaker and therefore a lawbreaker. Jesus, however, never saw himself as a Sabbath breaker. He went to synagogue regularly on the Sabbath day (Lk 4:16). He read the lesson, preached, and taught (Mk 1:21; Lk 13:10). He clearly accepted the principle that the Sabbath was an appropriate day for worship.<\/p>\n<p>His point of collision with the Pharisees was the point at which their tradition departed from biblical teaching. He made this clear when he defended his disciples by appealing to Scripture, after they had been accused of breaking Sabbath tradition by walking through grainfields and breaking off heads of wheat (which fell into the category of “harvesting,” according to the Pharisees; Mk 2:23-26). He followed this up with a remark that took his hearers straight back to God’s Creation purpose for the Sabbath: “The Sabbath was made to benefit people, and not people to benefit the Sabbath” (Mk 2:27, <span>nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>Rabbinic tradition had exalted the institution above the people it was meant to serve. By making it an end in itself, the Pharisees had effectively robbed the Sabbath of one of its main purposes. Jesus’ words must have sounded uncomfortably familiar in his opponents’ ears. A famous rabbi had once said, “The Sabbath is given over to you, but you are not given over to the Sabbath.”<\/p>\n<p>More than anything else, Jesus’ Sabbath healings put him on a collision course with rabbinic restrictions. The OT does not forbid cures on the Sabbath day, but the rabbis labeled all healing as work, which must always be avoided on the Sabbath unless life was at risk. Jesus fearlessly exposed the callousness and absurd inconsistencies to which this attitude led. How, he asked, could it be right to circumcise a baby or lead an animal to water on the Sabbath day (which tradition allowed) but wrong to heal a chronically handicapped woman and a crippled man, even if their lives were not in immediate danger (Lk 13:10-17; Jn 7:21-24)? The Sabbath, he taught, was a particularly appropriate day for acts of mercy (Mk 3:4-5).<\/p>\n<p>Jesus, the man from heaven, claimed that he was Lord of the Sabbath (Mk 2:28; cf. Mt 12:5-8). Just as God kept working, despite his Creation rest, to sustain the world in his mercy, so Jesus would continue to teach and to heal on the Sabbath day (Jn 5:2-17). But one day his redemptive work would be complete, and then the Sabbath’s purpose as a sign of redemption would be accomplished.<\/p>\n<p>Living on the other side of Jesus’ death and resurrection, Paul was quick to grasp the significance of both for Sabbath observance. He did not go so far as to ban all observance of the Jewish Sabbath. Indeed, he attended many Sabbath synagogue services himself in his evangelistic travels (see, e.g., Acts 13:14-16). Jewish Christians who insisted on keeping up their Sabbath practices were free to do so, provided they respected the opinions of those who differed (Rom 14:5-6, 13). But any suggestion that observing the Jewish calendar was necessary for salvation must be resisted (Gal 4:8-11). For Paul considered the Sabbath to be a shadow, while Christ himself is the reality of that shadow (Col 2:17).<\/p>\n<p>Finally, it is the writer of the Letter to the Hebrews who explains how the twin biblical “sabbath themes” of creation and redemption find their joint fulfillment in Christ. He did so by linking together the ideas of God’s rest after Creation and his redemptive act in bringing Israel to her “rest” in Canaan, and by showing how both relate to the present and future rest that Christians can and do enjoy in Jesus (Heb 4:1-11).<\/p>\n<p>God intends all his people to share his rest—that is, his promise (Heb 4:1). He showed this intention clearly when he brought Israel to the Promised Land, but that did not mark the complete fulfillment of his promise. The full, complete rest still waiting for the people of God is in heaven. Christ has already entered there. He is resting from his work, just as God did after the Creation. And because of his redeeming work, he invites all those who believe in him to share that same “sabbath rest” now (v 9).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Lord’s Day, The; Sabbath Day’s Journey; Commandments, The Ten.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>SABBATH<\/h3>\n<p>Derivation of a Hebrew word that means “cease” or “desist.” The Sabbath was a day (from Friday evening until Saturday evening in Jesus’ time) when all ordinary work stopped. The Scriptures relate that God gave his people the Sabbath as an opportunity to serve him and as a reminder of two great truths in the Bible—Creation and redemption.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"IntheOldTestament\">In the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>The relationship between Creation and the Sabbath is first expressed in Genesis 2:2-3. God “ceased” his work in Creation after six days and then “blessed” the seventh day and “declared it holy.” In the fourth commandment (Ex 20:8-11), God’s “blessing” and “setting aside” of the seventh day after Creation (the words used are the same as those in Genesis) form the basis of his demand that people should observe the seventh day as a day of Sabbath rest.<\/p>\n<p>The idea of God resting from his work is a startling one. It comes across even more vividly in Exodus 31:17, where the Lord tells Moses how he was refreshed by his day of rest. This picture of the Creator as a manual laborer is one the Bible often paints. No doubt it is presented in vividly human terms in Exodus to reinforce the fundamental Sabbath lesson that people must follow the pattern their Creator has set for them. One day’s rest in seven is a necessity for individuals, families, households, and even animals (Ex 20:10).<\/p>\n<p>The Sabbath’s setting in the biblical account of Creation implies that it is one of those OT standards that are meant for all people and not just for Israel. The inclusion of the Sabbath law in the Ten Commandments underlines this important truth. The Decalogue occupied a special place in OT law. Alone of all God’s instructions, it was spoken by his audible voice (Ex 20:1), written by his finger (31:18), and placed in the tabernacle ark at the heart of Israel’s worship (25:16). The NT, too, confirms the strong impression that the Decalogue as a whole embodies principles that are permanently valid for all people in all places at all times. Whether or not Sunday is recognized as the Christian Sabbath, one is obliged to accept the central principle of this biblical teaching as far as the Sabbath is concerned. God’s instructions require people to observe a regular weekly break from work.<\/p>\n<p>Significantly, the second main strand of the Bible’s Sabbath teaching—that of redemption—also features in a list of the Ten Commandments. The Sabbath law (already noted in Ex 20:8-11) reappears in Deuteronomy 5:12-15, but here a different reason is attached to its observance: “Remember that you were once slaves in Egypt and that the <span>Lord<\/span> your God brought you out with amazing power and mighty deeds. That is why the <span>Lord<\/span> your God has commanded you to observe the Sabbath day” (v 15, <span>nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>The differences between these two accounts of the fourth commandment are important. The first (Ex 20) is addressed, <em>through<\/em> Israel, to all people as created beings. The second (Dt 5) is directed <em>to<\/em> Israel as God’s redeemed people. So the Sabbath is God’s signpost, pointing not only to his goodness toward all people as their Creator but also to his mercy toward his chosen people as their Redeemer.<\/p>\n<p>There is one other significant point in Deuteronomy’s version of the Sabbath commandment that must not be missed. The prohibition of all work on the Sabbath day is followed by an explanatory note—“On that day no one in your household may do any kind of work. This includes you, your sons and daughters, your male and female servants, your oxen and donkeys and other livestock, and any foreigners living among you. All your male and female servants must rest as you do” (Dt 5:14, <span>nlt<\/span>). Practical concern for others is a feature of all the OT’s covenant teaching. So God’s loving concern for Israel in her Egyptian slavery must be matched by the Israelite family’s loving concern for those who served them. The Sabbath offered an ideal outlet for the practical expression of that concern. Jesus was especially keen to rescue this humanitarian side of Sabbath observance from the mass of callous regulations that threatened to suffocate it in his day (see, e.g., Mk 3:1-5).<\/p>\n<p>The OT’s provision for a “sabbatical year” develops this humanitarian theme further (see Ex 23:10-12; Lv 25:1-7; Dt 15:1-11; also the regulations for the “year of jubilee” in Lv 25:8-55). Every seventh year the land was to lie fallow and be uncultivated (Lv 25:4). It needed a regular rest just as much as the people it sustained. The primary purpose of this law was benevolent: “But you, your male and female slaves, your hired servants, and any foreigners who live with you may eat the produce that grows naturally during the Sabbath year. And your livestock and the wild animals will also be allowed to eat of the land’s bounty” (vv 6-7, <span>nlt<\/span>). Deuteronomy 15:1-11 extends the same humanitarian principle into the world of commerce. The sabbatical year must see the canceling of all debts within God’s redeemed community. For the tight-fisted who might be tempted to refuse a loan if the sabbatical year was imminent, the law added a warning and a promise: “Do not be mean-spirited and refuse someone a loan because the year of release is close at hand. If you refuse to make the loan and the needy person cries out to the <span>Lord<\/span>, you will be considered guilty of sin. Give freely without begrudging it, and the <span>Lord<\/span> your God will bless you in everything you do” (Dt 15:9-10, <span>nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>Observing the sabbatical year was obviously a great test of the people’s obedience to God and of their willingness to depend on him for their livelihood. Sometimes the temptation to turn a blind eye was too strong. But history testifies to Israel’s courage in observing the letter of this law on many occasions, despite threats of invasion and famine. Both Alexander the Great and the Romans excused Jews from paying taxes every seventh year in recognition of the depth of their religious convictions.<\/p>\n<p>Returning from the seventh year to the seventh day, the OT law codes go to considerable lengths to buttress the Sabbath ban on work by defining what may and may not be done by God’s people on the Sabbath day. The prohibitions were not meant to rule out activity of any kind. Their aim was to stop regular, everyday work, because if God had set aside the Sabbath (Ex 20:11), the most obvious way of profaning it was to treat it just like any other day. Rules were spelled out in specific terms that the farmer (34:21), the salesman (Jer 17:27), and even the housewife (Ex 35:2-3) would understand.<\/p>\n<p>The details may seem trivial, but obedience to the Sabbath law was seen as the main test of the people’s allegiance to the Lord. It was made quite clear that willful disobedience was a capital offense (Ex 35:2), and the fate of the person found gathering wood in defiance of Sabbath regulations showed that this was no idle threat (Nm 15:32-36).<\/p>\n<p>Hemmed in by so many rules and regulations (and with the death penalty overhanging all), the Sabbath easily could have become a day of fear—a day when the people were more afraid of committing an offense than worshiping the Lord and enjoying a weekly rest. But the Sabbath was intended to be a blessing, not a burden. Above everything else, it was a weekly sign that the Lord loved his people and wanted to draw them into an ever-closer relationship with himself. Those who valued that relationship enjoyed the Sabbath, calling it a delight (Is 58:13-14). Nowhere does the OT express its sheer joy in Sabbath worship more exuberantly than in Psalm 92, which has the title “A Song for the Sabbath.”<\/p>\n<p>The later prophets, were, however, far from blind to the darker side of human nature. They knew that a great deal of Sabbath observance was a sham. Many people treated the Sabbath day more as holiday than holy day, an opportunity for self-indulgence rather than delighting in the Lord (Is 58:13). Some greedy tradesmen found its restrictions an annoying irritant (Am 8:5).<\/p>\n<p>As God’s spokesman, the prophets did not shrink from exposing such neglect and abuse (Ez 22:26). Those who go through the motions of Sabbath worship with unrepentant hearts nauseate the Lord, Isaiah said (Is 1:10-15). As a symptom of rebellion against God, Jerusalem’s Sabbath breaking will bring destruction on the city, thunders Jeremiah (Jer 17:27). The Lord has been very forbearing with his people, warned Ezekiel, but prolonged neglect of his Sabbath makes judgment a certainty (Ez 20:12-24).<\/p>\n<p>When the ax of judgment fell (in the exile to Babylon, 586 <span>BC<\/span>), the surviving remnant of the nation took the lesson to heart. Sabbath keeping was one of the few distinctive marks faithful Jews could retain in a foreign land, so it assumed extra significance. At the prompting of prophets like Ezekiel, who set out rules for Sabbath worship in the rebuilt temple at Jerusalem (Ez 44:24; 45:17; 46:3), and under the leadership of men like Nehemiah, the returning exiles were more careful than their predecessors in observing the Sabbath day (Neh 10:31; 13:15-22).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"IntheNewTestament\">In the New Testament<\/p>\n<p>Prior to the first century, some Jews in Palestine developed several rules for promoting the observance of the Sabbath. Two tractates of the Mishnah are devoted exclusively to these Sabbath rules and regulations. Their main purpose is to define work (one tractate does so under 39 headings) in an attempt to show every Israelite what is and is not permitted on the Sabbath. Unfortunately, this led to such hairsplitting complexities and evasions that ecclesiastical lawyers often differed among themselves in their interpretations, with the inevitable result that the main purpose of the Sabbath became lost beneath a mass of legalistic detail. The rabbis themselves were aware of how much they were adding to the straightforward teaching of the OT. As one of them put it, “The rules about the sabbath . . . are as mountains hanging by a hair, for Scripture is scanty and the rules many.”<\/p>\n<p>Jesus had many confrontations with the Jewish religious leaders over Sabbath observances. From their perspective, Jesus was a Sabbath breaker and therefore a lawbreaker. Jesus, however, never saw himself as a Sabbath breaker. He went to synagogue regularly on the Sabbath day (Lk 4:16). He read the lesson, preached, and taught (Mk 1:21; Lk 13:10). He clearly accepted the principle that the Sabbath was an appropriate day for worship.<\/p>\n<p>His point of collision with the Pharisees was the point at which their tradition departed from biblical teaching. He made this clear when he defended his disciples by appealing to Scripture, after they had been accused of breaking Sabbath tradition by walking through grainfields and breaking off heads of wheat (which fell into the category of “harvesting,” according to the Pharisees; Mk 2:23-26). He followed this up with a remark that took his hearers straight back to God’s Creation purpose for the Sabbath: “The Sabbath was made to benefit people, and not people to benefit the Sabbath” (Mk 2:27, <span>nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>Rabbinic tradition had exalted the institution above the people it was meant to serve. By making it an end in itself, the Pharisees had effectively robbed the Sabbath of one of its main purposes. Jesus’ words must have sounded uncomfortably familiar in his opponents’ ears. A famous rabbi had once said, “The Sabbath is given over to you, but you are not given over to the Sabbath.”<\/p>\n<p>More than anything else, Jesus’ Sabbath healings put him on a collision course with rabbinic restrictions. The OT does not forbid cures on the Sabbath day, but the rabbis labeled all healing as work, which must always be avoided on the Sabbath unless life was at risk. Jesus fearlessly exposed the callousness and absurd inconsistencies to which this attitude led. How, he asked, could it be right to circumcise a baby or lead an animal to water on the Sabbath day (which tradition allowed) but wrong to heal a chronically handicapped woman and a crippled man, even if their lives were not in immediate danger (Lk 13:10-17; Jn 7:21-24)? The Sabbath, he taught, was a particularly appropriate day for acts of mercy (Mk 3:4-5).<\/p>\n<p>Jesus, the man from heaven, claimed that he was Lord of the Sabbath (Mk 2:28; cf. Mt 12:5-8). Just as God kept working, despite his Creation rest, to sustain the world in his mercy, so Jesus would continue to teach and to heal on the Sabbath day (Jn 5:2-17). But one day his redemptive work would be complete, and then the Sabbath’s purpose as a sign of redemption would be accomplished.<\/p>\n<p>Living on the other side of Jesus’ death and resurrection, Paul was quick to grasp the significance of both for Sabbath observance. He did not go so far as to ban all observance of the Jewish Sabbath. Indeed, he attended many Sabbath synagogue services himself in his evangelistic travels (see, e.g., Acts 13:14-16). Jewish Christians who insisted on keeping up their Sabbath practices were free to do so, provided they respected the opinions of those who differed (Rom 14:5-6, 13). But any suggestion that observing the Jewish calendar was necessary for salvation must be resisted (Gal 4:8-11). For Paul considered the Sabbath to be a shadow, while Christ himself is the reality of that shadow (Col 2:17).<\/p>\n<p>Finally, it is the writer of the Letter to the Hebrews who explains how the twin biblical “sabbath themes” of creation and redemption find their joint fulfillment in Christ. He did so by linking together the ideas of God’s rest after Creation and his redemptive act in bringing Israel to her “rest” in Canaan, and by showing how both relate to the present and future rest that Christians can and do enjoy in Jesus (Heb 4:1-11).<\/p>\n<p>God intends all his people to share his rest—that is, his promise (Heb 4:1). He showed this intention clearly when he brought Israel to the Promised Land, but that did not mark the complete fulfillment of his promise. The full, complete rest still waiting for the people of God is in heaven. Christ has already entered there. He is resting from his work, just as God did after the Creation. And because of his redeeming work, he invites all those who believe in him to share that same “sabbath rest” now (v 9).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Lord’s Day, The; Sabbath Day’s Journey; Commandments, The Ten.<\/p>","summary_ro":"SABBATH Derivation of a Hebrew word that means “cease” or “desist.” The Sabbath was a day (from Friday evening until Saturday evening in Jesus’ time) when all ordinary work stopped. The Scriptures relate that God gave his people the Sabbath as an opportunity to serve him and as a reminder of two great truths in the Bible—Creation and redemption. In the Old Testament The relationship between Creation and the Sabbath is first expressed in Genesis 2:2-3. God “ceased” his work in Creation after s...","summary_en":"SABBATH Derivation of a Hebrew word that means “cease” or “desist.” The Sabbath was a day (from Friday evening until Saturday evening in Jesus’ time) when all ordinary work stopped. The Scriptures relate that God gave his people the Sabbath as an opportunity to serve him and as a reminder of two great truths in the Bible—Creation and redemption. In the Old Testament The relationship between Creation and the Sabbath is first expressed in Genesis 2:2-3. God “ceased” his work in Creation after s...","source":"Articles\/S.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"28":[{"id":53376,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ezechiel 44:28","title_en":"Study Note: Ezechiel 44:28","content_ro":"<p><strong>44:28-30<\/strong> Because the priests belonged to the Lord and were provided for through a share of the sacrificial <em>offerings<\/em> of the Temple, they would <em>not have any property or possession of land<\/em>. The Lord was their inheritance, and their temporal needs were to be supplied by the firstfruits of the people’s harvests and the various offerings made at the Temple.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>44:28-30<\/strong> Because the priests belonged to the Lord and were provided for through a share of the sacrificial <em>offerings<\/em> of the Temple, they would <em>not have any property or possession of land<\/em>. The Lord was their inheritance, and their temporal needs were to be supplied by the firstfruits of the people’s harvests and the various offerings made at the Temple.<\/p>","summary_ro":"44:28-30 Because the priests belonged to the Lord and were provided for through a share of the sacrificial offerings of the Temple, they would not have any property or possession of land. The Lord was their inheritance, and their temporal needs were to be supplied by the firstfruits of the people’s harvests and the various offerings made at the Temple.","summary_en":"44:28-30 Because the priests belonged to the Lord and were provided for through a share of the sacrificial offerings of the Temple, they would not have any property or possession of land. The Lord was their inheritance, and their temporal needs were to be supplied by the firstfruits of the people’s harvests and the various offerings made at the Temple.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":81002,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ezechiel 44:28","title_en":"Study Note: Ezechiel 44:28","content_ro":"<p><strong>44:28-30<\/strong> Because the priests belonged to the Lord and were provided for through a share of the sacrificial <em>offerings<\/em> of the Temple, they would <em>not have any property or possession of land<\/em>. The Lord was their inheritance, and their temporal needs were to be supplied by the firstfruits of the people’s harvests and the various offerings made at the Temple.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>44:28-30<\/strong> Because the priests belonged to the Lord and were provided for through a share of the sacrificial <em>offerings<\/em> of the Temple, they would <em>not have any property or possession of land<\/em>. The Lord was their inheritance, and their temporal needs were to be supplied by the firstfruits of the people’s harvests and the various offerings made at the Temple.<\/p>","summary_ro":"44:28-30 Because the priests belonged to the Lord and were provided for through a share of the sacrificial offerings of the Temple, they would not have any property or possession of land. The Lord was their inheritance, and their temporal needs were to be supplied by the firstfruits of the people’s harvests and the various offerings made at the Temple.","summary_en":"44:28-30 Because the priests belonged to the Lord and were provided for through a share of the sacrificial offerings of the Temple, they would not have any property or possession of land. The Lord was their inheritance, and their temporal needs were to be supplied by the firstfruits of the people’s harvests and the various offerings made at the Temple.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":108628,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ezechiel 44:28","title_en":"Study Note: Ezechiel 44:28","content_ro":"<p><strong>44:28-30<\/strong> Because the priests belonged to the Lord and were provided for through a share of the sacrificial <em>offerings<\/em> of the Temple, they would <em>not have any property or possession of land<\/em>. The Lord was their inheritance, and their temporal needs were to be supplied by the firstfruits of the people’s harvests and the various offerings made at the Temple.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>44:28-30<\/strong> Because the priests belonged to the Lord and were provided for through a share of the sacrificial <em>offerings<\/em> of the Temple, they would <em>not have any property or possession of land<\/em>. The Lord was their inheritance, and their temporal needs were to be supplied by the firstfruits of the people’s harvests and the various offerings made at the Temple.<\/p>","summary_ro":"44:28-30 Because the priests belonged to the Lord and were provided for through a share of the sacrificial offerings of the Temple, they would not have any property or possession of land. The Lord was their inheritance, and their temporal needs were to be supplied by the firstfruits of the people’s harvests and the various offerings made at the Temple.","summary_en":"44:28-30 Because the priests belonged to the Lord and were provided for through a share of the sacrificial offerings of the Temple, they would not have any property or possession of land. The Lord was their inheritance, and their temporal needs were to be supplied by the firstfruits of the people’s harvests and the various offerings made at the Temple.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":136254,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ezechiel 44:28","title_en":"Study Note: Ezechiel 44:28","content_ro":"<p><strong>44:28-30<\/strong> Because the priests belonged to the Lord and were provided for through a share of the sacrificial <em>offerings<\/em> of the Temple, they would <em>not have any property or possession of land<\/em>. The Lord was their inheritance, and their temporal needs were to be supplied by the firstfruits of the people’s harvests and the various offerings made at the Temple.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>44:28-30<\/strong> Because the priests belonged to the Lord and were provided for through a share of the sacrificial <em>offerings<\/em> of the Temple, they would <em>not have any property or possession of land<\/em>. The Lord was their inheritance, and their temporal needs were to be supplied by the firstfruits of the people’s harvests and the various offerings made at the Temple.<\/p>","summary_ro":"44:28-30 Because the priests belonged to the Lord and were provided for through a share of the sacrificial offerings of the Temple, they would not have any property or possession of land. The Lord was their inheritance, and their temporal needs were to be supplied by the firstfruits of the people’s harvests and the various offerings made at the Temple.","summary_en":"44:28-30 Because the priests belonged to the Lord and were provided for through a share of the sacrificial offerings of the Temple, they would not have any property or possession of land. The Lord was their inheritance, and their temporal needs were to be supplied by the firstfruits of the people’s harvests and the various offerings made at the Temple.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"29":[{"id":8370,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Cursed Curse","title_en":"Cursed Curse","content_ro":"<h3>CURSE, CURSED<\/h3>\n<p>Invocation of evil or injury against one’s enemies. As practiced in Bible times, cursing was the opposite of blessing and should not be confused with profanity in the modern sense.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"PaganBeliefs\">Pagan Beliefs<\/p>\n<p>Curses and blessings were linked to the ancient pagan belief that spirits of “the gods” could be invoked to act on behalf of a person who repeated certain incantations or performed certain deeds (such as sacrifices). It was thought that a spoken curse possessed an occult power to work calamity on one’s enemies. In some pagan cultures, curses were written on clay jars that were then smashed, symbolically initiating or effecting the intended curse.<\/p>\n<p>Tombs were protected against would-be desecrators by means of curses. Royal inscriptions were protected by maledictions aimed at anyone who might alter, destroy, or defy the written decree (Ezr 6:11-12).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"CursesinOldTestamentTimes\">Curses in Old Testament Times<\/p>\n<p>Among the Hebrews a curse, valid only within a covenant framework overseen by God, was spoken for the sake of justice. In the OT the curse was an integral part of a covenant relationship—between God and the community, between God and an individual, or among members of the community. To break the terms of a covenant was to merit the covenant curse or curses. A curse invoked under other conditions was powerless. “Like a sparrow in its flitting, like a swallow in its flying, a curse that is causeless does not alight” (Prv 26:2, <span>rsv<\/span>). A curse could be retracted by pronouncing a blessing (Ex 12:32; Jgs 17:1-2; 2 Sm 21:1-3).<\/p>\n<p>The Mosaic law forbade the cursing of parents (Ex 21:17; cf. Prv 20:20; Mt 15:4), the ruler (Ex 22:28), and the deaf (Lv 19:14). A man who suspected his wife of unfaithfulness could require that she submit to a test administered by the priest that would result in a curse upon her if she was guilty (Nm 5:11-31). Individuals might pronounce a curse upon themselves to show the truthfulness of their assertions or promises (Nm 5:19-22; Jb 31:7-10, 16-22; Ps 137:5-6). In the NT the apostle Peter followed the OT practice when he used a curse to deny that he knew Jesus (Mk 14:71). Certain men who wished to kill the apostle Paul proved their sincerity by such a solemn curse (Acts 23:12, 14, 21). Cursing God was punishable by death (Lv 24:10-16; cf. Ex 22:28; Is 8:21-22).<\/p>\n<p>Curses in Bible history include God’s curse on the serpent, Adam, and Eve (Gn 3:14-19); on Cain (4:11-12); on those who might curse the patriarch Abraham and his descendants (12:3); and on those who put their trust in human strength instead of in the Lord (Jer 17:5). When the people of Israel passed through Moab on their way to the Promised Land, Moab’s king, Balak, hired Balaam to curse the Israelites; he and Balaam learned, however, that they could not curse those whom God had blessed (Nm 22–24). Joshua cursed anyone who might try to rebuild Jericho (Jos 6:26; fulfilled in 1 Kgs 16:34). King Saul made a curse that almost cost his son Jonathan’s life (1 Sm 14:24, 43-45). Many other curses are mentioned in the OT (see, e.g., Gn 9:25; 49:5-7; Jos 9:22-23; Jgs 9:7-21, 57; 2 Sm 16:5-13; 1 Kgs 21:17-24; 2 Kgs 2:24; Mal 2:2; 4:6). The pronouncement of “woe” (<span>nlt<\/span> “destruction”) is also the language of curse (Is 5:8-23; cf. Mt 23:13-33, where “alas” and “woe” can be used synonymously and may be either an exclamation of sorrow or of impending doom and calamity).<\/p>\n<p>Psalm 109 contains a lengthy imprecation against the psalmist’s enemies, evidently because they had spoken some words against him falsely (see also Pss 58:6-11; 69:19-28; 143:12). The prophet Jeremiah was not averse to calling on God to punish his tormentors (Jer 11:20; 12:3; 15:15; 17:18; 18:21-22; 20:11-12) or asking God not to forgive them (18:23). Such imprecations against one’s enemies are difficult for Christians today to understand because they contrast sharply with the NT commands to “bless those who curse you” (Lk 6:28; cf. Rom 12:14). Jesus’ injunction to “love your enemies” (Mt 5:44) may be intended to point beyond the cursing practiced in the OT to a fuller understanding of God’s command to love one’s neighbor as oneself.<\/p>\n<h5>Covenant Curses<\/h5>\n<p>Protection of a contract or treaty by invoking a curse on the violator was common in OT times. Sometimes a covenant was sealed by cutting up an animal and having the covenanting individuals walk between the severed pieces; the slain animal symbolized the curse to befall the violator. God agreed to submit to such a curse on himself if he broke the covenant he made with the patriarch Abraham (Gn 15:7-21). Later, God accused the leaders and people of Israel of breaking their covenant with him and warned them of the consequences to follow (Jer 34:18-19). An essential part of the covenant God made with Israel at Mt Sinai was the promise of blessings for keeping the covenant and curses for breaking it (Dt 11:26-28; 27:15-26; 28:15-68; 30:19; cf. Lv 26:3-39). Israel suffered those curses in the time of the prophets Jeremiah and Ezekiel; the covenant breakers, including the king, were threatened with a curse (Jer 11:3; Ez 17:11-21).<\/p>\n<h5>The Ban on “Devoted Things”<\/h5>\n<p>A special kind of curse was the ban or anathema. Strictly speaking, it was a vow to devote persons, animals, or objects under such a curse to God. In some cases the priests could use objects that had fallen under the ban (Nm 18:14; Ez 44:29), but that provision did not apply to living beings. All persons or animals under the ban were sacrificed or destroyed (Lv 27:28-29). The ban was commonly used in Israel’s wars against its pagan neighbors. Sometimes everything was declared anathema (Jos 6:17-19), but normally only persons and heathen images were destroyed (Dt 2:34; 3:6; 7:2, 25-26—not even the melted gold of images was to be kept). To violate the ban by preserving any part of the cursed things was to come under the ban oneself. Because Achan did not respect the ban placed upon Jericho, the terms of that curse came upon all Israel until Achan confessed and was executed (Jos 7).<\/p>\n<p>After the exile, the Jews did not practice the anathema (or ban) by putting people to death; people who violated a curse were excommunicated and put out of the congregation of Israel (Ezr 10:8). That meant that the person was no longer part of God’s people and was considered “dead.”<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"CursesinNewTestamentTimes\">Curses in New Testament Times<\/p>\n<p>Jewish synagogues practiced excommunication, or anathema, in the NT period (Lk 6:22; Jn 9:22; 12:42; 16:2). Later, Christians excommunicated persons by declaring them outside of the redeemed community (Mt 18:17) or “delivered to Satan” (1 Cor 5:5; 1 Tm 1:20). Both practices stemmed from the OT ban. Unlike that curse, however, the excommunication could be removed as soon as the person repented.<\/p>\n<p>Since the anathema branded a person as “rejected” or “cursed by God,” Saul of Tarsus, before his conversion, tried to compel Christians to renounce Christ by calling him accursed (cf. Acts 26:11). Later, as an apostle, Paul (Saul) warned that no one speaking by the Spirit of God could call Jesus accursed (1 Cor 12:3). Paul pronounced anathema (destined for judgment and perdition) upon anyone who preached another gospel than the one he and the other apostles preached (Gal 1:8-9). Paul said he wished he could be accursed, cut off from salvation and the people of God, if that could lead to the salvation of his fellow Israelites (Rom 9:3). His desire reflected the love of Christ, who accepted the “curse of the law” upon himself in submitting to suffering and death on the cross in order to redeem human beings from that curse (Gal 3:8-14; cf. Dt 21:22-23). The NT promises that a time will come when “there shall no longer be any curse” (Rv 22:3, <span>nasb<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> War, Holy.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>CURSE, CURSED<\/h3>\n<p>Invocation of evil or injury against one’s enemies. As practiced in Bible times, cursing was the opposite of blessing and should not be confused with profanity in the modern sense.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"PaganBeliefs\">Pagan Beliefs<\/p>\n<p>Curses and blessings were linked to the ancient pagan belief that spirits of “the gods” could be invoked to act on behalf of a person who repeated certain incantations or performed certain deeds (such as sacrifices). It was thought that a spoken curse possessed an occult power to work calamity on one’s enemies. In some pagan cultures, curses were written on clay jars that were then smashed, symbolically initiating or effecting the intended curse.<\/p>\n<p>Tombs were protected against would-be desecrators by means of curses. Royal inscriptions were protected by maledictions aimed at anyone who might alter, destroy, or defy the written decree (Ezr 6:11-12).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"CursesinOldTestamentTimes\">Curses in Old Testament Times<\/p>\n<p>Among the Hebrews a curse, valid only within a covenant framework overseen by God, was spoken for the sake of justice. In the OT the curse was an integral part of a covenant relationship—between God and the community, between God and an individual, or among members of the community. To break the terms of a covenant was to merit the covenant curse or curses. A curse invoked under other conditions was powerless. “Like a sparrow in its flitting, like a swallow in its flying, a curse that is causeless does not alight” (Prv 26:2, <span>rsv<\/span>). A curse could be retracted by pronouncing a blessing (Ex 12:32; Jgs 17:1-2; 2 Sm 21:1-3).<\/p>\n<p>The Mosaic law forbade the cursing of parents (Ex 21:17; cf. Prv 20:20; Mt 15:4), the ruler (Ex 22:28), and the deaf (Lv 19:14). A man who suspected his wife of unfaithfulness could require that she submit to a test administered by the priest that would result in a curse upon her if she was guilty (Nm 5:11-31). Individuals might pronounce a curse upon themselves to show the truthfulness of their assertions or promises (Nm 5:19-22; Jb 31:7-10, 16-22; Ps 137:5-6). In the NT the apostle Peter followed the OT practice when he used a curse to deny that he knew Jesus (Mk 14:71). Certain men who wished to kill the apostle Paul proved their sincerity by such a solemn curse (Acts 23:12, 14, 21). Cursing God was punishable by death (Lv 24:10-16; cf. Ex 22:28; Is 8:21-22).<\/p>\n<p>Curses in Bible history include God’s curse on the serpent, Adam, and Eve (Gn 3:14-19); on Cain (4:11-12); on those who might curse the patriarch Abraham and his descendants (12:3); and on those who put their trust in human strength instead of in the Lord (Jer 17:5). When the people of Israel passed through Moab on their way to the Promised Land, Moab’s king, Balak, hired Balaam to curse the Israelites; he and Balaam learned, however, that they could not curse those whom God had blessed (Nm 22–24). Joshua cursed anyone who might try to rebuild Jericho (Jos 6:26; fulfilled in 1 Kgs 16:34). King Saul made a curse that almost cost his son Jonathan’s life (1 Sm 14:24, 43-45). Many other curses are mentioned in the OT (see, e.g., Gn 9:25; 49:5-7; Jos 9:22-23; Jgs 9:7-21, 57; 2 Sm 16:5-13; 1 Kgs 21:17-24; 2 Kgs 2:24; Mal 2:2; 4:6). The pronouncement of “woe” (<span>nlt<\/span> “destruction”) is also the language of curse (Is 5:8-23; cf. Mt 23:13-33, where “alas” and “woe” can be used synonymously and may be either an exclamation of sorrow or of impending doom and calamity).<\/p>\n<p>Psalm 109 contains a lengthy imprecation against the psalmist’s enemies, evidently because they had spoken some words against him falsely (see also Pss 58:6-11; 69:19-28; 143:12). The prophet Jeremiah was not averse to calling on God to punish his tormentors (Jer 11:20; 12:3; 15:15; 17:18; 18:21-22; 20:11-12) or asking God not to forgive them (18:23). Such imprecations against one’s enemies are difficult for Christians today to understand because they contrast sharply with the NT commands to “bless those who curse you” (Lk 6:28; cf. Rom 12:14). Jesus’ injunction to “love your enemies” (Mt 5:44) may be intended to point beyond the cursing practiced in the OT to a fuller understanding of God’s command to love one’s neighbor as oneself.<\/p>\n<h5>Covenant Curses<\/h5>\n<p>Protection of a contract or treaty by invoking a curse on the violator was common in OT times. Sometimes a covenant was sealed by cutting up an animal and having the covenanting individuals walk between the severed pieces; the slain animal symbolized the curse to befall the violator. God agreed to submit to such a curse on himself if he broke the covenant he made with the patriarch Abraham (Gn 15:7-21). Later, God accused the leaders and people of Israel of breaking their covenant with him and warned them of the consequences to follow (Jer 34:18-19). An essential part of the covenant God made with Israel at Mt Sinai was the promise of blessings for keeping the covenant and curses for breaking it (Dt 11:26-28; 27:15-26; 28:15-68; 30:19; cf. Lv 26:3-39). Israel suffered those curses in the time of the prophets Jeremiah and Ezekiel; the covenant breakers, including the king, were threatened with a curse (Jer 11:3; Ez 17:11-21).<\/p>\n<h5>The Ban on “Devoted Things”<\/h5>\n<p>A special kind of curse was the ban or anathema. Strictly speaking, it was a vow to devote persons, animals, or objects under such a curse to God. In some cases the priests could use objects that had fallen under the ban (Nm 18:14; Ez 44:29), but that provision did not apply to living beings. All persons or animals under the ban were sacrificed or destroyed (Lv 27:28-29). The ban was commonly used in Israel’s wars against its pagan neighbors. Sometimes everything was declared anathema (Jos 6:17-19), but normally only persons and heathen images were destroyed (Dt 2:34; 3:6; 7:2, 25-26—not even the melted gold of images was to be kept). To violate the ban by preserving any part of the cursed things was to come under the ban oneself. Because Achan did not respect the ban placed upon Jericho, the terms of that curse came upon all Israel until Achan confessed and was executed (Jos 7).<\/p>\n<p>After the exile, the Jews did not practice the anathema (or ban) by putting people to death; people who violated a curse were excommunicated and put out of the congregation of Israel (Ezr 10:8). That meant that the person was no longer part of God’s people and was considered “dead.”<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"CursesinNewTestamentTimes\">Curses in New Testament Times<\/p>\n<p>Jewish synagogues practiced excommunication, or anathema, in the NT period (Lk 6:22; Jn 9:22; 12:42; 16:2). Later, Christians excommunicated persons by declaring them outside of the redeemed community (Mt 18:17) or “delivered to Satan” (1 Cor 5:5; 1 Tm 1:20). Both practices stemmed from the OT ban. Unlike that curse, however, the excommunication could be removed as soon as the person repented.<\/p>\n<p>Since the anathema branded a person as “rejected” or “cursed by God,” Saul of Tarsus, before his conversion, tried to compel Christians to renounce Christ by calling him accursed (cf. Acts 26:11). Later, as an apostle, Paul (Saul) warned that no one speaking by the Spirit of God could call Jesus accursed (1 Cor 12:3). Paul pronounced anathema (destined for judgment and perdition) upon anyone who preached another gospel than the one he and the other apostles preached (Gal 1:8-9). Paul said he wished he could be accursed, cut off from salvation and the people of God, if that could lead to the salvation of his fellow Israelites (Rom 9:3). His desire reflected the love of Christ, who accepted the “curse of the law” upon himself in submitting to suffering and death on the cross in order to redeem human beings from that curse (Gal 3:8-14; cf. Dt 21:22-23). The NT promises that a time will come when “there shall no longer be any curse” (Rv 22:3, <span>nasb<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> War, Holy.<\/p>","summary_ro":"CURSE, CURSED Invocation of evil or injury against one’s enemies. As practiced in Bible times, cursing was the opposite of blessing and should not be confused with profanity in the modern sense. Pagan Beliefs Curses and blessings were linked to the ancient pagan belief that spirits of “the gods” could be invoked to act on behalf of a person who repeated certain incantations or performed certain deeds (such as sacrifices). It was thought that a spoken curse possessed an occult power to work ca...","summary_en":"CURSE, CURSED Invocation of evil or injury against one’s enemies. As practiced in Bible times, cursing was the opposite of blessing and should not be confused with profanity in the modern sense. Pagan Beliefs Curses and blessings were linked to the ancient pagan belief that spirits of “the gods” could be invoked to act on behalf of a person who repeated certain incantations or performed certain deeds (such as sacrifices). It was thought that a spoken curse possessed an occult power to work ca...","source":"Articles\/C.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"31":[{"id":53377,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ezechiel 44:31","title_en":"Study Note: Ezechiel 44:31","content_ro":"<p><strong>44:31<\/strong> In their radical separation from the realm of death, they could not eat <em>any bird or animal that<\/em> died <em>a natural death<\/em> or was <em>attacked by another animal<\/em>.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>44:31<\/strong> In their radical separation from the realm of death, they could not eat <em>any bird or animal that<\/em> died <em>a natural death<\/em> or was <em>attacked by another animal<\/em>.<\/p>","summary_ro":"44:31 In their radical separation from the realm of death, they could not eat any bird or animal that died a natural death or was attacked by another animal.","summary_en":"44:31 In their radical separation from the realm of death, they could not eat any bird or animal that died a natural death or was attacked by another animal.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":81003,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ezechiel 44:31","title_en":"Study Note: Ezechiel 44:31","content_ro":"<p><strong>44:31<\/strong> In their radical separation from the realm of death, they could not eat <em>any bird or animal that<\/em> died <em>a natural death<\/em> or was <em>attacked by another animal<\/em>.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>44:31<\/strong> In their radical separation from the realm of death, they could not eat <em>any bird or animal that<\/em> died <em>a natural death<\/em> or was <em>attacked by another animal<\/em>.<\/p>","summary_ro":"44:31 In their radical separation from the realm of death, they could not eat any bird or animal that died a natural death or was attacked by another animal.","summary_en":"44:31 In their radical separation from the realm of death, they could not eat any bird or animal that died a natural death or was attacked by another animal.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":108629,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ezechiel 44:31","title_en":"Study Note: Ezechiel 44:31","content_ro":"<p><strong>44:31<\/strong> In their radical separation from the realm of death, they could not eat <em>any bird or animal that<\/em> died <em>a natural death<\/em> or was <em>attacked by another animal<\/em>.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>44:31<\/strong> In their radical separation from the realm of death, they could not eat <em>any bird or animal that<\/em> died <em>a natural death<\/em> or was <em>attacked by another animal<\/em>.<\/p>","summary_ro":"44:31 In their radical separation from the realm of death, they could not eat any bird or animal that died a natural death or was attacked by another animal.","summary_en":"44:31 In their radical separation from the realm of death, they could not eat any bird or animal that died a natural death or was attacked by another animal.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":136255,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ezechiel 44:31","title_en":"Study Note: Ezechiel 44:31","content_ro":"<p><strong>44:31<\/strong> In their radical separation from the realm of death, they could not eat <em>any bird or animal that<\/em> died <em>a natural death<\/em> or was <em>attacked by another animal<\/em>.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>44:31<\/strong> In their radical separation from the realm of death, they could not eat <em>any bird or animal that<\/em> died <em>a natural death<\/em> or was <em>attacked by another animal<\/em>.<\/p>","summary_ro":"44:31 In their radical separation from the realm of death, they could not eat any bird or animal that died a natural death or was attacked by another animal.","summary_en":"44:31 In their radical separation from the realm of death, they could not eat any bird or animal that died a natural death or was attacked by another animal.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}]},"labels":{"article":"Articol","map":"Hartă","chart":"Diagramă","textbox":"Notă explicativă","picture":"Imagine","profile":"Profil","study_note":"Notă de studiu","theme_note":"Temă biblică"},"icons":{"article":"📖","map":"🗺️","chart":"📊","textbox":"💡","picture":"🖼️","profile":"👤","study_note":"📝","theme_note":"🎯"},"typeColors":{"article":"#d4af37","map":"#2d7d46","chart":"#3b82f6","textbox":"#8b5cf6","picture":"#ec4899","profile":"#f59e0b","study_note":"#06b6d4","theme_note":"#ef4444"}}
🔍
Niciun rezultat
Nu am găsit versete care să conțină textul căutat.
Ezechiel 44
— 31 versete
Ezechiel 44
📘 Info carte
Se încarcă...
📖 Resurse