Ezechiel 48
1 Iată numele seminţiilor. La marginea de miază noapte, dealungul drumului dela Hetlon, cum mergi spre Hamat şi Harţar-Enon, la hotarul Damascului dela miază noapte spre Hamat, dela răsărit până spre apus: partea lui Dan.
2 Lângă hotarul lui Dan, dela răsărit până la apus, partea lui Aşer.
3 Lângă hotarul lui Aşer, dela răsărit până la apus partea lui Neftali.
4 Lângă hotarul lui Neftali, dela răsărit până la apus, partea lui Manase.
5 Lângă hotarul lui Manase, dela răsărit până la apus, partea lui Efraim.
6 Lângă hotarul lui Efraim, dela răsărit până la apus, partea lui Ruben.
7 Lângă hotarul lui Ruben, dela răsărit până la apus, partea lui Iuda.
8 Lângă hotarul lui Iuda, dela răsărit până la apus, va fi partea sfântă pe care o veţi despărţi, lată de douăzeci şi cinci de mii de coţi şi lungă cât una din părţile dela răsărit până la apus; în mijlocul ei va fi sfântul Locaş.
9 Partea pe care o veţi despărţi pentru Domnul, va avea douăzeci şi cinci de mii de coţi lungime în lungime şi zece mii în lăţime.
10 Această parte sfântă va fi a preoţilor: douăzeci şi cinci de mii de coţi la miază noapte, zece mii în lat la apus, zece mii în lat la răsărit, şi douăzeci şi cinci de mii în lung la miazăzi. În mijloc însă va fi sfântul Locaş al Domnului.
11 Ea va fi a preoţilor sfinţiţi, a fiilor lui Ţadoc, cari au făcut slujba sfântului Meu Locaş, cari nu s-au rătăcit ca Leviţii, când se rătăceau copiii lui Israel.
12 Ea va fi a lor, ca parte prea sfântă, luată din partea ţării, care va fi osebită Domnului, lângă hotarul Leviţilor.
13 Leviţii vor avea, alăturea cu hotarul preoţilor, douăzeci şi cinci de mii de coţi în lung şi zece mii în lat, douăzeci şi cinci de mii în toată lungimea şi zece mii în lăţime.
14 Nu vor putea să vândă nimic din ea nici să schimbe; şi această pârgă a ţării nu va putea fi înstrăinată, căci este închinată Domnului.
15 Ceilalţi cinci mii de coţi însă, cari mai rămân în lat înaintea celor douăzeci şi cinci de mii, vor fi daţi cetăţii ca loc obicinuit, pentru locuinţe şi păşune; şi cetatea va fi la mijloc.
16 Iată-i măsurile: în spre miază noapte patru mii cinci sute de coţi, în spre miazăzi patru mii cinci sute, în spre răsărit patru mii cinci sute, în spre apus patru mii cinci sute.
17 Cetatea va avea o împrejurime de două sute cincizeci de coţi la miază noapte, două sute cincizeci la miazăzi, două sute cinci zeci la răsărit, şi două sute cinci zeci la apus.
18 Rămăşiţa din lungime, de lângă partea sfântă, zece mii la răsărit şi zece mii la apus, alături de partea sfântă, va da veniturile rânduite pentru întreţinerea lucrătorilor cetăţii.
19 Lucrătorii cetăţii vor fi luaţi din toate seminţiile lui Israel.
20 Toată partea sfântă va fi de douăzeci şi cinci de mii de coţi în lung şi douăzeci şi cinci de mii în lat; şi va alcătui un patrat împreună cu partea pe care o veţi deosebi din ea ca moşie a cetăţii.
21 Partea care va rămânea va fi a domnitorului, de amândouă laturile părţii sfinte şi moşiei cetăţii, în dreptul celor douăzeci şi cinci de mii de coţi ai părţii sfinte lângă hotarul de răsărit, şi la apus în dreptul celor două zeci şi mii de coţi lângă hotarul de apus, în dreptul părţilor seminţiilor. Aceasta va fi partea domnitorului. Partea sfântă însă şi sfântul Locaş al casei vor fi la mijloc.
22 Astfel moşia Leviţilor şi moşia cetăţii va fi în locul părţii cuvenite domnitorului, în mijloc; adică ce va fi între hotarul lui Iuda şi hotarul lui Beniamin va fi al domnitorului.
23 Iată celelalte seminţii. Dela răsărit până la apus va fi partea lui Beniamin.
24 Lângă hotarul lui Beniamin, dela răsărit până la apus, partea lui Simeon.
25 Lângă hotarul lui Simeon, dela răsărit până la apus, partea lui Isahar.
26 Lângă hotarul lui Isahar, dela răsărit până la apus, partea lui Zabulon.
27 Lângă hotarul lui Zabulon, dela răsărit până la apus, partea lui Gad.
28 Lângă hotarul lui Gad însă, pe partea de miazăzi, la miazăzi, hotarul va merge dela Tamar până la apele Meriba dela Cades, până la pârâul Egiptului, şi până la marea cea mare.
29 Aceasta este ţara pe care o veţi împărţi ca moştenire prin sorţ seminţiilor lui Israel, şi acestea sânt părţile lor, zice Domnul Dumnezeu.``
30 ,,Iată ieşirile cetăţii. În partea de miază noapte, care are o întindere de patru mii cinci sute de coţi, -
31 şi porţile cetăţii se vor numi după numele seminţiilor lui Israel-trei porţi la miază noapte: o poartă a lui Ruben, o poartă a lui Iuda, şi o poartă a lui Levi.
32 În partea de răsărit care are o întindere de patru mii cinci sute de coţi, cu trei porţi: o poartă a lui Iosif, o poartă a lui Beniamin, şi o poartă a lui Dan.
33 În partea de miazăzi, cu o întindere de patru mii cinci sute de coţi şi trei porţi: o poartă a lui Simeon, o poartă a lui Isahar, şi o poartă a lui Zabulon.
34 În partea de apus, cu o întindere de patru mii cinci sute de coţi şi trei porţi: o poartă a lui Gad, o poartă a lui Aşer, şi o poartă a lui Neftali.
35 De jur împrejurul cetăţii: optsprezece mii de coţi. Şi din ziua aceea, numele cetăţii va fi: ,Domnul este aici!
{"verseMap":{"1":[{"id":8533,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Tribe of Dan","title_en":"Tribe of Dan","content_ro":"<h3>DAN, Tribe of<\/h3>\n<p>Israelite tribe named for the patriarch Jacob’s fifth son. The tribe of Dan, descended from Dan’s only known son, Hushim (cf. “Shuham” in Nm 26:42-43), had little distinction in its early years. Some Danites are mentioned in the wilderness narratives: Oholiab, a craftsman of the tabernacle (Ex 31:6; 35:34; 38:23); another whose mother married an Egyptian and who blasphemed God (Lv 24:11); and Ahiezer, chief prince of Dan during the exodus (Nm 1:12).<\/p>\n<p>Dan was the second largest tribe at the first census taken in the wilderness (62,700 warriors—Nm 1:38-39). They were instructed to encamp on the north side of the Israelites’ camp along with Asher and Naphtali (Nm 2:25-31), and were to bring up the rear in the line of march (Nm 2:31; 10:25). At the second census 40 years later, just before entering the Promised Land, they had grown only to 64,400 (26:42-43), still second in size. The tribe does not stand out in the Conquest narratives (Dt 2:16–3:29; Jos 1–24; Jgs 1). Dan is listed among the tribes who reminded Israel of the covenant curses at Mt Ebal (Dt 27:13; cf. Jos 8:30-33). The tribe is called a “lion’s whelp” in Moses’ blessing (Dt 33:22). Some believe that the reference to “Bashan” in that blessing prefigured the Danites’ migration to the northern territory where they eventually settled.<\/p>\n<p>One of the most significant references to Dan’s tribe is the account of its northward migration (Jos 19:40-48; Jgs 18). The Danites had been allotted a portion of Canaan between Judah and Ephraim bordering the Mediterranean seacoast (Jos 19:40-46; Jgs 5:17), but were unable to occupy their territory except for the valley at Zorah and Eshtaol (Jgs 13:25; 18:2). As a result, a group of Danites, discouraged with their situation, marched north and captured Laish, located about 25 miles (40 kilometers) north of the Sea of Galilee and just below Israel’s northernmost border. Laish was renamed Dan at that time (18:27-29). Their association with that northern territory eventually gave rise to the expression “from Dan to Beersheba” (Jgs 20:1; 2 Sm 3:10) as designating Israel’s northern and southern borders.<\/p>\n<p>Southern Dan continued for some time, as illustrated in the exploits of Samson of the tribe of Dan (Jgs 13–16). Evidently the southern Danites gradually merged into the tribe of Judah, and no historical reference to the southern Danite tribe is made in the rest of the OT. The Danites were mentioned in King David’s time as mustering a considerable army loyal to David (1 Chr 12:35; 27:22).<\/p>\n<p>The Danites were among the tribes who did not drive the Canaanites from their territory (Jos 13:4-5; cf. Jgs 1:34-35). Joshua had to prod them into the task at the Shiloh assembly (Jos 18:1-4; 19:40-48). Eventually the Danites gave up the effort and sought other lands in the north, where conquest was easier. Their disobedience was further manifested in their open sin of setting up a “graven image” and establishing a rival priesthood, even though their priest was a Levite (Jgs 18:30-31). The result of that idolatry was that, at the division of the Israelite kingdom at the end of King Solomon’s reign, King Jeroboam of the northern kingdom of Israel chose the city of Dan as one of the idol shrines in which to set up the golden calves (1 Kgs 12:28-29). The Danites’ apostasy, and that of the other northern tribes, continued throughout their history (2 Kgs 10:29), and because of it they were eventually carried captive to Assyria (2 Kgs 17:1-23).<\/p>\n<p>The tribe name is mentioned in the prophet Ezekiel’s idealized description of the restored land and Jerusalem (Ez 48:1-2, 32). In the NT, the apostle John omitted the tribe from a list of Israel’s tribes (Rv 7:4-8).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Israel, History of; Dan (Person); Dan (Place).<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>DAN, Tribe of<\/h3>\n<p>Israelite tribe named for the patriarch Jacob’s fifth son. The tribe of Dan, descended from Dan’s only known son, Hushim (cf. “Shuham” in Nm 26:42-43), had little distinction in its early years. Some Danites are mentioned in the wilderness narratives: Oholiab, a craftsman of the tabernacle (Ex 31:6; 35:34; 38:23); another whose mother married an Egyptian and who blasphemed God (Lv 24:11); and Ahiezer, chief prince of Dan during the exodus (Nm 1:12).<\/p>\n<p>Dan was the second largest tribe at the first census taken in the wilderness (62,700 warriors—Nm 1:38-39). They were instructed to encamp on the north side of the Israelites’ camp along with Asher and Naphtali (Nm 2:25-31), and were to bring up the rear in the line of march (Nm 2:31; 10:25). At the second census 40 years later, just before entering the Promised Land, they had grown only to 64,400 (26:42-43), still second in size. The tribe does not stand out in the Conquest narratives (Dt 2:16–3:29; Jos 1–24; Jgs 1). Dan is listed among the tribes who reminded Israel of the covenant curses at Mt Ebal (Dt 27:13; cf. Jos 8:30-33). The tribe is called a “lion’s whelp” in Moses’ blessing (Dt 33:22). Some believe that the reference to “Bashan” in that blessing prefigured the Danites’ migration to the northern territory where they eventually settled.<\/p>\n<p>One of the most significant references to Dan’s tribe is the account of its northward migration (Jos 19:40-48; Jgs 18). The Danites had been allotted a portion of Canaan between Judah and Ephraim bordering the Mediterranean seacoast (Jos 19:40-46; Jgs 5:17), but were unable to occupy their territory except for the valley at Zorah and Eshtaol (Jgs 13:25; 18:2). As a result, a group of Danites, discouraged with their situation, marched north and captured Laish, located about 25 miles (40 kilometers) north of the Sea of Galilee and just below Israel’s northernmost border. Laish was renamed Dan at that time (18:27-29). Their association with that northern territory eventually gave rise to the expression “from Dan to Beersheba” (Jgs 20:1; 2 Sm 3:10) as designating Israel’s northern and southern borders.<\/p>\n<p>Southern Dan continued for some time, as illustrated in the exploits of Samson of the tribe of Dan (Jgs 13–16). Evidently the southern Danites gradually merged into the tribe of Judah, and no historical reference to the southern Danite tribe is made in the rest of the OT. The Danites were mentioned in King David’s time as mustering a considerable army loyal to David (1 Chr 12:35; 27:22).<\/p>\n<p>The Danites were among the tribes who did not drive the Canaanites from their territory (Jos 13:4-5; cf. Jgs 1:34-35). Joshua had to prod them into the task at the Shiloh assembly (Jos 18:1-4; 19:40-48). Eventually the Danites gave up the effort and sought other lands in the north, where conquest was easier. Their disobedience was further manifested in their open sin of setting up a “graven image” and establishing a rival priesthood, even though their priest was a Levite (Jgs 18:30-31). The result of that idolatry was that, at the division of the Israelite kingdom at the end of King Solomon’s reign, King Jeroboam of the northern kingdom of Israel chose the city of Dan as one of the idol shrines in which to set up the golden calves (1 Kgs 12:28-29). The Danites’ apostasy, and that of the other northern tribes, continued throughout their history (2 Kgs 10:29), and because of it they were eventually carried captive to Assyria (2 Kgs 17:1-23).<\/p>\n<p>The tribe name is mentioned in the prophet Ezekiel’s idealized description of the restored land and Jerusalem (Ez 48:1-2, 32). In the NT, the apostle John omitted the tribe from a list of Israel’s tribes (Rv 7:4-8).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Israel, History of; Dan (Person); Dan (Place).<\/p>","summary_ro":"DAN, Tribe of Israelite tribe named for the patriarch Jacob’s fifth son. The tribe of Dan, descended from Dan’s only known son, Hushim (cf. “Shuham” in Nm 26:42-43), had little distinction in its early years. Some Danites are mentioned in the wilderness narratives: Oholiab, a craftsman of the tabernacle (Ex 31:6; 35:34; 38:23); another whose mother married an Egyptian and who blasphemed God (Lv 24:11); and Ahiezer, chief prince of Dan during the exodus (Nm 1:12). Dan was the second largest tr...","summary_en":"DAN, Tribe of Israelite tribe named for the patriarch Jacob’s fifth son. The tribe of Dan, descended from Dan’s only known son, Hushim (cf. “Shuham” in Nm 26:42-43), had little distinction in its early years. Some Danites are mentioned in the wilderness narratives: Oholiab, a craftsman of the tabernacle (Ex 31:6; 35:34; 38:23); another whose mother married an Egyptian and who blasphemed God (Lv 24:11); and Ahiezer, chief prince of Dan during the exodus (Nm 1:12). Dan was the second largest tr...","source":"Articles\/D.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":10799,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Enan","title_en":"Enan","content_ro":"<h3>ENAN<\/h3>\n<p>Ahira’s father. Ahira was appointed by Moses as the commander of the tribe of Naphtali during the first census of Israel in the desert of Sinai (Nm 1:15; 2:29; 7:78, 83; 10:27). The name is apparently preserved in the name Hazar-enan (-enon), a town somewhere between Damascus and Hauran (Nm 34:9; Ez 47:17; 48:1).<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>ENAN<\/h3>\n<p>Ahira’s father. Ahira was appointed by Moses as the commander of the tribe of Naphtali during the first census of Israel in the desert of Sinai (Nm 1:15; 2:29; 7:78, 83; 10:27). The name is apparently preserved in the name Hazar-enan (-enon), a town somewhere between Damascus and Hauran (Nm 34:9; Ez 47:17; 48:1).<\/p>","summary_ro":"ENAN Ahira’s father. Ahira was appointed by Moses as the commander of the tribe of Naphtali during the first census of Israel in the desert of Sinai (Nm 1:15; 2:29; 7:78, 83; 10:27). The name is apparently preserved in the name Hazar-enan (-enon), a town somewhere between Damascus and Hauran (Nm 34:9; Ez 47:17; 48:1).","summary_en":"ENAN Ahira’s father. Ahira was appointed by Moses as the commander of the tribe of Naphtali during the first census of Israel in the desert of Sinai (Nm 1:15; 2:29; 7:78, 83; 10:27). The name is apparently preserved in the name Hazar-enan (-enon), a town somewhere between Damascus and Hauran (Nm 34:9; Ez 47:17; 48:1).","source":"Articles\/E.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":13058,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Tribe of Gad","title_en":"Tribe of Gad","content_ro":"<h3>GAD, Tribe of<\/h3>\n<p>Descendants of Jacob’s seventh son Gad (Gn 30:11; Nm 1:24-25), and eighth largest of the 12 tribes that came out of Egypt with Moses (according to the number of warriors in Nm 1:1-3, 24-25). They raised livestock and had a reputation for being fierce in battle (Nm 32:1; Dt 33:20).<\/p>\n<p>During the wilderness period, they were led by Eliasaph’s son Deuel (Nm 1:14; 2:14; 7:42; 10:20). When Israel encamped, Gad was located south of the tabernacle behind the tribes of Reuben and Simeon (2:14-15). They are mentioned at the tribal offering to the tabernacle, and after the plague, which God brought upon Israel (7:42-47; 26:15, 18). Maki’s son Geuel represented the tribe as one of the 12 spies sent by Moses into Canaan (13:15).<\/p>\n<p>At the close of the wilderness period, Gad, Reuben, and half of Manasseh’s tribe requested permission to settle east of the Jordan, for it had good pastureland (Nm 32:1-2). This was permitted on the condition that they would help in the conquest of Canaan (Nm 32:20-22; Jos 1:12-18).<\/p>\n<p>During the Conquest under Joshua, Gad is mentioned only at the battle of Jericho (Jos 4:12). After the end of the conflict, Gad, Reuben, and half of Manasseh settled their land east of the Jordan (cf. Nm 34:13-14; Jos 12:6; 13:8).<\/p>\n<p>Gad’s inheritance was between Manasseh’s tribe to the north and Reuben’s to the south. The Arabian Desert formed its eastern border and the Jordan River its western. There seem to have been no fixed borders between the two and a half tribes, and the whole area was often referred to as Gilead and Bashan (2 Kgs 10:33). Its land ran north to the Sea of Chinnereth (Galilee), but among the mountains it seems to have run eastward only as far as the Jabbok River. To the south, the cities of Aroer and Heshbon mark their southern limits (Dt 3:12-13; Jos 12:1-6; 13:24-28).<\/p>\n<p>The history of Gad from its settlement to the Captivity was closely tied with the two neighboring Hebrew tribes. Shortly after returning to their lands, these two and a half tribes almost started a civil war by erecting a large altar (Jos 22:10-34). During the time of the judges, Gilead (including Gad) was threatened, if not occupied, by the Ammonites until they were defeated by Jephthah (Jgs 11). Some Gadites joined David at Ziklag during his exile (1 Chr 12:14, 37). In the 14th year of David’s reign the two and a half tribes were formally brought together under an overseer named Jerijah (and his brothers, 26:30-32).<\/p>\n<p>During the time of the divided kingdom, the tribes east of the Jordan were constantly under attack. During Jehu’s reign (841–814 <span>BC<\/span>), Hazael annexed all the land east of the Jordan, and they were later carried off into captivity by Tiglath-pileser, king of Assyria (2 Kgs 15:29; 1 Chr 5:26-27). Subsequently, the Ammonites occupied Gad’s land (Jer 49:1).<\/p>\n<p>In the postexilic period Gad is mentioned only once—in Ezekiel’s vision of the restoration of Israel (Ez 48:1, 27-28, 34). In the NT, Gad is mentioned only in the book of Revelation, in the list of the tribes sealed by God (Rv 7:5).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Israel, History of; Gad (Person) #1.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>GAD, Tribe of<\/h3>\n<p>Descendants of Jacob’s seventh son Gad (Gn 30:11; Nm 1:24-25), and eighth largest of the 12 tribes that came out of Egypt with Moses (according to the number of warriors in Nm 1:1-3, 24-25). They raised livestock and had a reputation for being fierce in battle (Nm 32:1; Dt 33:20).<\/p>\n<p>During the wilderness period, they were led by Eliasaph’s son Deuel (Nm 1:14; 2:14; 7:42; 10:20). When Israel encamped, Gad was located south of the tabernacle behind the tribes of Reuben and Simeon (2:14-15). They are mentioned at the tribal offering to the tabernacle, and after the plague, which God brought upon Israel (7:42-47; 26:15, 18). Maki’s son Geuel represented the tribe as one of the 12 spies sent by Moses into Canaan (13:15).<\/p>\n<p>At the close of the wilderness period, Gad, Reuben, and half of Manasseh’s tribe requested permission to settle east of the Jordan, for it had good pastureland (Nm 32:1-2). This was permitted on the condition that they would help in the conquest of Canaan (Nm 32:20-22; Jos 1:12-18).<\/p>\n<p>During the Conquest under Joshua, Gad is mentioned only at the battle of Jericho (Jos 4:12). After the end of the conflict, Gad, Reuben, and half of Manasseh settled their land east of the Jordan (cf. Nm 34:13-14; Jos 12:6; 13:8).<\/p>\n<p>Gad’s inheritance was between Manasseh’s tribe to the north and Reuben’s to the south. The Arabian Desert formed its eastern border and the Jordan River its western. There seem to have been no fixed borders between the two and a half tribes, and the whole area was often referred to as Gilead and Bashan (2 Kgs 10:33). Its land ran north to the Sea of Chinnereth (Galilee), but among the mountains it seems to have run eastward only as far as the Jabbok River. To the south, the cities of Aroer and Heshbon mark their southern limits (Dt 3:12-13; Jos 12:1-6; 13:24-28).<\/p>\n<p>The history of Gad from its settlement to the Captivity was closely tied with the two neighboring Hebrew tribes. Shortly after returning to their lands, these two and a half tribes almost started a civil war by erecting a large altar (Jos 22:10-34). During the time of the judges, Gilead (including Gad) was threatened, if not occupied, by the Ammonites until they were defeated by Jephthah (Jgs 11). Some Gadites joined David at Ziklag during his exile (1 Chr 12:14, 37). In the 14th year of David’s reign the two and a half tribes were formally brought together under an overseer named Jerijah (and his brothers, 26:30-32).<\/p>\n<p>During the time of the divided kingdom, the tribes east of the Jordan were constantly under attack. During Jehu’s reign (841–814 <span>BC<\/span>), Hazael annexed all the land east of the Jordan, and they were later carried off into captivity by Tiglath-pileser, king of Assyria (2 Kgs 15:29; 1 Chr 5:26-27). Subsequently, the Ammonites occupied Gad’s land (Jer 49:1).<\/p>\n<p>In the postexilic period Gad is mentioned only once—in Ezekiel’s vision of the restoration of Israel (Ez 48:1, 27-28, 34). In the NT, Gad is mentioned only in the book of Revelation, in the list of the tribes sealed by God (Rv 7:5).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Israel, History of; Gad (Person) #1.<\/p>","summary_ro":"GAD, Tribe of Descendants of Jacob’s seventh son Gad (Gn 30:11; Nm 1:24-25), and eighth largest of the 12 tribes that came out of Egypt with Moses (according to the number of warriors in Nm 1:1-3, 24-25). They raised livestock and had a reputation for being fierce in battle (Nm 32:1; Dt 33:20). During the wilderness period, they were led by Eliasaph’s son Deuel (Nm 1:14; 2:14; 7:42; 10:20). When Israel encamped, Gad was located south of the tabernacle behind the tribes of Reuben and Simeon (2...","summary_en":"GAD, Tribe of Descendants of Jacob’s seventh son Gad (Gn 30:11; Nm 1:24-25), and eighth largest of the 12 tribes that came out of Egypt with Moses (according to the number of warriors in Nm 1:1-3, 24-25). They raised livestock and had a reputation for being fierce in battle (Nm 32:1; Dt 33:20). During the wilderness period, they were led by Eliasaph’s son Deuel (Nm 1:14; 2:14; 7:42; 10:20). When Israel encamped, Gad was located south of the tabernacle behind the tribes of Reuben and Simeon (2...","source":"Articles\/G.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":15137,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Hamath","title_en":"Hamath","content_ro":"<h3>HAMATH<\/h3>\n<li>1. City and district located about 125 miles (201 kilometers) north of Damascus (Syria), on the Orontes River. The early residents apparently were of the Hamitic race from the descendants of Canaan (Gn 10:18), but later inhabitants were Semitic. It was to be the northern boundary of the nation of Israel, described as the “entrance of Hamath” (Nm 34:7-8; Jos 13:5; Hebrew, <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">Lebo Hamath<\/span>), but actually it was such only in the early monarchy and under Jeroboam II (793–753 <span>BC<\/span>). The location is uncertain but was between the Lebanon and Anti-Lebanon Mountains. Some scholars have thought of it as an actual place-name, Lebo-hamath, and have identified it with modern Lebweh on the Orontes. Others have located it elsewhere in Syria.<\/li>\n<p>Hamath was established during the Neolithic period and destroyed about 1750 <span>BC<\/span>, perhaps by the Hyksos. It was later rebuilt and conquered by Thutmose III (1502–1448 <span>BC<\/span>), and while Egypt controlled Syria, Hamath prospered. Several Hittite inscriptions have been discovered that disclose that Hamath had become the capital of a small Hittite kingdom prior to 900 <span>BC<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p>When David fought Hadadezer, king of Zobah, and defeated him, then Toi, king of Hamath, sent his son to congratulate David (2 Sm 8:9-10). Since Solomon built store-cities in the region of Hamath (2 Chr 8:4), it has been suggested that Hamath had become a tributary kingdom to Israel. During the reign of Ahab of Israel, the Assyrian royal inscriptions state that Irhulini, king of Hamath, allied with Damascus, Israel, and the 12 kings of the coast to resist the advances of Shalmaneser III (860–825 <span>BC<\/span>). The league halted Shalmaneser, although he continued to harass Syria, and about 846 <span>BC<\/span> he conquered the Syrian league, when Hamath became subject to Assyria. In 730 <span>BC<\/span> Eni-Ilus, then king of Hamath, paid tribute to Tiglath-pileser III. About 720 <span>BC<\/span> Sargon II colonized Hamath with 4,300 Assyrians and moved many people from different areas of his kingdom, including Hamath, to Samaria (2 Kgs 17:24). Israelites also were apparently colonized in Hamath (Is 11:11). Other OT references to the Assyrian conquest of Hamath include 2 Kings 18:34, 19:13, Isaiah 10:9, 36:19, 37:13, and Amos 6:2. Later the city seems to have been subject to Damascus (Jer 49:23). Some of the prophets predicted that Israel would eventually extend its boundaries once again to Hamath (Ez 47:16-17; 48:1; Zec 9:2).<\/p>\n<p>During the Maccabean period, Jonathan Maccabeus and his army met the army of Demetrius at Hamath (1 Macc 12:25). According to Josephus, Antiochus Epiphanes changed its name to Epiphania (<em>Antiquities<\/em> 1.4.2), the name by which it was known to the Greeks and Romans.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Hamath, Entrance of.<\/p>\n<li>2. Hamath-zobah is mentioned in 2 Chronicles 8:3 as a town conquered by Solomon. Some have suggested that it was the same city as the Hamath above, while others suggest that it was a different town in the district of Zobah.<\/li>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Hamath-zobah.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>HAMATH<\/h3>\n<li>1. City and district located about 125 miles (201 kilometers) north of Damascus (Syria), on the Orontes River. The early residents apparently were of the Hamitic race from the descendants of Canaan (Gn 10:18), but later inhabitants were Semitic. It was to be the northern boundary of the nation of Israel, described as the “entrance of Hamath” (Nm 34:7-8; Jos 13:5; Hebrew, <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">Lebo Hamath<\/span>), but actually it was such only in the early monarchy and under Jeroboam II (793–753 <span>BC<\/span>). The location is uncertain but was between the Lebanon and Anti-Lebanon Mountains. Some scholars have thought of it as an actual place-name, Lebo-hamath, and have identified it with modern Lebweh on the Orontes. Others have located it elsewhere in Syria.<\/li>\n<p>Hamath was established during the Neolithic period and destroyed about 1750 <span>BC<\/span>, perhaps by the Hyksos. It was later rebuilt and conquered by Thutmose III (1502–1448 <span>BC<\/span>), and while Egypt controlled Syria, Hamath prospered. Several Hittite inscriptions have been discovered that disclose that Hamath had become the capital of a small Hittite kingdom prior to 900 <span>BC<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p>When David fought Hadadezer, king of Zobah, and defeated him, then Toi, king of Hamath, sent his son to congratulate David (2 Sm 8:9-10). Since Solomon built store-cities in the region of Hamath (2 Chr 8:4), it has been suggested that Hamath had become a tributary kingdom to Israel. During the reign of Ahab of Israel, the Assyrian royal inscriptions state that Irhulini, king of Hamath, allied with Damascus, Israel, and the 12 kings of the coast to resist the advances of Shalmaneser III (860–825 <span>BC<\/span>). The league halted Shalmaneser, although he continued to harass Syria, and about 846 <span>BC<\/span> he conquered the Syrian league, when Hamath became subject to Assyria. In 730 <span>BC<\/span> Eni-Ilus, then king of Hamath, paid tribute to Tiglath-pileser III. About 720 <span>BC<\/span> Sargon II colonized Hamath with 4,300 Assyrians and moved many people from different areas of his kingdom, including Hamath, to Samaria (2 Kgs 17:24). Israelites also were apparently colonized in Hamath (Is 11:11). Other OT references to the Assyrian conquest of Hamath include 2 Kings 18:34, 19:13, Isaiah 10:9, 36:19, 37:13, and Amos 6:2. Later the city seems to have been subject to Damascus (Jer 49:23). Some of the prophets predicted that Israel would eventually extend its boundaries once again to Hamath (Ez 47:16-17; 48:1; Zec 9:2).<\/p>\n<p>During the Maccabean period, Jonathan Maccabeus and his army met the army of Demetrius at Hamath (1 Macc 12:25). According to Josephus, Antiochus Epiphanes changed its name to Epiphania (<em>Antiquities<\/em> 1.4.2), the name by which it was known to the Greeks and Romans.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Hamath, Entrance of.<\/p>\n<li>2. Hamath-zobah is mentioned in 2 Chronicles 8:3 as a town conquered by Solomon. Some have suggested that it was the same city as the Hamath above, while others suggest that it was a different town in the district of Zobah.<\/li>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Hamath-zobah.<\/p>","summary_ro":"HAMATH 1. City and district located about 125 miles (201 kilometers) north of Damascus (Syria), on the Orontes River. The early residents apparently were of the Hamitic race from the descendants of Canaan (Gn 10:18), but later inhabitants were Semitic. It was to be the northern boundary of the nation of Israel, described as the “entrance of Hamath” (Nm 34:7-8; Jos 13:5; Hebrew, Lebo Hamath), but actually it was such only in the early monarchy and under Jeroboam II (793–753 BC). The location i...","summary_en":"HAMATH 1. City and district located about 125 miles (201 kilometers) north of Damascus (Syria), on the Orontes River. The early residents apparently were of the Hamitic race from the descendants of Canaan (Gn 10:18), but later inhabitants were Semitic. It was to be the northern boundary of the nation of Israel, described as the “entrance of Hamath” (Nm 34:7-8; Jos 13:5; Hebrew, Lebo Hamath), but actually it was such only in the early monarchy and under Jeroboam II (793–753 BC). The location i...","source":"Articles\/H.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":15148,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"of Hamath*, Entrance","title_en":"of Hamath*, Entrance","content_ro":"<h3>HAMATH*, Entrance of<\/h3>\n<p>Place of uncertain identification, marking the northern border of the Canaanite territory promised to Israel by God (Nm 34:8), but only attained by the time of the monarchy (1 Kgs 8:65; 1 Chr 13:5; 2 Chr 7:8).<\/p>\n<p>After the death of Solomon, the kingdom was divided and the northern boundary shrank. It was not until the reign of Jeroboam II, son of Joash (793–753 <span>BC<\/span>), king of the northern kingdom (called Israel), that the northern boundaries extended again to the entrance of Hamath (2 Kgs 14:23-25).<\/p>\n<p>Both Amos and Ezekiel refer to the entrance of Hamath in their prophecies concerning Israel (Am 6:14; Ez 47:15-20; 48:1). Some authorities regard the place as the ancient town Lebo-hamath, identified with modern Lebweh. <em>See<\/em> Hamath #1; Lebo-hamath.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>HAMATH*, Entrance of<\/h3>\n<p>Place of uncertain identification, marking the northern border of the Canaanite territory promised to Israel by God (Nm 34:8), but only attained by the time of the monarchy (1 Kgs 8:65; 1 Chr 13:5; 2 Chr 7:8).<\/p>\n<p>After the death of Solomon, the kingdom was divided and the northern boundary shrank. It was not until the reign of Jeroboam II, son of Joash (793–753 <span>BC<\/span>), king of the northern kingdom (called Israel), that the northern boundaries extended again to the entrance of Hamath (2 Kgs 14:23-25).<\/p>\n<p>Both Amos and Ezekiel refer to the entrance of Hamath in their prophecies concerning Israel (Am 6:14; Ez 47:15-20; 48:1). Some authorities regard the place as the ancient town Lebo-hamath, identified with modern Lebweh. <em>See<\/em> Hamath #1; Lebo-hamath.<\/p>","summary_ro":"HAMATH*, Entrance of Place of uncertain identification, marking the northern border of the Canaanite territory promised to Israel by God (Nm 34:8), but only attained by the time of the monarchy (1 Kgs 8:65; 1 Chr 13:5; 2 Chr 7:8). After the death of Solomon, the kingdom was divided and the northern boundary shrank. It was not until the reign of Jeroboam II, son of Joash (793–753 BC), king of the northern kingdom (called Israel), that the northern boundaries extended again to the entrance of H...","summary_en":"HAMATH*, Entrance of Place of uncertain identification, marking the northern border of the Canaanite territory promised to Israel by God (Nm 34:8), but only attained by the time of the monarchy (1 Kgs 8:65; 1 Chr 13:5; 2 Chr 7:8). After the death of Solomon, the kingdom was divided and the northern boundary shrank. It was not until the reign of Jeroboam II, son of Joash (793–753 BC), king of the northern kingdom (called Israel), that the northern boundaries extended again to the entrance of H...","source":"Articles\/H.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":15510,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Hazar-Enon* Hazar-Enan","title_en":"Hazar-Enon* Hazar-Enan","content_ro":"<h3>HAZAR-ENAN, HAZAR-ENON*<\/h3>\n<p>Place describing the northeast corner of Israel’s border (Nm 34:9-10); alternately spelled Hazar-enon in Ezekiel 47:17-18 and 48:1 (<span>rsv<\/span>). It is identified with modern Hadr at the base of Mt Hermon.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>HAZAR-ENAN, HAZAR-ENON*<\/h3>\n<p>Place describing the northeast corner of Israel’s border (Nm 34:9-10); alternately spelled Hazar-enon in Ezekiel 47:17-18 and 48:1 (<span>rsv<\/span>). It is identified with modern Hadr at the base of Mt Hermon.<\/p>","summary_ro":"HAZAR-ENAN, HAZAR-ENON* Place describing the northeast corner of Israel’s border (Nm 34:9-10); alternately spelled Hazar-enon in Ezekiel 47:17-18 and 48:1 (rsv). It is identified with modern Hadr at the base of Mt Hermon.","summary_en":"HAZAR-ENAN, HAZAR-ENON* Place describing the northeast corner of Israel’s border (Nm 34:9-10); alternately spelled Hazar-enon in Ezekiel 47:17-18 and 48:1 (rsv). It is identified with modern Hadr at the base of Mt Hermon.","source":"Articles\/H.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":16323,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Hethlon","title_en":"Hethlon","content_ro":"<h3>HETHLON<\/h3>\n<p>Site mentioned by Ezekiel (Ez 47:15; 48:1) describing part of the northern boundary of the restored kingdom of Israel.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>HETHLON<\/h3>\n<p>Site mentioned by Ezekiel (Ez 47:15; 48:1) describing part of the northern boundary of the restored kingdom of Israel.<\/p>","summary_ro":"HETHLON Site mentioned by Ezekiel (Ez 47:15; 48:1) describing part of the northern boundary of the restored kingdom of Israel.","summary_en":"HETHLON Site mentioned by Ezekiel (Ez 47:15; 48:1) describing part of the northern boundary of the restored kingdom of Israel.","source":"Articles\/H.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":53404,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ezechiel 48:1","title_en":"Study Note: Ezechiel 48:1","content_ro":"<p><strong>48:1-8<\/strong> The land assigned to the tribes was arranged in strips running east to west through the land, rather than piecemeal as it was before the Exile. This was more than simply a way of ensuring that each tribe received equal access to the various resources of the land. It aligned the land with the sacred east–west axis that was so prominent in the Temple. As in the Temple, the size and shape of the central areas were clearly defined, while those on the margins were less closely determined (see study note on 40:17-19). The four tribes most distant from the central sacred section (Dan, Asher, Naphtali, and Gad), and therefore in the least privileged position, were descended from the four sons of Jacob by Zilpah and Bilhah, the maidservants of his wives, Leah and Rachel. The eight sons from Leah and Rachel would receive the strips immediately north and south of the holy portion that contained the Temple. Immediately next to the holy portion were the tribes of Benjamin and <em>Judah<\/em><em>,<\/em> which historically surrounded Jerusalem. Judah received the strip immediately to the north of the holy portion, as if to stress that whereas in the past the land had been divided into north and south—Israel and Judah—now Judah would be in the north.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>48:1-8<\/strong> The land assigned to the tribes was arranged in strips running east to west through the land, rather than piecemeal as it was before the Exile. This was more than simply a way of ensuring that each tribe received equal access to the various resources of the land. It aligned the land with the sacred east–west axis that was so prominent in the Temple. As in the Temple, the size and shape of the central areas were clearly defined, while those on the margins were less closely determined (see study note on 40:17-19). The four tribes most distant from the central sacred section (Dan, Asher, Naphtali, and Gad), and therefore in the least privileged position, were descended from the four sons of Jacob by Zilpah and Bilhah, the maidservants of his wives, Leah and Rachel. The eight sons from Leah and Rachel would receive the strips immediately north and south of the holy portion that contained the Temple. Immediately next to the holy portion were the tribes of Benjamin and <em>Judah<\/em><em>,<\/em> which historically surrounded Jerusalem. Judah received the strip immediately to the north of the holy portion, as if to stress that whereas in the past the land had been divided into north and south—Israel and Judah—now Judah would be in the north.<\/p>","summary_ro":"48:1-8 The land assigned to the tribes was arranged in strips running east to west through the land, rather than piecemeal as it was before the Exile. This was more than simply a way of ensuring that each tribe received equal access to the various resources of the land. It aligned the land with the sacred east–west axis that was so prominent in the Temple. As in the Temple, the size and shape of the central areas were clearly defined, while those on the margins were less closely determined (s...","summary_en":"48:1-8 The land assigned to the tribes was arranged in strips running east to west through the land, rather than piecemeal as it was before the Exile. This was more than simply a way of ensuring that each tribe received equal access to the various resources of the land. It aligned the land with the sacred east–west axis that was so prominent in the Temple. As in the Temple, the size and shape of the central areas were clearly defined, while those on the margins were less closely determined (s...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":81030,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ezechiel 48:1","title_en":"Study Note: Ezechiel 48:1","content_ro":"<p><strong>48:1-8<\/strong> The land assigned to the tribes was arranged in strips running east to west through the land, rather than piecemeal as it was before the Exile. This was more than simply a way of ensuring that each tribe received equal access to the various resources of the land. It aligned the land with the sacred east–west axis that was so prominent in the Temple. As in the Temple, the size and shape of the central areas were clearly defined, while those on the margins were less closely determined (see study note on 40:17-19). The four tribes most distant from the central sacred section (Dan, Asher, Naphtali, and Gad), and therefore in the least privileged position, were descended from the four sons of Jacob by Zilpah and Bilhah, the maidservants of his wives, Leah and Rachel. The eight sons from Leah and Rachel would receive the strips immediately north and south of the holy portion that contained the Temple. Immediately next to the holy portion were the tribes of Benjamin and <em>Judah<\/em><em>,<\/em> which historically surrounded Jerusalem. Judah received the strip immediately to the north of the holy portion, as if to stress that whereas in the past the land had been divided into north and south—Israel and Judah—now Judah would be in the north.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>48:1-8<\/strong> The land assigned to the tribes was arranged in strips running east to west through the land, rather than piecemeal as it was before the Exile. This was more than simply a way of ensuring that each tribe received equal access to the various resources of the land. It aligned the land with the sacred east–west axis that was so prominent in the Temple. As in the Temple, the size and shape of the central areas were clearly defined, while those on the margins were less closely determined (see study note on 40:17-19). The four tribes most distant from the central sacred section (Dan, Asher, Naphtali, and Gad), and therefore in the least privileged position, were descended from the four sons of Jacob by Zilpah and Bilhah, the maidservants of his wives, Leah and Rachel. The eight sons from Leah and Rachel would receive the strips immediately north and south of the holy portion that contained the Temple. Immediately next to the holy portion were the tribes of Benjamin and <em>Judah<\/em><em>,<\/em> which historically surrounded Jerusalem. Judah received the strip immediately to the north of the holy portion, as if to stress that whereas in the past the land had been divided into north and south—Israel and Judah—now Judah would be in the north.<\/p>","summary_ro":"48:1-8 The land assigned to the tribes was arranged in strips running east to west through the land, rather than piecemeal as it was before the Exile. This was more than simply a way of ensuring that each tribe received equal access to the various resources of the land. It aligned the land with the sacred east–west axis that was so prominent in the Temple. As in the Temple, the size and shape of the central areas were clearly defined, while those on the margins were less closely determined (s...","summary_en":"48:1-8 The land assigned to the tribes was arranged in strips running east to west through the land, rather than piecemeal as it was before the Exile. This was more than simply a way of ensuring that each tribe received equal access to the various resources of the land. It aligned the land with the sacred east–west axis that was so prominent in the Temple. As in the Temple, the size and shape of the central areas were clearly defined, while those on the margins were less closely determined (s...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":108656,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ezechiel 48:1","title_en":"Study Note: Ezechiel 48:1","content_ro":"<p><strong>48:1-8<\/strong> The land assigned to the tribes was arranged in strips running east to west through the land, rather than piecemeal as it was before the Exile. This was more than simply a way of ensuring that each tribe received equal access to the various resources of the land. It aligned the land with the sacred east–west axis that was so prominent in the Temple. As in the Temple, the size and shape of the central areas were clearly defined, while those on the margins were less closely determined (see study note on 40:17-19). The four tribes most distant from the central sacred section (Dan, Asher, Naphtali, and Gad), and therefore in the least privileged position, were descended from the four sons of Jacob by Zilpah and Bilhah, the maidservants of his wives, Leah and Rachel. The eight sons from Leah and Rachel would receive the strips immediately north and south of the holy portion that contained the Temple. Immediately next to the holy portion were the tribes of Benjamin and <em>Judah<\/em><em>,<\/em> which historically surrounded Jerusalem. Judah received the strip immediately to the north of the holy portion, as if to stress that whereas in the past the land had been divided into north and south—Israel and Judah—now Judah would be in the north.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>48:1-8<\/strong> The land assigned to the tribes was arranged in strips running east to west through the land, rather than piecemeal as it was before the Exile. This was more than simply a way of ensuring that each tribe received equal access to the various resources of the land. It aligned the land with the sacred east–west axis that was so prominent in the Temple. As in the Temple, the size and shape of the central areas were clearly defined, while those on the margins were less closely determined (see study note on 40:17-19). The four tribes most distant from the central sacred section (Dan, Asher, Naphtali, and Gad), and therefore in the least privileged position, were descended from the four sons of Jacob by Zilpah and Bilhah, the maidservants of his wives, Leah and Rachel. The eight sons from Leah and Rachel would receive the strips immediately north and south of the holy portion that contained the Temple. Immediately next to the holy portion were the tribes of Benjamin and <em>Judah<\/em><em>,<\/em> which historically surrounded Jerusalem. Judah received the strip immediately to the north of the holy portion, as if to stress that whereas in the past the land had been divided into north and south—Israel and Judah—now Judah would be in the north.<\/p>","summary_ro":"48:1-8 The land assigned to the tribes was arranged in strips running east to west through the land, rather than piecemeal as it was before the Exile. This was more than simply a way of ensuring that each tribe received equal access to the various resources of the land. It aligned the land with the sacred east–west axis that was so prominent in the Temple. As in the Temple, the size and shape of the central areas were clearly defined, while those on the margins were less closely determined (s...","summary_en":"48:1-8 The land assigned to the tribes was arranged in strips running east to west through the land, rather than piecemeal as it was before the Exile. This was more than simply a way of ensuring that each tribe received equal access to the various resources of the land. It aligned the land with the sacred east–west axis that was so prominent in the Temple. As in the Temple, the size and shape of the central areas were clearly defined, while those on the margins were less closely determined (s...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":136282,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ezechiel 48:1","title_en":"Study Note: Ezechiel 48:1","content_ro":"<p><strong>48:1-8<\/strong> The land assigned to the tribes was arranged in strips running east to west through the land, rather than piecemeal as it was before the Exile. This was more than simply a way of ensuring that each tribe received equal access to the various resources of the land. It aligned the land with the sacred east–west axis that was so prominent in the Temple. As in the Temple, the size and shape of the central areas were clearly defined, while those on the margins were less closely determined (see study note on 40:17-19). The four tribes most distant from the central sacred section (Dan, Asher, Naphtali, and Gad), and therefore in the least privileged position, were descended from the four sons of Jacob by Zilpah and Bilhah, the maidservants of his wives, Leah and Rachel. The eight sons from Leah and Rachel would receive the strips immediately north and south of the holy portion that contained the Temple. Immediately next to the holy portion were the tribes of Benjamin and <em>Judah<\/em><em>,<\/em> which historically surrounded Jerusalem. Judah received the strip immediately to the north of the holy portion, as if to stress that whereas in the past the land had been divided into north and south—Israel and Judah—now Judah would be in the north.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>48:1-8<\/strong> The land assigned to the tribes was arranged in strips running east to west through the land, rather than piecemeal as it was before the Exile. This was more than simply a way of ensuring that each tribe received equal access to the various resources of the land. It aligned the land with the sacred east–west axis that was so prominent in the Temple. As in the Temple, the size and shape of the central areas were clearly defined, while those on the margins were less closely determined (see study note on 40:17-19). The four tribes most distant from the central sacred section (Dan, Asher, Naphtali, and Gad), and therefore in the least privileged position, were descended from the four sons of Jacob by Zilpah and Bilhah, the maidservants of his wives, Leah and Rachel. The eight sons from Leah and Rachel would receive the strips immediately north and south of the holy portion that contained the Temple. Immediately next to the holy portion were the tribes of Benjamin and <em>Judah<\/em><em>,<\/em> which historically surrounded Jerusalem. Judah received the strip immediately to the north of the holy portion, as if to stress that whereas in the past the land had been divided into north and south—Israel and Judah—now Judah would be in the north.<\/p>","summary_ro":"48:1-8 The land assigned to the tribes was arranged in strips running east to west through the land, rather than piecemeal as it was before the Exile. This was more than simply a way of ensuring that each tribe received equal access to the various resources of the land. It aligned the land with the sacred east–west axis that was so prominent in the Temple. As in the Temple, the size and shape of the central areas were clearly defined, while those on the margins were less closely determined (s...","summary_en":"48:1-8 The land assigned to the tribes was arranged in strips running east to west through the land, rather than piecemeal as it was before the Exile. This was more than simply a way of ensuring that each tribe received equal access to the various resources of the land. It aligned the land with the sacred east–west axis that was so prominent in the Temple. As in the Temple, the size and shape of the central areas were clearly defined, while those on the margins were less closely determined (s...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"6":[{"id":32886,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Tribe of Reuben","title_en":"Tribe of Reuben","content_ro":"<h3>REUBEN, Tribe of<\/h3>\n<p>Tribe descended from Reuben, the eldest of Jacob’s sons (Gn 29:32). The tribe of Reuben usually receives the place of honor in lists of the tribes, being named first (Nm 13:4). Similarly, in lists of the two and a half tribes residing east of the Jordan, Reuben is always mentioned first (Jos 1:12), though Gad seems to have held a larger portion.<\/p>\n<p>Because of Reuben’s sin (Gn 35:22), his father prophesied that his preeminence among his brothers would disappear (49:4). In spite of the prayer of Deuteronomy 33:6, this disaster did overtake the tribe in later years. In desert days, Reuben’s tribal chief appears with all the others (Nm 1:5), and a spy goes forth from Reuben as with the other tribes (13:4). Reuben has his special place in camping and marching (2:10). Only the spies of Ephraim (Joshua) and Judah (Caleb) are faithful (14:6), but Reuben appears no worse than his brother tribes: all were equal in unbelief.<\/p>\n<p>The revolt of Dathan and Abiram, men of Reuben, against the authority of Moses (Nm 16:1) and possibly against the special position of Levi may be significant. Reuben may be claiming his old primacy, forfeited by sin (Gn 49:3-4). The attempt failed, and God’s judgment was a signal lesson (Nm 16:33).<\/p>\n<p>Reuben was rich in herds of cattle (Nm 32:1) and presumably a powerful tribe. Reuben, Gad, and the half-tribe of Manasseh asked to remain in the richly timbered and well-watered lands to the east of Jordan, recently conquered from Sihon, the Amorite king, and Og, the ruler of Bashan. This selfish request (for it would involve no sharing in the hard fighting across the Jordan) was rightly denounced by Moses. However, on the promise of the two and a half tribes to bear the brunt of the fighting for their brothers in the west, their request was granted (vv 20-22). They were evidently good soldiers, and Joshua sent them home at the end of the campaign (Jos 22:1-6). Although living east of the Jordan, and separated from their brothers by what was sometimes an insuperable natural obstacle, they had no desire to form an independent state. They showed this by building a great memorial altar at the spot where they crossed the Jordan on their way home (v 10).<\/p>\n<p>Reuben does not appear again until the time of Deborah the prophetess. When the clans of Israel rallied to God’s call under Barak to fight Sisera the Canaanite, Reuben did not respond. The wording suggests that Reuben once again was influenced by material possessions, as the tribe had been in the days of the Conquest, when, because of their cattle, they chose the lush lands of Transjordan rather than the rugged hills of Canaan (Nm 32:5). The easy shepherd’s life appealed more to them than warfare on the slopes of Mt Tabor (Jgs 5:16). Also the wording suggests long inconclusive discussions—or even, perhaps, great protestations of bravery and fidelity to God’s cause—that finally led to nothing (v 15). Reuben has not changed; the tribe, like its ancestor, was still “unstable as water” (Gn 49:4).<\/p>\n<p>Reuben’s tribal lands, to the southeast of Gad, were probably overrun and occupied by the Moabites at a later date. Certainly the whole area to the east of the Jordan was an area of contention between Israel and Aram later (1 Kgs 22:3). Finally, Transjordan, with the north of Israel, was one of the first areas overrun and devastated by the Assyrians (2 Kgs 15:29). Although Ezekiel, in his vision, speaks of a strip of territory north of Judah for Reuben (Ez 48:6), it could only have been a small remnant, if any, that returned from the exile of the northern kingdom. Indeed, although Reuben finds his place in the list of the redeemed in Revelation (Rv 7:5), no man of Reuben plays a part in the NT.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>REUBEN, Tribe of<\/h3>\n<p>Tribe descended from Reuben, the eldest of Jacob’s sons (Gn 29:32). The tribe of Reuben usually receives the place of honor in lists of the tribes, being named first (Nm 13:4). Similarly, in lists of the two and a half tribes residing east of the Jordan, Reuben is always mentioned first (Jos 1:12), though Gad seems to have held a larger portion.<\/p>\n<p>Because of Reuben’s sin (Gn 35:22), his father prophesied that his preeminence among his brothers would disappear (49:4). In spite of the prayer of Deuteronomy 33:6, this disaster did overtake the tribe in later years. In desert days, Reuben’s tribal chief appears with all the others (Nm 1:5), and a spy goes forth from Reuben as with the other tribes (13:4). Reuben has his special place in camping and marching (2:10). Only the spies of Ephraim (Joshua) and Judah (Caleb) are faithful (14:6), but Reuben appears no worse than his brother tribes: all were equal in unbelief.<\/p>\n<p>The revolt of Dathan and Abiram, men of Reuben, against the authority of Moses (Nm 16:1) and possibly against the special position of Levi may be significant. Reuben may be claiming his old primacy, forfeited by sin (Gn 49:3-4). The attempt failed, and God’s judgment was a signal lesson (Nm 16:33).<\/p>\n<p>Reuben was rich in herds of cattle (Nm 32:1) and presumably a powerful tribe. Reuben, Gad, and the half-tribe of Manasseh asked to remain in the richly timbered and well-watered lands to the east of Jordan, recently conquered from Sihon, the Amorite king, and Og, the ruler of Bashan. This selfish request (for it would involve no sharing in the hard fighting across the Jordan) was rightly denounced by Moses. However, on the promise of the two and a half tribes to bear the brunt of the fighting for their brothers in the west, their request was granted (vv 20-22). They were evidently good soldiers, and Joshua sent them home at the end of the campaign (Jos 22:1-6). Although living east of the Jordan, and separated from their brothers by what was sometimes an insuperable natural obstacle, they had no desire to form an independent state. They showed this by building a great memorial altar at the spot where they crossed the Jordan on their way home (v 10).<\/p>\n<p>Reuben does not appear again until the time of Deborah the prophetess. When the clans of Israel rallied to God’s call under Barak to fight Sisera the Canaanite, Reuben did not respond. The wording suggests that Reuben once again was influenced by material possessions, as the tribe had been in the days of the Conquest, when, because of their cattle, they chose the lush lands of Transjordan rather than the rugged hills of Canaan (Nm 32:5). The easy shepherd’s life appealed more to them than warfare on the slopes of Mt Tabor (Jgs 5:16). Also the wording suggests long inconclusive discussions—or even, perhaps, great protestations of bravery and fidelity to God’s cause—that finally led to nothing (v 15). Reuben has not changed; the tribe, like its ancestor, was still “unstable as water” (Gn 49:4).<\/p>\n<p>Reuben’s tribal lands, to the southeast of Gad, were probably overrun and occupied by the Moabites at a later date. Certainly the whole area to the east of the Jordan was an area of contention between Israel and Aram later (1 Kgs 22:3). Finally, Transjordan, with the north of Israel, was one of the first areas overrun and devastated by the Assyrians (2 Kgs 15:29). Although Ezekiel, in his vision, speaks of a strip of territory north of Judah for Reuben (Ez 48:6), it could only have been a small remnant, if any, that returned from the exile of the northern kingdom. Indeed, although Reuben finds his place in the list of the redeemed in Revelation (Rv 7:5), no man of Reuben plays a part in the NT.<\/p>","summary_ro":"REUBEN, Tribe of Tribe descended from Reuben, the eldest of Jacob’s sons (Gn 29:32). The tribe of Reuben usually receives the place of honor in lists of the tribes, being named first (Nm 13:4). Similarly, in lists of the two and a half tribes residing east of the Jordan, Reuben is always mentioned first (Jos 1:12), though Gad seems to have held a larger portion. Because of Reuben’s sin (Gn 35:22), his father prophesied that his preeminence among his brothers would disappear (49:4). In spite o...","summary_en":"REUBEN, Tribe of Tribe descended from Reuben, the eldest of Jacob’s sons (Gn 29:32). The tribe of Reuben usually receives the place of honor in lists of the tribes, being named first (Nm 13:4). Similarly, in lists of the two and a half tribes residing east of the Jordan, Reuben is always mentioned first (Jos 1:12), though Gad seems to have held a larger portion. Because of Reuben’s sin (Gn 35:22), his father prophesied that his preeminence among his brothers would disappear (49:4). In spite o...","source":"Articles\/R.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"8":[{"id":11737,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Book of Ezekiel","title_en":"Book of Ezekiel","content_ro":"<h3>EZEKIEL, Book of<\/h3>\n<p>Prophetic book of the OT, originating in the time of the Babylonian exile.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Author<\/p>\n<p>• Date and Background<\/p>\n<p>• Content<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Author\">Author<\/p>\n<p>Ezekiel was the son of Buzi (1:3), a member of a priestly family. It is unclear whether he actually served in the temple as a priest, but such was his training. His writings show that he knew the regulations for sacrifices, the rituals, and the people’s expectations of a priest. In exile Ezekiel the priest spoke God’s word about the future of the temple to his fellow exiles. Settled at Tel-abib, on the canal of Kebar, the thousands of deportees eked out a meager existence. They hoped for a speedy return to Judah and a change for the better in the international situation. Their hope was enflamed by the spirited preaching of false prophets, likened to jackals among the ruins (13:4). They piously said, “The Lord declares . . . ,” but they were actually self-commissioned (v 6). They deceived the people with a message of peace at a time when God’s judgment was about to be poured out on his people (v 10). They had led the people to distrust prophecy to such an extent that a proverb circulated among the people that “the days grow long, and every vision comes to nought” (12:22). Much time had passed since visions of God’s judgment had been given to the people, and nothing could be interpreted as a fulfillment of those visions. Ezekiel was called to serve his community by symbolic acts, visions, and verbal messages in order to convince the people that God’s judgment was imminent (v 23).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"DateandBackground\">Date and Background<\/p>\n<p>The ministry of the prophet Ezekiel can be understood best against the backdrop of his time. If, as the church father Origen believed, the vague reference “in the thirtieth year” (1:1) marks the prophet’s age at the time of his first vision, Ezekiel was born during the rule of King Josiah of Judah (c. 640–609 <span>BC<\/span>). Josiah was the grandson of King Manasseh, whose sacrilegious acts had brought God’s judgment on the kingdom of Judah (2 Kgs 21:10-15).<\/p>\n<p>Though Judah’s political situation was perilous, Josiah led the nation in a radical reformation that began with the finding of the “Book of the Law” (2 Kgs 22) in the year that Ezekiel was born (c. 621 <span>BC<\/span>). Idolatry was done away with and the people turned back to God, but God’s judgment on Judah was unchangeable (23:26-27). Josiah erred in trying to make Judah a kingdom with which other states had to reckon. He was threatened when the Egyptian pharaoh Neco passed through Judah on his way to aid the weakened Assyrian kingdom. Josiah marched to meet the Egyptian forces, but his troops were unable to stand against the Egyptians, and he died in battle (v 29). Egypt took control of Judah, and Pharaoh Neco placed Jehoiakim in power over Jerusalem. Egyptian control did not last long, however, for in 605 <span>BC<\/span> Egypt and Assyria were defeated by Babylonia’s king Nebuchadnezzar at Carchemish. The Babylonians then pushed south to Jerusalem, and the first deportation of Judean leaders (among them the prophet Daniel) took place.<\/p>\n<p>Jehoiakim was permitted to continue ruling over Judah as a vassal king of Nebuchadnezzar. But his dealings with Egypt brought the emperor’s wrath down upon him. Before the Babylonians could address the Judean situation, Jehoiakim died and his son Jehoiachin was crowned. When the Babylonian forces arrived at the gates of Jerusalem, Jehoiachin and thousands of the aristocracy were taken to Babylon (2 Kgs 24:10-17). Among those deportees was Ezekiel, then about 25 years old.<\/p>\n<p>Although the book says otherwise, many scholars think that Ezekiel lived and taught in Judah for the duration of the siege and the fall of Jerusalem (586 <span>BC<\/span>). They conclude this from Ezekiel’s familiarity with idolatry in the temple and his vivid descriptions of Jerusalem’s last days (Ez 8:11). Others believe that Ezekiel ministered both to the exiled community and to the Judeans living in Judah. Neither interpretation does full justice to the claims of the book itself. Ezekiel was exiled in 597 <span>BC<\/span>. He was called to bring God’s word to the deportees at Tel-abib; he was granted a vision of the horrible practices in the temple court; and he was familiar with Jerusalem and Judah from having lived there and from reports on affairs in Jerusalem coming to the exiles through messengers. Jeremiah, Ezekiel’s contemporary, was prophesying in Jerusalem, but there is no evidence that Jeremiah and Ezekiel knew of each other’s ministry. If Ezekiel had brought God’s word to Jerusalem during the siege, some reference to Jeremiah might appear in his writings. If Jeremiah was supported by Ezekiel’s ministry in Jerusalem, he probably would have included a positive word for his colleague in his book. The book of Ezekiel plainly says that Ezekiel lived and preached in exile (see 1:1-3; 11:24-25).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Content\">Content<\/p>\n<p>The prophecy of Ezekiel is easily outlined by subject matter and chronology. The chronology of the period permits a division before and after 586 <span>BC<\/span> (the fall of Jerusalem). Chapters 1–24 cover the pre-586 ministry of Ezekiel, whereas chapters 33–48 represent his post-586 ministry. Chapters 25–32 (oracles against the foreign nations) function as a transition between the book’s two major divisions.<\/p>\n<p>The book’s outline according to subject matter divides into four parts: Ezekiel’s call (1:1–3:21); prophecies of judgment against Israel (3:22–24:27); oracles against the nations (25:1–32:32); and proclamation of hope (33:1–48:35).<\/p>\n<h5>Ezekiel’s Call (1:1–3:21)<\/h5>\n<p>The prophet’s call in one sense was similar to that of Isaiah and Jeremiah. Isaiah received his mission in a vision of God’s glory in the temple (Is 6). Jeremiah was called unexpectedly in his youth, and received signs that solemnly set forth the nature of his mission (Jer 1:11-15). The call of Ezekiel combined those two elements. Revelation of God’s glory to the prophet at the same time revealed the nature of the prophet’s mission. Ezekiel’s call contained a full description of God’s glory. Isaiah briefly stated that he saw the Lord enthroned in the temple, and he concentrated on the seraphim representing and magnifying God’s glory. Ezekiel elaborated on the revelation of the Lord’s glory as well as on the ministering angels who went before the Lord as part of his royal entourage. The vision of God’s glory, though difficult to understand, is the key to the book of Ezekiel.<\/p>\n<p>Ezekiel, as a priest, was concerned about the future of the temple. That sacred place had been ordained by God as his home among his people. The glory, presence, and holiness of God were symbolized in the temple (see 1 Kgs 8:10-11). In exile Ezekiel could not serve his people as a priest, for they were far from Jerusalem, the city God had chosen. Against all expectations the Lord revealed himself to Ezekiel in the land of Babylon. In calling Ezekiel to a prophetic ministry, God assured his servant that he had not forsaken his people, even though they had been banished from the Promised Land.<\/p>\n<p>The prophet’s vision began with a storm. As a large cloud approached from the north, Ezekiel saw a brightness surrounding the cloud, four creatures, and four wheels. The combination of creatures and wheels suggests that the Lord appeared in a chariot. God’s chariot is a familiar OT representation of his coming in judgment (see Is 66:15-16). The wheels within wheels and the position of the four living creatures may signify God’s total control over the whole earth, so he could move his “chariot of judgment” in any direction. It is also possible that the living creatures with their four faces, and the wheels full of eyes, may be separate symbols showing that God sees all that happens and thereby knows the plight of the exiles. In the vision the prophet’s attention was drawn to a throne above the heads of the creatures. On the throne was “the appearance of the likeness of the glory of the <span>Lord<\/span>” (1:28). In his vision of God’s coming in judgment, Ezekiel received his call to the prophetic ministry: “Son of man, I send you to the people of Israel, to a nation of rebels who have rebelled against me” (2:3, <span>rsv<\/span>). During a dark hour of Israel’s history, Ezekiel had to prophesy, rebuke his fellow exiles (3:11), and be responsible as a watchman over the house of Israel (3:17; cf. 33:1-9). Symbolic of his mission was a scroll filled with lamentations and woe (2:9-10), which when eaten became sweet as honey (3:1-3). Difficult as the mission was, God’s presence and the certain fulfillment of the prophecies sweetened Ezekiel’s task. Such encouragement was intended to take away any fear of the rebellious Israelites (2:6-7). Instead of being elated with his mission, however, Ezekiel became despondent.<\/p>\n<p>A week later, the word of the Lord came to Ezekiel to remind him of his important role as a watchman (3:16-17). Ezekiel became responsible for Israel as a nation, not just for individuals. His witness to Israel had the express aim of national repentance (vv 18-19).<\/p>\n<p>Ezekiel was confined to his house by God (3:24-25). The house ministry was to be carried on only with those Israelites who sought God’s will, for the Lord had abandoned those who continued in their apostasy. The prophetic word would not help the apostates (v 26). The principle of Ezekiel’s ministry is found in 3:27: “Whenever I give you a message, I will loosen your tongue and let you speak. Then you will say to them, ‘This is what the Sovereign <span>Lord<\/span> says!’ Some of them will listen, but some will ignore you, for they are rebels” (<span>nlt<\/span>; cf. Mt 11:15; 13:43).<\/p>\n<h5>Prophecies of Judgment against Israel (3:22–24:27)<\/h5>\n<p>Symbolism figures prominently in Ezekiel’s writing. His priestly background and preparation probably suited him to receive and communicate God’s word in symbolic acts and speech. Chapters 4 and 5 contain four symbolic acts: (1) Jerusalem’s siege is portrayed on a brick (Ez 4:1-3); (2) Israel’s iniquity is represented by Ezekiel’s lying on his sides (vv 4-8); (3) Jerusalem’s grief and horror in the last days of the siege are represented by Ezekiel’s food and drink (vv 9-17); (4) Jerusalem’s fate is represented by the prophet’s hair being cut off (5:1-4).<\/p>\n<p>Ezekiel’s instructions were further illuminated by God’s explanation of Israel’s apostasy (5:6-7) and his judgment on Israel (vv 8-12). The judgment will last until the Israelites admit that in covenant faithfulness their Lord has inflicted righteous judgment on them (v 13).<\/p>\n<p>God would direct his judgment first against the people and the city of Jerusalem. Next in line were the mountains of Israel (ch 6) and the land (ch 7). God’s wrath included the cities and cultic sites in the hill country of Judah, leaving no protection for the people (6:3-6). Abominations that were practiced throughout the land caused God’s judgment to fall on the land as well as on the people (7:2-3, 10-11, 23). But because God is righteous, he judged the people according to their ways of life, desiring that they would once more acknowledge him as their God (7:27).<\/p>\n<p>The prophet then (chs 8–11) focused on the abominations practiced in Jerusalem, particularly idolatry in the temple courts, which caused the judgment announced in chapters 1–7. An idol had been erected in the inner court (8:3-5). By the wall of the court, elders of the city were paying homage to the idols that surrounded the court (vv 11-12). Closer to the temple, women were weeping for the god Tammuz (v 14), and men were worshiping the sun (v 16). In preparation for the ultimate judgment on the land, the prophet placed a mark on the foreheads of the few faithful Israelites so that they would survive (9:4-6). Then (ch 10), the glory of God, which had filled the temple from the time of Solomon, gradually left: “Then the glory of the <span>Lord<\/span> went up from the city and stopped above the mountain to the east” (11:23, <span>nlt<\/span>). The people, now without divine protection, were being handed over to the Babylonians (v 9).<\/p>\n<p>The message of doom for Jerusalem contains four elements of hope: restoration of the people (11:17), restoration of the land (v 17), purification of the people (v 18), and renewed fellowship between God and his people (vv 19-20). The prophet develops those four themes in chapters 33–48.<\/p>\n<p>The visions of chapters 10 and 11 made clear that when God removed his presence from Jerusalem, the exile was approaching. Those who were already in Babylon were unwilling to believe that such an extensive devastation of Jerusalem would happen or that the people would all be exiled and the land become desolate.<\/p>\n<p>Ezekiel acted out the certainty of God’s word of judgment by packing his bags and showing the baggage to his fellow exiles. First, he placed the bags in the courtyard outside his modest home. Next, he went out by making a hole through the wall. Finally, the prophet walked about the settlement with his bags in full view. Skeptical observers did not understand Ezekiel and probably thought he was crazy. The believers who saw him understood. His strange actions dramatized how the king’s aides would do all they could to help King Zedekiah escape just before the fall of Jerusalem. Second Kings 25 tells how the king and his soldiers left Jerusalem for the wilderness, to be overtaken by the Babylonians at Jericho and brought before Nebuchadnezzar at Riblah. As a captive, Zedekiah witnessed the murder of his sons; then his eyes were put out, and he was sent into exile with the other Judeans (cf. Ez 12:13). The prophet’s explanation concluded with a word of comfort. Because of his covenant with Abraham, God promised not to destroy the people completely. A remnant who overcame the sword, famine, and pestilence would live to tell the story of God’s judgment (vv 15-16).<\/p>\n<p>Ezekiel further illustrated the nation’s plight by eating as though full of fear, depicting the great trauma that all of Judah’s inhabitants would soon undergo.<\/p>\n<p>Both symbolic acts, packing his belongings and eating, emphasized the truthfulness of God’s word. The people needed to face the nature of their God: He is magnificent, and when he speaks, his words are powerful and come to pass. Thus, the devastation of the land and the people’s exile were a fulfillment of God’s word through the prophets. The judgment was meant to produce a recognition of the Lord, repentance, and a return to God. Some in Judah doubted the efficacy of God’s prophecies, saying, “Time passes, making a liar of every prophet” (12:22). Others thought God’s word would come true in the distant future (v 27). The prevailing attitude of distrust in God’s word had been stimulated by the popular preaching of false prophets (ch 13). Never commissioned by the Lord, they deceived God’s people by lying and misdirecting them with messages of peace (vv 8-10). Wickedness, lying, and deceit were encouraged among the people by such false prophets (v 22). The magnitude of their sin and their great responsibility for Judah’s fall would be matched by the Lord’s heavy judgment. Yet God would save his people from such evil and will prepare a righteous nation with whom to maintain his covenant (v 23).<\/p>\n<p>The certainty of the judgment has been connected with the truthfulness of God’s word. Ezekiel’s difficult task of affirming the doom of Jerusalem to stubborn hearers was intensified by the people’s idolatry. Their whole way of life denied the existence of God. They practiced idolatry in their worship, and they had set up idols in their hearts (14:3). Before the covenant with God could be restored, they had to be purified from their idolatry. Even so, repentance would not guarantee immunity from judgment. Sword, famine, wild beasts, and plagues would ravage the population (v 21). After the execution of his judgment, God would take back those survivors who had turned to him for mercy. God would surely accomplish all that he intended for his people’s good (v 23).<\/p>\n<p>In chapters 15–17 Ezekiel uses three parables to set forth the apostasy, present uselessness, and judgment of Israel. Jerusalem and Judah are compared to a piece of charred wood, an adulterous woman, and a vine.<\/p>\n<p>Chapter 15 reviews Jerusalem’s case. Jerusalem is compared to a piece of wood, both ends of which have been charred with fire, so that the wood is of no value. As the whole piece of wood is burned instead of being saved, so Jerusalem would undergo complete devastation (15:7-8).<\/p>\n<p>Chapter 16 presents God’s case against Jerusalem from a different perspective, stressing his care for Jerusalem in the past. The beginnings of her history are compared to the birth of a female child, left abandoned by her mother (16:3-5). God adopted the child and washed and clothed her (vv 6-7). He made a covenant with her (v 8), making her his own possession. He generously gave her all the fine things of life (vv 9-13). In the height of her development, Jerusalem’s fame spread to the nations (v 14). Her self-reliance made her a spiritual prostitute as she took up the religious practices and way of life of the nations (vv 15-34). The cities of Sodom (Gn 19) and Samaria (2 Kgs 17:6), known for their immorality, are called Jerusalem’s sisters (Ez 16:46). They had been judged by God, but the corruption of those cities was little compared to the lewdness of Jerusalem (vv 48-51). Thus, Jerusalem also would surely fall and become desolate. Yet Ezekiel anticipates the judgment’s final outcome; Jerusalem will be restored to covenantal blessing (vv 62-63) after her repentance.<\/p>\n<p>The third parable (ch 17) focuses on God’s sovereignty over political developments. Assyria was no longer a power to be reckoned with. Babylon and Egypt both exercised dominion, although the balance of power was veering in favor of Babylon. Their extension of power is likened to an eagle. Nebuchadnezzar, pictured as “a great eagle with broad wings full of many-colored feathers,” took control over the affairs of Judah by removing Jehoiachin, “the highest branch of a cedar tree,” from office and by exiling him with young leaders of the Judean state (17:3-4). Ezekiel was among them. Nebuchadnezzar let the Judeans control their own affairs under Zedekiah but expected them to be subject to Babylon and not to any other power. But Judah (likened to a vine) tried to ally itself with Pharaoh Hophra of Egypt, “another great eagle with broad wings and full plumage” (v 7), against Nebuchadnezzar. Zedekiah’s folly in turning to Egypt would cause Nebuchadnezzar to pull up the vine by its roots and make it wither (vv 9-10). In explaining the parable, God told the exiles that Judah’s fall was a result of its unfaithfulness to King Nebuchadnezzar, to whom Judah owed allegiance by covenant (vv 13-18). Judah’s unfaithfulness thus extended to all of its relationships: religious, cultural, and political. After the exile, God promised, he would restore his people to their land under a Messiah, “a tender shoot” (v 22). The messianic rule is signified by the young twig, which when planted in the land will become a magnificent cedar, giving shade and protection to the birds. Chapter 17 is an inspiring affirmation of the sovereignty of God in human affairs (“All the trees will know that it is I, the <span>Lord<\/span>, who cuts down the tall tree and helps the short tree to grow tall. It is I who makes the green tree wither and gives new life to the dead tree”—17:24, <span>nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>Chapters 18–22 contain Ezekiel’s oracles to Judah, its leaders, and the exiles. First, he enunciates God’s standard of righteousness: “The person who sins will be the one who dies” (18:4, <span>nlt<\/span>). The people are charging God with injustice, for they believe themselves to be under God’s judgment for the sins of their ancestors (vv 25-29). Although the Ten Commandments do say that God may punish “the sins of their parents to the third and the fourth generations” (Ex 20:5, <span>nlt<\/span>), the prophet vindicates God’s justice, telling the people that they are not being punished merely for their ancestors’ sin. Each person must be directly accountable to God; the sinner will die in wickedness, and the righteous will live by righteousness. A life of faithfulness to God’s moral and civil law will be rewarded (Ez 18:5-9). Even if one’s father was a sinner, the father’s sin is not transferable (vv 14-18). God is ready to forgive any sinner who repents (v 27). The prophet’s vindication of God’s justice becomes a call to repentance. The sinners in Judah and in exile were thus warned of the consequences of their evil, and were exhorted to return to their God and his standard of right and wrong (vv 31-32).<\/p>\n<p>Chapter 19 contains two parables in the form of a lamentation. The first portrays a lioness and her two cubs. The lioness is Hamutal, the wife of King Josiah (2 Kgs 23:31), who bore two sons: Jehoahaz and Zedekiah. Jehoahaz is referred to in Ezekiel 19:3-4 as a cub who grew up and was taken to Egypt (by Pharaoh Neco in 608 <span>BC<\/span>; see 2 Kgs 23:31-34). Zedekiah succeeded to the throne ten years later. In the lamentation the prophet imaginatively represents Zedekiah as a young cub who is ultimately taken to Babylon as a rebellious ruler (Ez 19:7-9). The second parable changes the imagery to a vine, representing Israel (v 10). In its early days God blessed Israel with strong rulers, but now the vine was wilting as Zedekiah irresponsibly led Judah to its last days. Ezekiel’s lamentation stresses the lack of a good candidate for the throne and the lack of life in the vine (vv 13-14).<\/p>\n<p>In chapter 20 the prophet concludes God’s argument against his people. He reviews the history of Israel’s past, starting with God’s self-revelation in Egypt (20:5-6). He took to himself a stubborn nation, tied to idolatry (v 8) and prone to apostasy (vv 13, 21). Israel wanted to be one of the great nations (v 32) instead of a sanctified people (v 12). As a result of its spiritual hardness, Israel is dispersed to live among the nations (v 35). Yet God had a solemn covenant with Israel, made by oath to the patriarchs Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. On the basis of that covenant, God will reach out with compassion to those who repent of their sinful ways (vv 37-44). In Israel’s judgment and restoration the nations will see the holiness of God, which does not tolerate unfaithfulness in Israel (v 41).<\/p>\n<p>Ezekiel’s prophecies alternate between God’s judgment on Israel’s sin and his restoration of Israel, spanning the bridge between Israel’s past and future. In view of the people’s doubts of the coming judgment on Jerusalem, he stresses the necessity of judgment and the need for repentance. Still, the future restoration of a remnant is touched upon here and there as the counterpart of his message of judgment. After announcing the fall of Jerusalem, the prophet shifts from a message of judgment to one of hope.<\/p>\n<p>The prophet returns to the proclamation of judgment in four oracles (20:45–21:32). He speaks against the Negev Desert area (20:45-49), Jerusalem and the land of Israel (21:2-17, 20-27), and against the Ammonites (vv 28-32). God permitted the sword of Nebuchadnezzar to be his instrument of judgment upon the Judeans (v 19). He would see to the judgment on the Ammonites. The Judeans would recover their previous glory, but the memory of the Ammonites would perish (vv 27, 32). The oracle against the Ammonites anticipates a larger treatise on Israel’s other neighbors: Moab, Edom, Philistia, Tyre, Sidon, and Egypt (chs 25–29).<\/p>\n<p>Chapters 22–24 contain a renewed series of indictments against Jerusalem. Jerusalem’s religious and civil leadership (the prophets, priests, and princes) are corrupt, and the people have followed their example (22:25-30). The parable of the two sisters, Oholah and Oholibah, is a variation of the parable of adulterous Jerusalem (ch 23; cf. ch 16). It differs in that the comparison drawn between Jerusalem, soon to be exiled, and Samaria, already in exile, is more explicit in the parable of Oholah and Oholibah. In chapter 16 Jerusalem was charged with greater sins than Sodom and Samaria, but was promised restoration. Only the adulterous nature of the two sisters and God’s judgment on them is emphasized in chapter 23, with no word of restoration. This parable is a fitting introduction to that of the boiling pot (ch 24), in which Jerusalem is compared to a rusty pot boiling with water. The Jerusalemites, likened to pieces of meat in the boiling pot, will die in the city. The parable was pronounced on the starting day of Nebuchadnezzar’s siege of Jerusalem. Thus, the exiles were divinely forewarned of God’s intent to destroy the temple (24:21) and were prepared for messengers bringing the bad news of Jerusalem’s fall.<\/p>\n<p>Those oracles and parables conclude the first division of the book. Ezekiel has stated God’s case against the rebellious house of Judah in many ways. His metaphors have likened Judah to a burnt piece of wood, to an uprooted vine, to a baby who grew up to be an adulteress, and to Oholibah, the adulterous woman. He has countered arguments against the fulfillment of God’s word and against the justice of God. He has reassured the exiles that God will not leave the righteous and that the future of Israel begins with a righteous remnant. The pendulum of Ezekiel’s writing has swung from judgment to restoration, while the clock was bringing Judah closer to the hour of its fall.<\/p>\n<h5>Oracles against the Nations (25:1–32:32)<\/h5>\n<p>Ammon, Moab, and Edom were Israel’s neighbors to the east. Because they were ethnically related to Israel, they were not attacked by the Israelites on their march to the Promised Land. Ammon and Moab were descendants of Lot, Abraham’s nephew, and the Edomites descended from Esau, the brother of Jacob. Although God forbade war with them, relations between Israel and its eastern neighbors were always tense. Israel had been overrun by the Ammonites for a time, and Israel was never successful in controlling the Edomites’ competitive trade relations. Those neighboring nations joined the Babylonian attack against Jerusalem and rejoiced when Jerusalem fell and the temple was devastated (Ez 25:3-12). They were ready to take over and loot Judah’s cities, and to instigate trouble in a time when Jerusalem was distressed. Therefore, says Ezekiel, God’s judgment will also extend to Ammon, Moab, and Edom (vv 4-14).<\/p>\n<p>The Philistines had been Israel’s enemy to the southwest. During the period of the judges and the united monarchy, the Philistines had controlled much of Israel’s territory. King David successfully limited the Philistine threat by confining them to their own territory. But in Ezekiel’s day they were still considered Israel’s “everlasting” enemy (25:15), possibly intensified by Philistine support of the Babylonian invasion of Judah.<\/p>\n<p>The city of Tyre had received reports of the overthrow of Jerusalem and was ready to exploit the opportunity for its own advantage (26:2). Tyre’s trade position was unrivaled; its ships crossed the seas to exchange goods with many distant lands (Ez 27). But Tyre would soon be broken by the Babylonians, its wealth dried up with the destruction of the fleet and the murder of its sailors (27:26).<\/p>\n<p>The prince of Tyre is singled out in chapter 28, but verse 12 refers to the “king” of Tyre. Interpreters disagree whether they are one person or two. Those who distinguish between the two understand the prince of Tyre to be the ruler of that city, but they consider the “king” of Tyre to represent Satan (28:13-15). The Garden of Eden with all its splendor is an appropriate setting for the original glory of an angelic Satan before his fall. But there is no reason within the context to distinguish between the prince and the king of Tyre. Each is said to have exalted himself, and both took authority over men as if they were gods and enjoyed all the splendor and royalty that belong to God. And both prince and king fall from their high position. The passage is a magnificent example of Ezekiel’s literary ability. He draws a glorious picture of the Garden of Eden, reworking the same theme as he depicts the glory and fall of the king of Tyre. Ezekiel presents him as a cherub, in accordance with the local belief that the king was divine. He wore the finest clothing, with nine kinds of precious stones (v 13). Though God had elevated him to the royal throne (vv 13-14), the king’s heart turned to materialism and to religious and judicial corruption (vv 16-18). In a sense the king (prince) represents the people of Tyre. They were all guilty of corruption, injustice, and violence. If God judged his covenant people for their perversion of justice and for their sins, his judgment would surely come also on the city of Tyre (vv 18-19). When the Babylonians marched on Tyre, they laboriously built a jetty from the mainland to the city. At the same time Tyrian ships loaded with goods and treasures sailed out across the Mediterranean, so that when Nebuchadnezzar’s troops finally breached the walls, little loot could be taken (29:18).<\/p>\n<p>The city of Sidon also cheered Jerusalem’s destruction. Sidon was a port city in Phoenicia, to the north of Tyre. By pestilence and war, the inhabitants of Sidon would learn the justice of Israel’s God.<\/p>\n<p>Six nations (Ammon, Moab, Edom, Philistia, Tyre, and Sidon) scorned Israel at the fall of Jerusalem. Because God had invested his holiness in the temple of Jerusalem and in his people, the temple’s destruction and the people’s exile signified to the nations that Israel’s God was impotent. They did not realize that the reason for Israel’s fate was God’s intolerance of his people’s sin. God’s holiness required the punishment of sin, and it also required vindication for his name (28:22-23). God was still concerned for his people, that Israel might know he had removed the scorn of their neighbors (v 24). In the restoration of Israel the Lord would further manifest his holiness before the nations. Israel would receive back the land, vineyards, and houses, and would enjoy the bounty of the Lord in peace (vv 25-26).<\/p>\n<p>Egypt had convinced the people of Israel and Judah that with its help the Assyrians and the Babylonians could not stand their ground in Palestine. In 722 <span>BC<\/span> the Assyrian troops took the northern capital of Samaria, and in 586 the Babylonians conquered Jerusalem, while Egypt remained passive. The Egyptians had desired control over Palestine for economic reasons, but not at the expense of their own welfare. Egypt, too, would lose its leadership under God’s judgment (29:9-16). Reduced to dependence on foreign powers, Egypt would no longer be a stumbling block for Israel. First, Babylonia was permitted to break Egypt’s power (23:1–32:21); later, the Persians, Greeks, and Romans would incorporate Egypt as a province. The fall of Egypt coincided with the fall of several great and small kingdoms: Assyria (32:22-23), Elam (vv 24-25), Meshech and Tubal (vv 26-28), Edom (v 29), and Sidon (v 30).<\/p>\n<h5>Proclamation of Hope (33:1–48:35)<\/h5>\n<p>After the visions of God’s judgment on the surrounding nations, Ezekiel returns to the future hope of Israel. In the first major section of his book he dealt with the reasons for Judah’s exile and the destruction of the temple, alluding often to the future of Israel. But the prophet’s organization of his material included, between prophecies of Israel’s judgment and restoration, the oracles of God’s judgment on Israel’s neighbors who had encouraged and rejoiced in its fall. Throughout its history Israel had allowed foreign nations to influence its religion, culture, and form of government. The reduction of their powers meant Israel, restored to the Promised Land, would be more free for faithfulness to God. Before taking up the theme of the restoration, Ezekiel reviews the emphases of chapters 1–24: (1) He was called to be a watchman over Israel (33:1-9; cf. 1:1–3:21). (2) Israel had sinned against the Lord and had to receive a righteous judgment (33:10). (3) Jerusalem was to be taken by the Babylonians (v 21). (4) Israel’s repentance is necessary for restoration (vv 11-16).<\/p>\n<p>Thus far, his ministry had not met with success. The exiles who had heard his messages were full of appreciation for Ezekiel’s rhetorical and literary abilities (33:32). They readily accepted Ezekiel as a watchman who warned the people of the impending catastrophe at Jerusalem, and they may have admitted that their sin was the reason for God’s judgment on Israel and Jerusalem. But they were slow in applying the prophetic word to their own lives. God was ready to forgive their sins if they repented, acknowledged him, and demonstrated their renewed spirit by practicing the law of God (v 32). Now that the news of Jerusalem had been reported to the exiles (v 21), the necessity for the people to act responsibly was even more urgent. The Lord had demonstrated that Ezekiel was a true prophet (v 33).<\/p>\n<p>The success of Ezekiel’s ministry was not measured in numbers. He faithfully declared the word of God in word, sign, and parable. The exiles had followed the false hopes proclaimed by false “shepherds” who had fattened themselves at the expense of the flock (34:2-3). They did not take care of those in need (v 4), and they allowed the flock to be scattered (vv 5-6). God promised his people that he would be the faithful shepherd, bring the sheep together, feed them, and care for them (34:11-15; cf. Ps 23). God would also distinguish between the sheep and the goats, to find out whose hearts were right with him, so that the true sheep could be restored to God’s flock (Ez 34:20-22). God’s promise included the restoration of the land and the restoration of the divinely appointed Davidic dynasty (v 24). The renewed fellowship between the Lord and Israel under the messianic ruler would be sealed with a new covenant, the “covenant of peace.” That covenant assured the people of God’s blessing on their labor, bringing them abundant harvests (vv 26-27). The people would not be forced to fight against nature in their pursuits (vv 25-28). They would not have to struggle against other peoples who might try to share in their blessings by force (vv 27-29). The prophetic vision telescoped the events of the restoration of Israel after the exile, the coming of Jesus the Messiah (cf. Jn 10), and the full restoration of the sin-cursed world.<\/p>\n<p>Chapter 34 is the key to the messages of restoration. The emphases include the outworking of the frequently repeated verse “They will truly be my people, and I will be their God” (11:20; cf. 34:30; 36:28). The most significant aspects of the restoration theme include: (1) God’s gracious restoration of his people to covenant blessing (36:20-36; 37:23-26; 39:25); (2) God’s restoration of the nation of Israel to the land (36:1-15, 24; 37:14-23; 39:27); (3) God’s new covenant, giving his Spirit to his people (36:25-27; 37:14; 39:29), and his blessing on his people (36:8-12, 29-38; 39:9-10, 26), assuring them of victory over their enemies (35:1-15; 36:36; 37:28; 38:1–39:24); (4) God’s appointment of a Davidic king, the Messiah, over his people (37:24-25); and (5) God’s temple restored among his people (37:26-27).<\/p>\n<h6>The People of God<\/h6>\n<p>The rejection of the exiles did not last forever. Based on the Abrahamic covenant, the Lord promised to bless the faithful remnant and to make of them a new people. The imagery of a valley of dry bones is particularly fitting. The dry bones represent God’s people without hope (37:11). Ezekiel proclaims to them the good news that God will renew and restore them (v 12). The Lord’s purpose for his people is that all the nations may honor his holy name through his people (39:7, 25-27).<\/p>\n<h6>The Land<\/h6>\n<p>The promise also extends to the land, originally given to Abraham and his descendants. The Abrahamic covenant included a messianic element, for through the family of Abraham living in the Promised Land all nations would receive God’s blessing (Gn 12:3). In a vision Ezekiel saw the boundaries and described the division of the land (Ez 47–48). The royal city of Jerusalem is the central symbol of God’s presence among his people; its name will be “The Lord is there” (48:8-35).<\/p>\n<h6>The New Covenant<\/h6>\n<p>The Abrahamic covenant is renewed, a gracious covenant that expresses the restored relationship. “Covenant of peace” fittingly describes its nature and benefits. The restless people of God are promised rest from their searching, their enemies, and their toil. The change in relationship is further emphasized by God’s sending of his Spirit, who will add a new dimension to the lifestyle of his people. Obedience to God will no longer be constrained, for God’s Spirit helps his people to do his will. A new heart, controlled by the Spirit of God, is given to the Lord’s people (36:26-27). The presence of the Spirit also signifies a new life for the people (37:14; see Jn 3:8, 16; Acts 2:38; Rom 8:2-4, 15).<\/p>\n<h6>The Messiah<\/h6>\n<p>The OT hope of a messianic king is crystallized in Ezekiel’s message. His rule will be everlasting (Ez 37:25), over all God’s people who have new hearts (vv 15-25).<\/p>\n<h6>The Temple<\/h6>\n<p>As a priest, Ezekiel remained keenly interested in the temple, priesthood, sacrificial regulations, and festivals. A large section of the prophecy’s last division describes the temple’s revived worship (40:1–46:24). His vision of the glory of God, so important in the messages of God’s judgment on Jerusalem (chs 1, 10–11), now assures the remnant that God did not forsake his people (43:2-5). He will dwell among them, for the temple is a symbol of God’s presence (37:27). Some interpreters believe that the temple, with its ritual as described in Ezekiel 40–46, will be restored in the messianic era before the last judgment. Others believe the promises about the temple provide a positive symbolic answer to Ezekiel’s greatest concern: whether God will return to be with his people (48:35; see Jn 2:21; Rv 21:22).<\/p>\n\n<p>There are various interpretations of chapters 34–48. As a watchman to Israel, Ezekiel had a message for the exiled Jewish community. Thus the prophecy’s fulfillment must have begun with the decree of Cyrus I (538 <span>BC<\/span>) permitting the Jews to return to their land (Ezr 1:1-3). Two rival schools of interpretation exist on how the prophecy is fulfilled beyond Israel’s restoration to the land. Those who interpret Israel as simply the nation view the modern return of Jewish people to the land of Israel as a continuation of God’s prophetic promise. They believe that God’s plan for Israel is being fulfilled along with, and in addition to, his plan for the Christian church. The fulfillment of those prophecies will be inaugurated by the coming of the messianic king, who will give earthly peace to the Jewish people. The temple worship (Ez 40–48) will be restored in some way during the period of the messianic kingdom. The church will enjoy a small share in all the events centered on the Jews. The promises of Ezekiel’s vision are thus limited to the nation of Israel and must be fulfilled before the coming of a new heaven and earth.<\/p>\n<p>Other interpreters believe that Ezekiel wrote for the benefit of spiritual descendants of Abraham who believe, as Abraham did, in God’s promises (Gn 15:6; cf. Rom 4:11-13; Gal 3:6-9, 29). All who have faith like Abraham, whether Jews or Gentiles, are regarded as Abraham’s offspring (Gal 3:28-29). Ezekiel’s message thus would include all of God’s gracious work among Christian Gentiles, who have become the recipients of God’s promises and benefits. It is possible, on the basis of 1 Peter 1:10-11, to interpret Ezekiel’s language as a prophetic expression of how God’s grace would come to all those who become reconciled to God through faith in the gospel.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Diaspora of the Jews; Ezekiel (Person); Prophecy.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>EZEKIEL, Book of<\/h3>\n<p>Prophetic book of the OT, originating in the time of the Babylonian exile.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Author<\/p>\n<p>• Date and Background<\/p>\n<p>• Content<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Author\">Author<\/p>\n<p>Ezekiel was the son of Buzi (1:3), a member of a priestly family. It is unclear whether he actually served in the temple as a priest, but such was his training. His writings show that he knew the regulations for sacrifices, the rituals, and the people’s expectations of a priest. In exile Ezekiel the priest spoke God’s word about the future of the temple to his fellow exiles. Settled at Tel-abib, on the canal of Kebar, the thousands of deportees eked out a meager existence. They hoped for a speedy return to Judah and a change for the better in the international situation. Their hope was enflamed by the spirited preaching of false prophets, likened to jackals among the ruins (13:4). They piously said, “The Lord declares . . . ,” but they were actually self-commissioned (v 6). They deceived the people with a message of peace at a time when God’s judgment was about to be poured out on his people (v 10). They had led the people to distrust prophecy to such an extent that a proverb circulated among the people that “the days grow long, and every vision comes to nought” (12:22). Much time had passed since visions of God’s judgment had been given to the people, and nothing could be interpreted as a fulfillment of those visions. Ezekiel was called to serve his community by symbolic acts, visions, and verbal messages in order to convince the people that God’s judgment was imminent (v 23).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"DateandBackground\">Date and Background<\/p>\n<p>The ministry of the prophet Ezekiel can be understood best against the backdrop of his time. If, as the church father Origen believed, the vague reference “in the thirtieth year” (1:1) marks the prophet’s age at the time of his first vision, Ezekiel was born during the rule of King Josiah of Judah (c. 640–609 <span>BC<\/span>). Josiah was the grandson of King Manasseh, whose sacrilegious acts had brought God’s judgment on the kingdom of Judah (2 Kgs 21:10-15).<\/p>\n<p>Though Judah’s political situation was perilous, Josiah led the nation in a radical reformation that began with the finding of the “Book of the Law” (2 Kgs 22) in the year that Ezekiel was born (c. 621 <span>BC<\/span>). Idolatry was done away with and the people turned back to God, but God’s judgment on Judah was unchangeable (23:26-27). Josiah erred in trying to make Judah a kingdom with which other states had to reckon. He was threatened when the Egyptian pharaoh Neco passed through Judah on his way to aid the weakened Assyrian kingdom. Josiah marched to meet the Egyptian forces, but his troops were unable to stand against the Egyptians, and he died in battle (v 29). Egypt took control of Judah, and Pharaoh Neco placed Jehoiakim in power over Jerusalem. Egyptian control did not last long, however, for in 605 <span>BC<\/span> Egypt and Assyria were defeated by Babylonia’s king Nebuchadnezzar at Carchemish. The Babylonians then pushed south to Jerusalem, and the first deportation of Judean leaders (among them the prophet Daniel) took place.<\/p>\n<p>Jehoiakim was permitted to continue ruling over Judah as a vassal king of Nebuchadnezzar. But his dealings with Egypt brought the emperor’s wrath down upon him. Before the Babylonians could address the Judean situation, Jehoiakim died and his son Jehoiachin was crowned. When the Babylonian forces arrived at the gates of Jerusalem, Jehoiachin and thousands of the aristocracy were taken to Babylon (2 Kgs 24:10-17). Among those deportees was Ezekiel, then about 25 years old.<\/p>\n<p>Although the book says otherwise, many scholars think that Ezekiel lived and taught in Judah for the duration of the siege and the fall of Jerusalem (586 <span>BC<\/span>). They conclude this from Ezekiel’s familiarity with idolatry in the temple and his vivid descriptions of Jerusalem’s last days (Ez 8:11). Others believe that Ezekiel ministered both to the exiled community and to the Judeans living in Judah. Neither interpretation does full justice to the claims of the book itself. Ezekiel was exiled in 597 <span>BC<\/span>. He was called to bring God’s word to the deportees at Tel-abib; he was granted a vision of the horrible practices in the temple court; and he was familiar with Jerusalem and Judah from having lived there and from reports on affairs in Jerusalem coming to the exiles through messengers. Jeremiah, Ezekiel’s contemporary, was prophesying in Jerusalem, but there is no evidence that Jeremiah and Ezekiel knew of each other’s ministry. If Ezekiel had brought God’s word to Jerusalem during the siege, some reference to Jeremiah might appear in his writings. If Jeremiah was supported by Ezekiel’s ministry in Jerusalem, he probably would have included a positive word for his colleague in his book. The book of Ezekiel plainly says that Ezekiel lived and preached in exile (see 1:1-3; 11:24-25).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Content\">Content<\/p>\n<p>The prophecy of Ezekiel is easily outlined by subject matter and chronology. The chronology of the period permits a division before and after 586 <span>BC<\/span> (the fall of Jerusalem). Chapters 1–24 cover the pre-586 ministry of Ezekiel, whereas chapters 33–48 represent his post-586 ministry. Chapters 25–32 (oracles against the foreign nations) function as a transition between the book’s two major divisions.<\/p>\n<p>The book’s outline according to subject matter divides into four parts: Ezekiel’s call (1:1–3:21); prophecies of judgment against Israel (3:22–24:27); oracles against the nations (25:1–32:32); and proclamation of hope (33:1–48:35).<\/p>\n<h5>Ezekiel’s Call (1:1–3:21)<\/h5>\n<p>The prophet’s call in one sense was similar to that of Isaiah and Jeremiah. Isaiah received his mission in a vision of God’s glory in the temple (Is 6). Jeremiah was called unexpectedly in his youth, and received signs that solemnly set forth the nature of his mission (Jer 1:11-15). The call of Ezekiel combined those two elements. Revelation of God’s glory to the prophet at the same time revealed the nature of the prophet’s mission. Ezekiel’s call contained a full description of God’s glory. Isaiah briefly stated that he saw the Lord enthroned in the temple, and he concentrated on the seraphim representing and magnifying God’s glory. Ezekiel elaborated on the revelation of the Lord’s glory as well as on the ministering angels who went before the Lord as part of his royal entourage. The vision of God’s glory, though difficult to understand, is the key to the book of Ezekiel.<\/p>\n<p>Ezekiel, as a priest, was concerned about the future of the temple. That sacred place had been ordained by God as his home among his people. The glory, presence, and holiness of God were symbolized in the temple (see 1 Kgs 8:10-11). In exile Ezekiel could not serve his people as a priest, for they were far from Jerusalem, the city God had chosen. Against all expectations the Lord revealed himself to Ezekiel in the land of Babylon. In calling Ezekiel to a prophetic ministry, God assured his servant that he had not forsaken his people, even though they had been banished from the Promised Land.<\/p>\n<p>The prophet’s vision began with a storm. As a large cloud approached from the north, Ezekiel saw a brightness surrounding the cloud, four creatures, and four wheels. The combination of creatures and wheels suggests that the Lord appeared in a chariot. God’s chariot is a familiar OT representation of his coming in judgment (see Is 66:15-16). The wheels within wheels and the position of the four living creatures may signify God’s total control over the whole earth, so he could move his “chariot of judgment” in any direction. It is also possible that the living creatures with their four faces, and the wheels full of eyes, may be separate symbols showing that God sees all that happens and thereby knows the plight of the exiles. In the vision the prophet’s attention was drawn to a throne above the heads of the creatures. On the throne was “the appearance of the likeness of the glory of the <span>Lord<\/span>” (1:28). In his vision of God’s coming in judgment, Ezekiel received his call to the prophetic ministry: “Son of man, I send you to the people of Israel, to a nation of rebels who have rebelled against me” (2:3, <span>rsv<\/span>). During a dark hour of Israel’s history, Ezekiel had to prophesy, rebuke his fellow exiles (3:11), and be responsible as a watchman over the house of Israel (3:17; cf. 33:1-9). Symbolic of his mission was a scroll filled with lamentations and woe (2:9-10), which when eaten became sweet as honey (3:1-3). Difficult as the mission was, God’s presence and the certain fulfillment of the prophecies sweetened Ezekiel’s task. Such encouragement was intended to take away any fear of the rebellious Israelites (2:6-7). Instead of being elated with his mission, however, Ezekiel became despondent.<\/p>\n<p>A week later, the word of the Lord came to Ezekiel to remind him of his important role as a watchman (3:16-17). Ezekiel became responsible for Israel as a nation, not just for individuals. His witness to Israel had the express aim of national repentance (vv 18-19).<\/p>\n<p>Ezekiel was confined to his house by God (3:24-25). The house ministry was to be carried on only with those Israelites who sought God’s will, for the Lord had abandoned those who continued in their apostasy. The prophetic word would not help the apostates (v 26). The principle of Ezekiel’s ministry is found in 3:27: “Whenever I give you a message, I will loosen your tongue and let you speak. Then you will say to them, ‘This is what the Sovereign <span>Lord<\/span> says!’ Some of them will listen, but some will ignore you, for they are rebels” (<span>nlt<\/span>; cf. Mt 11:15; 13:43).<\/p>\n<h5>Prophecies of Judgment against Israel (3:22–24:27)<\/h5>\n<p>Symbolism figures prominently in Ezekiel’s writing. His priestly background and preparation probably suited him to receive and communicate God’s word in symbolic acts and speech. Chapters 4 and 5 contain four symbolic acts: (1) Jerusalem’s siege is portrayed on a brick (Ez 4:1-3); (2) Israel’s iniquity is represented by Ezekiel’s lying on his sides (vv 4-8); (3) Jerusalem’s grief and horror in the last days of the siege are represented by Ezekiel’s food and drink (vv 9-17); (4) Jerusalem’s fate is represented by the prophet’s hair being cut off (5:1-4).<\/p>\n<p>Ezekiel’s instructions were further illuminated by God’s explanation of Israel’s apostasy (5:6-7) and his judgment on Israel (vv 8-12). The judgment will last until the Israelites admit that in covenant faithfulness their Lord has inflicted righteous judgment on them (v 13).<\/p>\n<p>God would direct his judgment first against the people and the city of Jerusalem. Next in line were the mountains of Israel (ch 6) and the land (ch 7). God’s wrath included the cities and cultic sites in the hill country of Judah, leaving no protection for the people (6:3-6). Abominations that were practiced throughout the land caused God’s judgment to fall on the land as well as on the people (7:2-3, 10-11, 23). But because God is righteous, he judged the people according to their ways of life, desiring that they would once more acknowledge him as their God (7:27).<\/p>\n<p>The prophet then (chs 8–11) focused on the abominations practiced in Jerusalem, particularly idolatry in the temple courts, which caused the judgment announced in chapters 1–7. An idol had been erected in the inner court (8:3-5). By the wall of the court, elders of the city were paying homage to the idols that surrounded the court (vv 11-12). Closer to the temple, women were weeping for the god Tammuz (v 14), and men were worshiping the sun (v 16). In preparation for the ultimate judgment on the land, the prophet placed a mark on the foreheads of the few faithful Israelites so that they would survive (9:4-6). Then (ch 10), the glory of God, which had filled the temple from the time of Solomon, gradually left: “Then the glory of the <span>Lord<\/span> went up from the city and stopped above the mountain to the east” (11:23, <span>nlt<\/span>). The people, now without divine protection, were being handed over to the Babylonians (v 9).<\/p>\n<p>The message of doom for Jerusalem contains four elements of hope: restoration of the people (11:17), restoration of the land (v 17), purification of the people (v 18), and renewed fellowship between God and his people (vv 19-20). The prophet develops those four themes in chapters 33–48.<\/p>\n<p>The visions of chapters 10 and 11 made clear that when God removed his presence from Jerusalem, the exile was approaching. Those who were already in Babylon were unwilling to believe that such an extensive devastation of Jerusalem would happen or that the people would all be exiled and the land become desolate.<\/p>\n<p>Ezekiel acted out the certainty of God’s word of judgment by packing his bags and showing the baggage to his fellow exiles. First, he placed the bags in the courtyard outside his modest home. Next, he went out by making a hole through the wall. Finally, the prophet walked about the settlement with his bags in full view. Skeptical observers did not understand Ezekiel and probably thought he was crazy. The believers who saw him understood. His strange actions dramatized how the king’s aides would do all they could to help King Zedekiah escape just before the fall of Jerusalem. Second Kings 25 tells how the king and his soldiers left Jerusalem for the wilderness, to be overtaken by the Babylonians at Jericho and brought before Nebuchadnezzar at Riblah. As a captive, Zedekiah witnessed the murder of his sons; then his eyes were put out, and he was sent into exile with the other Judeans (cf. Ez 12:13). The prophet’s explanation concluded with a word of comfort. Because of his covenant with Abraham, God promised not to destroy the people completely. A remnant who overcame the sword, famine, and pestilence would live to tell the story of God’s judgment (vv 15-16).<\/p>\n<p>Ezekiel further illustrated the nation’s plight by eating as though full of fear, depicting the great trauma that all of Judah’s inhabitants would soon undergo.<\/p>\n<p>Both symbolic acts, packing his belongings and eating, emphasized the truthfulness of God’s word. The people needed to face the nature of their God: He is magnificent, and when he speaks, his words are powerful and come to pass. Thus, the devastation of the land and the people’s exile were a fulfillment of God’s word through the prophets. The judgment was meant to produce a recognition of the Lord, repentance, and a return to God. Some in Judah doubted the efficacy of God’s prophecies, saying, “Time passes, making a liar of every prophet” (12:22). Others thought God’s word would come true in the distant future (v 27). The prevailing attitude of distrust in God’s word had been stimulated by the popular preaching of false prophets (ch 13). Never commissioned by the Lord, they deceived God’s people by lying and misdirecting them with messages of peace (vv 8-10). Wickedness, lying, and deceit were encouraged among the people by such false prophets (v 22). The magnitude of their sin and their great responsibility for Judah’s fall would be matched by the Lord’s heavy judgment. Yet God would save his people from such evil and will prepare a righteous nation with whom to maintain his covenant (v 23).<\/p>\n<p>The certainty of the judgment has been connected with the truthfulness of God’s word. Ezekiel’s difficult task of affirming the doom of Jerusalem to stubborn hearers was intensified by the people’s idolatry. Their whole way of life denied the existence of God. They practiced idolatry in their worship, and they had set up idols in their hearts (14:3). Before the covenant with God could be restored, they had to be purified from their idolatry. Even so, repentance would not guarantee immunity from judgment. Sword, famine, wild beasts, and plagues would ravage the population (v 21). After the execution of his judgment, God would take back those survivors who had turned to him for mercy. God would surely accomplish all that he intended for his people’s good (v 23).<\/p>\n<p>In chapters 15–17 Ezekiel uses three parables to set forth the apostasy, present uselessness, and judgment of Israel. Jerusalem and Judah are compared to a piece of charred wood, an adulterous woman, and a vine.<\/p>\n<p>Chapter 15 reviews Jerusalem’s case. Jerusalem is compared to a piece of wood, both ends of which have been charred with fire, so that the wood is of no value. As the whole piece of wood is burned instead of being saved, so Jerusalem would undergo complete devastation (15:7-8).<\/p>\n<p>Chapter 16 presents God’s case against Jerusalem from a different perspective, stressing his care for Jerusalem in the past. The beginnings of her history are compared to the birth of a female child, left abandoned by her mother (16:3-5). God adopted the child and washed and clothed her (vv 6-7). He made a covenant with her (v 8), making her his own possession. He generously gave her all the fine things of life (vv 9-13). In the height of her development, Jerusalem’s fame spread to the nations (v 14). Her self-reliance made her a spiritual prostitute as she took up the religious practices and way of life of the nations (vv 15-34). The cities of Sodom (Gn 19) and Samaria (2 Kgs 17:6), known for their immorality, are called Jerusalem’s sisters (Ez 16:46). They had been judged by God, but the corruption of those cities was little compared to the lewdness of Jerusalem (vv 48-51). Thus, Jerusalem also would surely fall and become desolate. Yet Ezekiel anticipates the judgment’s final outcome; Jerusalem will be restored to covenantal blessing (vv 62-63) after her repentance.<\/p>\n<p>The third parable (ch 17) focuses on God’s sovereignty over political developments. Assyria was no longer a power to be reckoned with. Babylon and Egypt both exercised dominion, although the balance of power was veering in favor of Babylon. Their extension of power is likened to an eagle. Nebuchadnezzar, pictured as “a great eagle with broad wings full of many-colored feathers,” took control over the affairs of Judah by removing Jehoiachin, “the highest branch of a cedar tree,” from office and by exiling him with young leaders of the Judean state (17:3-4). Ezekiel was among them. Nebuchadnezzar let the Judeans control their own affairs under Zedekiah but expected them to be subject to Babylon and not to any other power. But Judah (likened to a vine) tried to ally itself with Pharaoh Hophra of Egypt, “another great eagle with broad wings and full plumage” (v 7), against Nebuchadnezzar. Zedekiah’s folly in turning to Egypt would cause Nebuchadnezzar to pull up the vine by its roots and make it wither (vv 9-10). In explaining the parable, God told the exiles that Judah’s fall was a result of its unfaithfulness to King Nebuchadnezzar, to whom Judah owed allegiance by covenant (vv 13-18). Judah’s unfaithfulness thus extended to all of its relationships: religious, cultural, and political. After the exile, God promised, he would restore his people to their land under a Messiah, “a tender shoot” (v 22). The messianic rule is signified by the young twig, which when planted in the land will become a magnificent cedar, giving shade and protection to the birds. Chapter 17 is an inspiring affirmation of the sovereignty of God in human affairs (“All the trees will know that it is I, the <span>Lord<\/span>, who cuts down the tall tree and helps the short tree to grow tall. It is I who makes the green tree wither and gives new life to the dead tree”—17:24, <span>nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>Chapters 18–22 contain Ezekiel’s oracles to Judah, its leaders, and the exiles. First, he enunciates God’s standard of righteousness: “The person who sins will be the one who dies” (18:4, <span>nlt<\/span>). The people are charging God with injustice, for they believe themselves to be under God’s judgment for the sins of their ancestors (vv 25-29). Although the Ten Commandments do say that God may punish “the sins of their parents to the third and the fourth generations” (Ex 20:5, <span>nlt<\/span>), the prophet vindicates God’s justice, telling the people that they are not being punished merely for their ancestors’ sin. Each person must be directly accountable to God; the sinner will die in wickedness, and the righteous will live by righteousness. A life of faithfulness to God’s moral and civil law will be rewarded (Ez 18:5-9). Even if one’s father was a sinner, the father’s sin is not transferable (vv 14-18). God is ready to forgive any sinner who repents (v 27). The prophet’s vindication of God’s justice becomes a call to repentance. The sinners in Judah and in exile were thus warned of the consequences of their evil, and were exhorted to return to their God and his standard of right and wrong (vv 31-32).<\/p>\n<p>Chapter 19 contains two parables in the form of a lamentation. The first portrays a lioness and her two cubs. The lioness is Hamutal, the wife of King Josiah (2 Kgs 23:31), who bore two sons: Jehoahaz and Zedekiah. Jehoahaz is referred to in Ezekiel 19:3-4 as a cub who grew up and was taken to Egypt (by Pharaoh Neco in 608 <span>BC<\/span>; see 2 Kgs 23:31-34). Zedekiah succeeded to the throne ten years later. In the lamentation the prophet imaginatively represents Zedekiah as a young cub who is ultimately taken to Babylon as a rebellious ruler (Ez 19:7-9). The second parable changes the imagery to a vine, representing Israel (v 10). In its early days God blessed Israel with strong rulers, but now the vine was wilting as Zedekiah irresponsibly led Judah to its last days. Ezekiel’s lamentation stresses the lack of a good candidate for the throne and the lack of life in the vine (vv 13-14).<\/p>\n<p>In chapter 20 the prophet concludes God’s argument against his people. He reviews the history of Israel’s past, starting with God’s self-revelation in Egypt (20:5-6). He took to himself a stubborn nation, tied to idolatry (v 8) and prone to apostasy (vv 13, 21). Israel wanted to be one of the great nations (v 32) instead of a sanctified people (v 12). As a result of its spiritual hardness, Israel is dispersed to live among the nations (v 35). Yet God had a solemn covenant with Israel, made by oath to the patriarchs Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. On the basis of that covenant, God will reach out with compassion to those who repent of their sinful ways (vv 37-44). In Israel’s judgment and restoration the nations will see the holiness of God, which does not tolerate unfaithfulness in Israel (v 41).<\/p>\n<p>Ezekiel’s prophecies alternate between God’s judgment on Israel’s sin and his restoration of Israel, spanning the bridge between Israel’s past and future. In view of the people’s doubts of the coming judgment on Jerusalem, he stresses the necessity of judgment and the need for repentance. Still, the future restoration of a remnant is touched upon here and there as the counterpart of his message of judgment. After announcing the fall of Jerusalem, the prophet shifts from a message of judgment to one of hope.<\/p>\n<p>The prophet returns to the proclamation of judgment in four oracles (20:45–21:32). He speaks against the Negev Desert area (20:45-49), Jerusalem and the land of Israel (21:2-17, 20-27), and against the Ammonites (vv 28-32). God permitted the sword of Nebuchadnezzar to be his instrument of judgment upon the Judeans (v 19). He would see to the judgment on the Ammonites. The Judeans would recover their previous glory, but the memory of the Ammonites would perish (vv 27, 32). The oracle against the Ammonites anticipates a larger treatise on Israel’s other neighbors: Moab, Edom, Philistia, Tyre, Sidon, and Egypt (chs 25–29).<\/p>\n<p>Chapters 22–24 contain a renewed series of indictments against Jerusalem. Jerusalem’s religious and civil leadership (the prophets, priests, and princes) are corrupt, and the people have followed their example (22:25-30). The parable of the two sisters, Oholah and Oholibah, is a variation of the parable of adulterous Jerusalem (ch 23; cf. ch 16). It differs in that the comparison drawn between Jerusalem, soon to be exiled, and Samaria, already in exile, is more explicit in the parable of Oholah and Oholibah. In chapter 16 Jerusalem was charged with greater sins than Sodom and Samaria, but was promised restoration. Only the adulterous nature of the two sisters and God’s judgment on them is emphasized in chapter 23, with no word of restoration. This parable is a fitting introduction to that of the boiling pot (ch 24), in which Jerusalem is compared to a rusty pot boiling with water. The Jerusalemites, likened to pieces of meat in the boiling pot, will die in the city. The parable was pronounced on the starting day of Nebuchadnezzar’s siege of Jerusalem. Thus, the exiles were divinely forewarned of God’s intent to destroy the temple (24:21) and were prepared for messengers bringing the bad news of Jerusalem’s fall.<\/p>\n<p>Those oracles and parables conclude the first division of the book. Ezekiel has stated God’s case against the rebellious house of Judah in many ways. His metaphors have likened Judah to a burnt piece of wood, to an uprooted vine, to a baby who grew up to be an adulteress, and to Oholibah, the adulterous woman. He has countered arguments against the fulfillment of God’s word and against the justice of God. He has reassured the exiles that God will not leave the righteous and that the future of Israel begins with a righteous remnant. The pendulum of Ezekiel’s writing has swung from judgment to restoration, while the clock was bringing Judah closer to the hour of its fall.<\/p>\n<h5>Oracles against the Nations (25:1–32:32)<\/h5>\n<p>Ammon, Moab, and Edom were Israel’s neighbors to the east. Because they were ethnically related to Israel, they were not attacked by the Israelites on their march to the Promised Land. Ammon and Moab were descendants of Lot, Abraham’s nephew, and the Edomites descended from Esau, the brother of Jacob. Although God forbade war with them, relations between Israel and its eastern neighbors were always tense. Israel had been overrun by the Ammonites for a time, and Israel was never successful in controlling the Edomites’ competitive trade relations. Those neighboring nations joined the Babylonian attack against Jerusalem and rejoiced when Jerusalem fell and the temple was devastated (Ez 25:3-12). They were ready to take over and loot Judah’s cities, and to instigate trouble in a time when Jerusalem was distressed. Therefore, says Ezekiel, God’s judgment will also extend to Ammon, Moab, and Edom (vv 4-14).<\/p>\n<p>The Philistines had been Israel’s enemy to the southwest. During the period of the judges and the united monarchy, the Philistines had controlled much of Israel’s territory. King David successfully limited the Philistine threat by confining them to their own territory. But in Ezekiel’s day they were still considered Israel’s “everlasting” enemy (25:15), possibly intensified by Philistine support of the Babylonian invasion of Judah.<\/p>\n<p>The city of Tyre had received reports of the overthrow of Jerusalem and was ready to exploit the opportunity for its own advantage (26:2). Tyre’s trade position was unrivaled; its ships crossed the seas to exchange goods with many distant lands (Ez 27). But Tyre would soon be broken by the Babylonians, its wealth dried up with the destruction of the fleet and the murder of its sailors (27:26).<\/p>\n<p>The prince of Tyre is singled out in chapter 28, but verse 12 refers to the “king” of Tyre. Interpreters disagree whether they are one person or two. Those who distinguish between the two understand the prince of Tyre to be the ruler of that city, but they consider the “king” of Tyre to represent Satan (28:13-15). The Garden of Eden with all its splendor is an appropriate setting for the original glory of an angelic Satan before his fall. But there is no reason within the context to distinguish between the prince and the king of Tyre. Each is said to have exalted himself, and both took authority over men as if they were gods and enjoyed all the splendor and royalty that belong to God. And both prince and king fall from their high position. The passage is a magnificent example of Ezekiel’s literary ability. He draws a glorious picture of the Garden of Eden, reworking the same theme as he depicts the glory and fall of the king of Tyre. Ezekiel presents him as a cherub, in accordance with the local belief that the king was divine. He wore the finest clothing, with nine kinds of precious stones (v 13). Though God had elevated him to the royal throne (vv 13-14), the king’s heart turned to materialism and to religious and judicial corruption (vv 16-18). In a sense the king (prince) represents the people of Tyre. They were all guilty of corruption, injustice, and violence. If God judged his covenant people for their perversion of justice and for their sins, his judgment would surely come also on the city of Tyre (vv 18-19). When the Babylonians marched on Tyre, they laboriously built a jetty from the mainland to the city. At the same time Tyrian ships loaded with goods and treasures sailed out across the Mediterranean, so that when Nebuchadnezzar’s troops finally breached the walls, little loot could be taken (29:18).<\/p>\n<p>The city of Sidon also cheered Jerusalem’s destruction. Sidon was a port city in Phoenicia, to the north of Tyre. By pestilence and war, the inhabitants of Sidon would learn the justice of Israel’s God.<\/p>\n<p>Six nations (Ammon, Moab, Edom, Philistia, Tyre, and Sidon) scorned Israel at the fall of Jerusalem. Because God had invested his holiness in the temple of Jerusalem and in his people, the temple’s destruction and the people’s exile signified to the nations that Israel’s God was impotent. They did not realize that the reason for Israel’s fate was God’s intolerance of his people’s sin. God’s holiness required the punishment of sin, and it also required vindication for his name (28:22-23). God was still concerned for his people, that Israel might know he had removed the scorn of their neighbors (v 24). In the restoration of Israel the Lord would further manifest his holiness before the nations. Israel would receive back the land, vineyards, and houses, and would enjoy the bounty of the Lord in peace (vv 25-26).<\/p>\n<p>Egypt had convinced the people of Israel and Judah that with its help the Assyrians and the Babylonians could not stand their ground in Palestine. In 722 <span>BC<\/span> the Assyrian troops took the northern capital of Samaria, and in 586 the Babylonians conquered Jerusalem, while Egypt remained passive. The Egyptians had desired control over Palestine for economic reasons, but not at the expense of their own welfare. Egypt, too, would lose its leadership under God’s judgment (29:9-16). Reduced to dependence on foreign powers, Egypt would no longer be a stumbling block for Israel. First, Babylonia was permitted to break Egypt’s power (23:1–32:21); later, the Persians, Greeks, and Romans would incorporate Egypt as a province. The fall of Egypt coincided with the fall of several great and small kingdoms: Assyria (32:22-23), Elam (vv 24-25), Meshech and Tubal (vv 26-28), Edom (v 29), and Sidon (v 30).<\/p>\n<h5>Proclamation of Hope (33:1–48:35)<\/h5>\n<p>After the visions of God’s judgment on the surrounding nations, Ezekiel returns to the future hope of Israel. In the first major section of his book he dealt with the reasons for Judah’s exile and the destruction of the temple, alluding often to the future of Israel. But the prophet’s organization of his material included, between prophecies of Israel’s judgment and restoration, the oracles of God’s judgment on Israel’s neighbors who had encouraged and rejoiced in its fall. Throughout its history Israel had allowed foreign nations to influence its religion, culture, and form of government. The reduction of their powers meant Israel, restored to the Promised Land, would be more free for faithfulness to God. Before taking up the theme of the restoration, Ezekiel reviews the emphases of chapters 1–24: (1) He was called to be a watchman over Israel (33:1-9; cf. 1:1–3:21). (2) Israel had sinned against the Lord and had to receive a righteous judgment (33:10). (3) Jerusalem was to be taken by the Babylonians (v 21). (4) Israel’s repentance is necessary for restoration (vv 11-16).<\/p>\n<p>Thus far, his ministry had not met with success. The exiles who had heard his messages were full of appreciation for Ezekiel’s rhetorical and literary abilities (33:32). They readily accepted Ezekiel as a watchman who warned the people of the impending catastrophe at Jerusalem, and they may have admitted that their sin was the reason for God’s judgment on Israel and Jerusalem. But they were slow in applying the prophetic word to their own lives. God was ready to forgive their sins if they repented, acknowledged him, and demonstrated their renewed spirit by practicing the law of God (v 32). Now that the news of Jerusalem had been reported to the exiles (v 21), the necessity for the people to act responsibly was even more urgent. The Lord had demonstrated that Ezekiel was a true prophet (v 33).<\/p>\n<p>The success of Ezekiel’s ministry was not measured in numbers. He faithfully declared the word of God in word, sign, and parable. The exiles had followed the false hopes proclaimed by false “shepherds” who had fattened themselves at the expense of the flock (34:2-3). They did not take care of those in need (v 4), and they allowed the flock to be scattered (vv 5-6). God promised his people that he would be the faithful shepherd, bring the sheep together, feed them, and care for them (34:11-15; cf. Ps 23). God would also distinguish between the sheep and the goats, to find out whose hearts were right with him, so that the true sheep could be restored to God’s flock (Ez 34:20-22). God’s promise included the restoration of the land and the restoration of the divinely appointed Davidic dynasty (v 24). The renewed fellowship between the Lord and Israel under the messianic ruler would be sealed with a new covenant, the “covenant of peace.” That covenant assured the people of God’s blessing on their labor, bringing them abundant harvests (vv 26-27). The people would not be forced to fight against nature in their pursuits (vv 25-28). They would not have to struggle against other peoples who might try to share in their blessings by force (vv 27-29). The prophetic vision telescoped the events of the restoration of Israel after the exile, the coming of Jesus the Messiah (cf. Jn 10), and the full restoration of the sin-cursed world.<\/p>\n<p>Chapter 34 is the key to the messages of restoration. The emphases include the outworking of the frequently repeated verse “They will truly be my people, and I will be their God” (11:20; cf. 34:30; 36:28). The most significant aspects of the restoration theme include: (1) God’s gracious restoration of his people to covenant blessing (36:20-36; 37:23-26; 39:25); (2) God’s restoration of the nation of Israel to the land (36:1-15, 24; 37:14-23; 39:27); (3) God’s new covenant, giving his Spirit to his people (36:25-27; 37:14; 39:29), and his blessing on his people (36:8-12, 29-38; 39:9-10, 26), assuring them of victory over their enemies (35:1-15; 36:36; 37:28; 38:1–39:24); (4) God’s appointment of a Davidic king, the Messiah, over his people (37:24-25); and (5) God’s temple restored among his people (37:26-27).<\/p>\n<h6>The People of God<\/h6>\n<p>The rejection of the exiles did not last forever. Based on the Abrahamic covenant, the Lord promised to bless the faithful remnant and to make of them a new people. The imagery of a valley of dry bones is particularly fitting. The dry bones represent God’s people without hope (37:11). Ezekiel proclaims to them the good news that God will renew and restore them (v 12). The Lord’s purpose for his people is that all the nations may honor his holy name through his people (39:7, 25-27).<\/p>\n<h6>The Land<\/h6>\n<p>The promise also extends to the land, originally given to Abraham and his descendants. The Abrahamic covenant included a messianic element, for through the family of Abraham living in the Promised Land all nations would receive God’s blessing (Gn 12:3). In a vision Ezekiel saw the boundaries and described the division of the land (Ez 47–48). The royal city of Jerusalem is the central symbol of God’s presence among his people; its name will be “The Lord is there” (48:8-35).<\/p>\n<h6>The New Covenant<\/h6>\n<p>The Abrahamic covenant is renewed, a gracious covenant that expresses the restored relationship. “Covenant of peace” fittingly describes its nature and benefits. The restless people of God are promised rest from their searching, their enemies, and their toil. The change in relationship is further emphasized by God’s sending of his Spirit, who will add a new dimension to the lifestyle of his people. Obedience to God will no longer be constrained, for God’s Spirit helps his people to do his will. A new heart, controlled by the Spirit of God, is given to the Lord’s people (36:26-27). The presence of the Spirit also signifies a new life for the people (37:14; see Jn 3:8, 16; Acts 2:38; Rom 8:2-4, 15).<\/p>\n<h6>The Messiah<\/h6>\n<p>The OT hope of a messianic king is crystallized in Ezekiel’s message. His rule will be everlasting (Ez 37:25), over all God’s people who have new hearts (vv 15-25).<\/p>\n<h6>The Temple<\/h6>\n<p>As a priest, Ezekiel remained keenly interested in the temple, priesthood, sacrificial regulations, and festivals. A large section of the prophecy’s last division describes the temple’s revived worship (40:1–46:24). His vision of the glory of God, so important in the messages of God’s judgment on Jerusalem (chs 1, 10–11), now assures the remnant that God did not forsake his people (43:2-5). He will dwell among them, for the temple is a symbol of God’s presence (37:27). Some interpreters believe that the temple, with its ritual as described in Ezekiel 40–46, will be restored in the messianic era before the last judgment. Others believe the promises about the temple provide a positive symbolic answer to Ezekiel’s greatest concern: whether God will return to be with his people (48:35; see Jn 2:21; Rv 21:22).<\/p>\n\n<p>There are various interpretations of chapters 34–48. As a watchman to Israel, Ezekiel had a message for the exiled Jewish community. Thus the prophecy’s fulfillment must have begun with the decree of Cyrus I (538 <span>BC<\/span>) permitting the Jews to return to their land (Ezr 1:1-3). Two rival schools of interpretation exist on how the prophecy is fulfilled beyond Israel’s restoration to the land. Those who interpret Israel as simply the nation view the modern return of Jewish people to the land of Israel as a continuation of God’s prophetic promise. They believe that God’s plan for Israel is being fulfilled along with, and in addition to, his plan for the Christian church. The fulfillment of those prophecies will be inaugurated by the coming of the messianic king, who will give earthly peace to the Jewish people. The temple worship (Ez 40–48) will be restored in some way during the period of the messianic kingdom. The church will enjoy a small share in all the events centered on the Jews. The promises of Ezekiel’s vision are thus limited to the nation of Israel and must be fulfilled before the coming of a new heaven and earth.<\/p>\n<p>Other interpreters believe that Ezekiel wrote for the benefit of spiritual descendants of Abraham who believe, as Abraham did, in God’s promises (Gn 15:6; cf. Rom 4:11-13; Gal 3:6-9, 29). All who have faith like Abraham, whether Jews or Gentiles, are regarded as Abraham’s offspring (Gal 3:28-29). Ezekiel’s message thus would include all of God’s gracious work among Christian Gentiles, who have become the recipients of God’s promises and benefits. It is possible, on the basis of 1 Peter 1:10-11, to interpret Ezekiel’s language as a prophetic expression of how God’s grace would come to all those who become reconciled to God through faith in the gospel.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Diaspora of the Jews; Ezekiel (Person); Prophecy.<\/p>","summary_ro":"EZEKIEL, Book of Prophetic book of the OT, originating in the time of the Babylonian exile. Preview • Author • Date and Background • Content Author Ezekiel was the son of Buzi (1:3), a member of a priestly family. It is unclear whether he actually served in the temple as a priest, but such was his training. His writings show that he knew the regulations for sacrifices, the rituals, and the people’s expectations of a priest. In exile Ezekiel the priest spoke God’s word about the future of the ...","summary_en":"EZEKIEL, Book of Prophetic book of the OT, originating in the time of the Babylonian exile. Preview • Author • Date and Background • Content Author Ezekiel was the son of Buzi (1:3), a member of a priestly family. It is unclear whether he actually served in the temple as a priest, but such was his training. His writings show that he knew the regulations for sacrifices, the rituals, and the people’s expectations of a priest. In exile Ezekiel the priest spoke God’s word about the future of the ...","source":"Articles\/E.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"9":[{"id":53405,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ezechiel 48:9","title_en":"Study Note: Ezechiel 48:9","content_ro":"<p><strong>48:9-14<\/strong> The holy portion was not quite at the exact center of the land; there were seven tribal strips to the north and only five to the south of it. While it was still not exactly central geographically, the spiritual center had apparently moved a significant distance north from where it used to be in Jerusalem. • The importance of the holy portion <em>set aside for the<\/em> <span>Lord<\/span><em>’s Temple<\/em> is underlined by the detailed description of its dimensions and makeup, in contrast with the brevity of the descriptions of the tribal allocations. This <em>special portion<\/em> was devoted to God and was never to be <em>sold or traded or used by others<\/em>. It was made up of strips that ran from east to west and were allocated to the Levites, the priests, and the city. The area <em>for the ordained priests<\/em> immediately surrounded the Temple and protected it from anything unholy. It was flanked by an area to the north for <em>the Levites<\/em>.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>48:9-14<\/strong> The holy portion was not quite at the exact center of the land; there were seven tribal strips to the north and only five to the south of it. While it was still not exactly central geographically, the spiritual center had apparently moved a significant distance north from where it used to be in Jerusalem. • The importance of the holy portion <em>set aside for the<\/em> <span>Lord<\/span><em>’s Temple<\/em> is underlined by the detailed description of its dimensions and makeup, in contrast with the brevity of the descriptions of the tribal allocations. This <em>special portion<\/em> was devoted to God and was never to be <em>sold or traded or used by others<\/em>. It was made up of strips that ran from east to west and were allocated to the Levites, the priests, and the city. The area <em>for the ordained priests<\/em> immediately surrounded the Temple and protected it from anything unholy. It was flanked by an area to the north for <em>the Levites<\/em>.<\/p>","summary_ro":"48:9-14 The holy portion was not quite at the exact center of the land; there were seven tribal strips to the north and only five to the south of it. While it was still not exactly central geographically, the spiritual center had apparently moved a significant distance north from where it used to be in Jerusalem. • The importance of the holy portion set aside for the Lord’s Temple is underlined by the detailed description of its dimensions and makeup, in contrast with the brevity of the descr...","summary_en":"48:9-14 The holy portion was not quite at the exact center of the land; there were seven tribal strips to the north and only five to the south of it. While it was still not exactly central geographically, the spiritual center had apparently moved a significant distance north from where it used to be in Jerusalem. • The importance of the holy portion set aside for the Lord’s Temple is underlined by the detailed description of its dimensions and makeup, in contrast with the brevity of the descr...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":81031,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ezechiel 48:9","title_en":"Study Note: Ezechiel 48:9","content_ro":"<p><strong>48:9-14<\/strong> The holy portion was not quite at the exact center of the land; there were seven tribal strips to the north and only five to the south of it. While it was still not exactly central geographically, the spiritual center had apparently moved a significant distance north from where it used to be in Jerusalem. • The importance of the holy portion <em>set aside for the<\/em> <span>Lord<\/span><em>’s Temple<\/em> is underlined by the detailed description of its dimensions and makeup, in contrast with the brevity of the descriptions of the tribal allocations. This <em>special portion<\/em> was devoted to God and was never to be <em>sold or traded or used by others<\/em>. It was made up of strips that ran from east to west and were allocated to the Levites, the priests, and the city. The area <em>for the ordained priests<\/em> immediately surrounded the Temple and protected it from anything unholy. It was flanked by an area to the north for <em>the Levites<\/em>.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>48:9-14<\/strong> The holy portion was not quite at the exact center of the land; there were seven tribal strips to the north and only five to the south of it. While it was still not exactly central geographically, the spiritual center had apparently moved a significant distance north from where it used to be in Jerusalem. • The importance of the holy portion <em>set aside for the<\/em> <span>Lord<\/span><em>’s Temple<\/em> is underlined by the detailed description of its dimensions and makeup, in contrast with the brevity of the descriptions of the tribal allocations. This <em>special portion<\/em> was devoted to God and was never to be <em>sold or traded or used by others<\/em>. It was made up of strips that ran from east to west and were allocated to the Levites, the priests, and the city. The area <em>for the ordained priests<\/em> immediately surrounded the Temple and protected it from anything unholy. It was flanked by an area to the north for <em>the Levites<\/em>.<\/p>","summary_ro":"48:9-14 The holy portion was not quite at the exact center of the land; there were seven tribal strips to the north and only five to the south of it. While it was still not exactly central geographically, the spiritual center had apparently moved a significant distance north from where it used to be in Jerusalem. • The importance of the holy portion set aside for the Lord’s Temple is underlined by the detailed description of its dimensions and makeup, in contrast with the brevity of the descr...","summary_en":"48:9-14 The holy portion was not quite at the exact center of the land; there were seven tribal strips to the north and only five to the south of it. While it was still not exactly central geographically, the spiritual center had apparently moved a significant distance north from where it used to be in Jerusalem. • The importance of the holy portion set aside for the Lord’s Temple is underlined by the detailed description of its dimensions and makeup, in contrast with the brevity of the descr...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":108657,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ezechiel 48:9","title_en":"Study Note: Ezechiel 48:9","content_ro":"<p><strong>48:9-14<\/strong> The holy portion was not quite at the exact center of the land; there were seven tribal strips to the north and only five to the south of it. While it was still not exactly central geographically, the spiritual center had apparently moved a significant distance north from where it used to be in Jerusalem. • The importance of the holy portion <em>set aside for the<\/em> <span>Lord<\/span><em>’s Temple<\/em> is underlined by the detailed description of its dimensions and makeup, in contrast with the brevity of the descriptions of the tribal allocations. This <em>special portion<\/em> was devoted to God and was never to be <em>sold or traded or used by others<\/em>. It was made up of strips that ran from east to west and were allocated to the Levites, the priests, and the city. The area <em>for the ordained priests<\/em> immediately surrounded the Temple and protected it from anything unholy. It was flanked by an area to the north for <em>the Levites<\/em>.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>48:9-14<\/strong> The holy portion was not quite at the exact center of the land; there were seven tribal strips to the north and only five to the south of it. While it was still not exactly central geographically, the spiritual center had apparently moved a significant distance north from where it used to be in Jerusalem. • The importance of the holy portion <em>set aside for the<\/em> <span>Lord<\/span><em>’s Temple<\/em> is underlined by the detailed description of its dimensions and makeup, in contrast with the brevity of the descriptions of the tribal allocations. This <em>special portion<\/em> was devoted to God and was never to be <em>sold or traded or used by others<\/em>. It was made up of strips that ran from east to west and were allocated to the Levites, the priests, and the city. The area <em>for the ordained priests<\/em> immediately surrounded the Temple and protected it from anything unholy. It was flanked by an area to the north for <em>the Levites<\/em>.<\/p>","summary_ro":"48:9-14 The holy portion was not quite at the exact center of the land; there were seven tribal strips to the north and only five to the south of it. While it was still not exactly central geographically, the spiritual center had apparently moved a significant distance north from where it used to be in Jerusalem. • The importance of the holy portion set aside for the Lord’s Temple is underlined by the detailed description of its dimensions and makeup, in contrast with the brevity of the descr...","summary_en":"48:9-14 The holy portion was not quite at the exact center of the land; there were seven tribal strips to the north and only five to the south of it. While it was still not exactly central geographically, the spiritual center had apparently moved a significant distance north from where it used to be in Jerusalem. • The importance of the holy portion set aside for the Lord’s Temple is underlined by the detailed description of its dimensions and makeup, in contrast with the brevity of the descr...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":136283,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ezechiel 48:9","title_en":"Study Note: Ezechiel 48:9","content_ro":"<p><strong>48:9-14<\/strong> The holy portion was not quite at the exact center of the land; there were seven tribal strips to the north and only five to the south of it. While it was still not exactly central geographically, the spiritual center had apparently moved a significant distance north from where it used to be in Jerusalem. • The importance of the holy portion <em>set aside for the<\/em> <span>Lord<\/span><em>’s Temple<\/em> is underlined by the detailed description of its dimensions and makeup, in contrast with the brevity of the descriptions of the tribal allocations. This <em>special portion<\/em> was devoted to God and was never to be <em>sold or traded or used by others<\/em>. It was made up of strips that ran from east to west and were allocated to the Levites, the priests, and the city. The area <em>for the ordained priests<\/em> immediately surrounded the Temple and protected it from anything unholy. It was flanked by an area to the north for <em>the Levites<\/em>.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>48:9-14<\/strong> The holy portion was not quite at the exact center of the land; there were seven tribal strips to the north and only five to the south of it. While it was still not exactly central geographically, the spiritual center had apparently moved a significant distance north from where it used to be in Jerusalem. • The importance of the holy portion <em>set aside for the<\/em> <span>Lord<\/span><em>’s Temple<\/em> is underlined by the detailed description of its dimensions and makeup, in contrast with the brevity of the descriptions of the tribal allocations. This <em>special portion<\/em> was devoted to God and was never to be <em>sold or traded or used by others<\/em>. It was made up of strips that ran from east to west and were allocated to the Levites, the priests, and the city. The area <em>for the ordained priests<\/em> immediately surrounded the Temple and protected it from anything unholy. It was flanked by an area to the north for <em>the Levites<\/em>.<\/p>","summary_ro":"48:9-14 The holy portion was not quite at the exact center of the land; there were seven tribal strips to the north and only five to the south of it. While it was still not exactly central geographically, the spiritual center had apparently moved a significant distance north from where it used to be in Jerusalem. • The importance of the holy portion set aside for the Lord’s Temple is underlined by the detailed description of its dimensions and makeup, in contrast with the brevity of the descr...","summary_en":"48:9-14 The holy portion was not quite at the exact center of the land; there were seven tribal strips to the north and only five to the south of it. While it was still not exactly central geographically, the spiritual center had apparently moved a significant distance north from where it used to be in Jerusalem. • The importance of the holy portion set aside for the Lord’s Temple is underlined by the detailed description of its dimensions and makeup, in contrast with the brevity of the descr...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"11":[{"id":41392,"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":69018,"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":96644,"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":124270,"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":33493,"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}],"15":[{"id":53406,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ezechiel 48:15","title_en":"Study Note: Ezechiel 48:15","content_ro":"<p><strong>48:15-20<\/strong> To the south was a narrower strip <em>for public use<\/em> where <em>the city<\/em> was located. The overall shape of the central area was thus a square. The city was a visible symbol and focus of unity for the twelve tribes, and home to residents <em>from the various tribes<\/em>.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>48:15-20<\/strong> To the south was a narrower strip <em>for public use<\/em> where <em>the city<\/em> was located. The overall shape of the central area was thus a square. The city was a visible symbol and focus of unity for the twelve tribes, and home to residents <em>from the various tribes<\/em>.<\/p>","summary_ro":"48:15-20 To the south was a narrower strip for public use where the city was located. The overall shape of the central area was thus a square. The city was a visible symbol and focus of unity for the twelve tribes, and home to residents from the various tribes.","summary_en":"48:15-20 To the south was a narrower strip for public use where the city was located. The overall shape of the central area was thus a square. The city was a visible symbol and focus of unity for the twelve tribes, and home to residents from the various tribes.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":81032,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ezechiel 48:15","title_en":"Study Note: Ezechiel 48:15","content_ro":"<p><strong>48:15-20<\/strong> To the south was a narrower strip <em>for public use<\/em> where <em>the city<\/em> was located. The overall shape of the central area was thus a square. The city was a visible symbol and focus of unity for the twelve tribes, and home to residents <em>from the various tribes<\/em>.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>48:15-20<\/strong> To the south was a narrower strip <em>for public use<\/em> where <em>the city<\/em> was located. The overall shape of the central area was thus a square. The city was a visible symbol and focus of unity for the twelve tribes, and home to residents <em>from the various tribes<\/em>.<\/p>","summary_ro":"48:15-20 To the south was a narrower strip for public use where the city was located. The overall shape of the central area was thus a square. The city was a visible symbol and focus of unity for the twelve tribes, and home to residents from the various tribes.","summary_en":"48:15-20 To the south was a narrower strip for public use where the city was located. The overall shape of the central area was thus a square. The city was a visible symbol and focus of unity for the twelve tribes, and home to residents from the various tribes.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":108658,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ezechiel 48:15","title_en":"Study Note: Ezechiel 48:15","content_ro":"<p><strong>48:15-20<\/strong> To the south was a narrower strip <em>for public use<\/em> where <em>the city<\/em> was located. The overall shape of the central area was thus a square. The city was a visible symbol and focus of unity for the twelve tribes, and home to residents <em>from the various tribes<\/em>.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>48:15-20<\/strong> To the south was a narrower strip <em>for public use<\/em> where <em>the city<\/em> was located. The overall shape of the central area was thus a square. The city was a visible symbol and focus of unity for the twelve tribes, and home to residents <em>from the various tribes<\/em>.<\/p>","summary_ro":"48:15-20 To the south was a narrower strip for public use where the city was located. The overall shape of the central area was thus a square. The city was a visible symbol and focus of unity for the twelve tribes, and home to residents from the various tribes.","summary_en":"48:15-20 To the south was a narrower strip for public use where the city was located. The overall shape of the central area was thus a square. The city was a visible symbol and focus of unity for the twelve tribes, and home to residents from the various tribes.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":136284,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ezechiel 48:15","title_en":"Study Note: Ezechiel 48:15","content_ro":"<p><strong>48:15-20<\/strong> To the south was a narrower strip <em>for public use<\/em> where <em>the city<\/em> was located. The overall shape of the central area was thus a square. The city was a visible symbol and focus of unity for the twelve tribes, and home to residents <em>from the various tribes<\/em>.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>48:15-20<\/strong> To the south was a narrower strip <em>for public use<\/em> where <em>the city<\/em> was located. The overall shape of the central area was thus a square. The city was a visible symbol and focus of unity for the twelve tribes, and home to residents <em>from the various tribes<\/em>.<\/p>","summary_ro":"48:15-20 To the south was a narrower strip for public use where the city was located. The overall shape of the central area was thus a square. The city was a visible symbol and focus of unity for the twelve tribes, and home to residents from the various tribes.","summary_en":"48:15-20 To the south was a narrower strip for public use where the city was located. The overall shape of the central area was thus a square. The city was a visible symbol and focus of unity for the twelve tribes, and home to residents from the various tribes.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"21":[{"id":53407,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ezechiel 48:21","title_en":"Study Note: Ezechiel 48:21","content_ro":"<p><strong>48:21-29<\/strong> The area filling out the rest of the central portion to the east and west of the holy square was assigned to <em>the prince<\/em>. The prince was more important than the rest of the laity, but he was below the priests and Levites. The same message was delivered by the architecture of the Temple complex.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>48:21-29<\/strong> The area filling out the rest of the central portion to the east and west of the holy square was assigned to <em>the prince<\/em>. The prince was more important than the rest of the laity, but he was below the priests and Levites. The same message was delivered by the architecture of the Temple complex.<\/p>","summary_ro":"48:21-29 The area filling out the rest of the central portion to the east and west of the holy square was assigned to the prince. The prince was more important than the rest of the laity, but he was below the priests and Levites. The same message was delivered by the architecture of the Temple complex.","summary_en":"48:21-29 The area filling out the rest of the central portion to the east and west of the holy square was assigned to the prince. The prince was more important than the rest of the laity, but he was below the priests and Levites. The same message was delivered by the architecture of the Temple complex.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":81033,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ezechiel 48:21","title_en":"Study Note: Ezechiel 48:21","content_ro":"<p><strong>48:21-29<\/strong> The area filling out the rest of the central portion to the east and west of the holy square was assigned to <em>the prince<\/em>. The prince was more important than the rest of the laity, but he was below the priests and Levites. The same message was delivered by the architecture of the Temple complex.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>48:21-29<\/strong> The area filling out the rest of the central portion to the east and west of the holy square was assigned to <em>the prince<\/em>. The prince was more important than the rest of the laity, but he was below the priests and Levites. The same message was delivered by the architecture of the Temple complex.<\/p>","summary_ro":"48:21-29 The area filling out the rest of the central portion to the east and west of the holy square was assigned to the prince. The prince was more important than the rest of the laity, but he was below the priests and Levites. The same message was delivered by the architecture of the Temple complex.","summary_en":"48:21-29 The area filling out the rest of the central portion to the east and west of the holy square was assigned to the prince. The prince was more important than the rest of the laity, but he was below the priests and Levites. The same message was delivered by the architecture of the Temple complex.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":108659,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ezechiel 48:21","title_en":"Study Note: Ezechiel 48:21","content_ro":"<p><strong>48:21-29<\/strong> The area filling out the rest of the central portion to the east and west of the holy square was assigned to <em>the prince<\/em>. The prince was more important than the rest of the laity, but he was below the priests and Levites. The same message was delivered by the architecture of the Temple complex.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>48:21-29<\/strong> The area filling out the rest of the central portion to the east and west of the holy square was assigned to <em>the prince<\/em>. The prince was more important than the rest of the laity, but he was below the priests and Levites. The same message was delivered by the architecture of the Temple complex.<\/p>","summary_ro":"48:21-29 The area filling out the rest of the central portion to the east and west of the holy square was assigned to the prince. The prince was more important than the rest of the laity, but he was below the priests and Levites. The same message was delivered by the architecture of the Temple complex.","summary_en":"48:21-29 The area filling out the rest of the central portion to the east and west of the holy square was assigned to the prince. The prince was more important than the rest of the laity, but he was below the priests and Levites. The same message was delivered by the architecture of the Temple complex.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":136285,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ezechiel 48:21","title_en":"Study Note: Ezechiel 48:21","content_ro":"<p><strong>48:21-29<\/strong> The area filling out the rest of the central portion to the east and west of the holy square was assigned to <em>the prince<\/em>. The prince was more important than the rest of the laity, but he was below the priests and Levites. The same message was delivered by the architecture of the Temple complex.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>48:21-29<\/strong> The area filling out the rest of the central portion to the east and west of the holy square was assigned to <em>the prince<\/em>. The prince was more important than the rest of the laity, but he was below the priests and Levites. The same message was delivered by the architecture of the Temple complex.<\/p>","summary_ro":"48:21-29 The area filling out the rest of the central portion to the east and west of the holy square was assigned to the prince. The prince was more important than the rest of the laity, but he was below the priests and Levites. The same message was delivered by the architecture of the Temple complex.","summary_en":"48:21-29 The area filling out the rest of the central portion to the east and west of the holy square was assigned to the prince. The prince was more important than the rest of the laity, but he was below the priests and Levites. The same message was delivered by the architecture of the Temple complex.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"28":[{"id":5747,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Brook of Egypt","title_en":"Brook of Egypt","content_ro":"<h3>BROOK OF EGYPT<\/h3>\n<p>Natural border between the Negev Desert area of Israel and the Sinai Peninsula, about 50 miles (80.5 kilometers) southwest of Gaza. The brook of Egypt, modern Wadi el-Arish, flows only during the rainy season (Nm 34:5; Jos 15:4, 47; 1 Kgs 8:65; 2 Kgs 24:7; 2 Chr 7:8; Is 27:12; Ez 47:19; 48:28). A different Hebrew word, signifying an ever-flowing river, appears in Genesis 15:18, where God spelled out the boundaries of the Promised Land to the patriarch Abraham. That reference may be to the easternmost branch of the Nile (the Pelusiac), which flows into the Mediterranean Sea near modern Port Said, and to the line of ancient fortifications marking Egypt’s border.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>BROOK OF EGYPT<\/h3>\n<p>Natural border between the Negev Desert area of Israel and the Sinai Peninsula, about 50 miles (80.5 kilometers) southwest of Gaza. The brook of Egypt, modern Wadi el-Arish, flows only during the rainy season (Nm 34:5; Jos 15:4, 47; 1 Kgs 8:65; 2 Kgs 24:7; 2 Chr 7:8; Is 27:12; Ez 47:19; 48:28). A different Hebrew word, signifying an ever-flowing river, appears in Genesis 15:18, where God spelled out the boundaries of the Promised Land to the patriarch Abraham. That reference may be to the easternmost branch of the Nile (the Pelusiac), which flows into the Mediterranean Sea near modern Port Said, and to the line of ancient fortifications marking Egypt’s border.<\/p>","summary_ro":"BROOK OF EGYPT Natural border between the Negev Desert area of Israel and the Sinai Peninsula, about 50 miles (80.5 kilometers) southwest of Gaza. The brook of Egypt, modern Wadi el-Arish, flows only during the rainy season (Nm 34:5; Jos 15:4, 47; 1 Kgs 8:65; 2 Kgs 24:7; 2 Chr 7:8; Is 27:12; Ez 47:19; 48:28). A different Hebrew word, signifying an ever-flowing river, appears in Genesis 15:18, where God spelled out the boundaries of the Promised Land to the patriarch Abraham. That reference ma...","summary_en":"BROOK OF EGYPT Natural border between the Negev Desert area of Israel and the Sinai Peninsula, about 50 miles (80.5 kilometers) southwest of Gaza. The brook of Egypt, modern Wadi el-Arish, flows only during the rainy season (Nm 34:5; Jos 15:4, 47; 1 Kgs 8:65; 2 Kgs 24:7; 2 Chr 7:8; Is 27:12; Ez 47:19; 48:28). A different Hebrew word, signifying an ever-flowing river, appears in Genesis 15:18, where God spelled out the boundaries of the Promised Land to the patriarch Abraham. That reference ma...","source":"Articles\/B.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":15526,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Hazazon-Tamar","title_en":"Hazazon-Tamar","content_ro":"<h3>HAZAZON-TAMAR<\/h3>\n<p>City identifiable with En-gedi in 2 Chronicles 20:2. During the time of Abraham, it was inhabited by Amorites who were subdued by Kedorlaomer as he and other eastern kings swept through the area (Gn 14:7). It has been suggested that it may be the Tamar that Solomon fortified (1 Kgs 9:18), placed by Ezekiel southeast of Israel (Ez 47:18-19; 48:28). Wadi Hasasa has apparently been named after the ancient site.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>HAZAZON-TAMAR<\/h3>\n<p>City identifiable with En-gedi in 2 Chronicles 20:2. During the time of Abraham, it was inhabited by Amorites who were subdued by Kedorlaomer as he and other eastern kings swept through the area (Gn 14:7). It has been suggested that it may be the Tamar that Solomon fortified (1 Kgs 9:18), placed by Ezekiel southeast of Israel (Ez 47:18-19; 48:28). Wadi Hasasa has apparently been named after the ancient site.<\/p>","summary_ro":"HAZAZON-TAMAR City identifiable with En-gedi in 2 Chronicles 20:2. During the time of Abraham, it was inhabited by Amorites who were subdued by Kedorlaomer as he and other eastern kings swept through the area (Gn 14:7). It has been suggested that it may be the Tamar that Solomon fortified (1 Kgs 9:18), placed by Ezekiel southeast of Israel (Ez 47:18-19; 48:28). Wadi Hasasa has apparently been named after the ancient site.","summary_en":"HAZAZON-TAMAR City identifiable with En-gedi in 2 Chronicles 20:2. During the time of Abraham, it was inhabited by Amorites who were subdued by Kedorlaomer as he and other eastern kings swept through the area (Gn 14:7). It has been suggested that it may be the Tamar that Solomon fortified (1 Kgs 9:18), placed by Ezekiel southeast of Israel (Ez 47:18-19; 48:28). Wadi Hasasa has apparently been named after the ancient site.","source":"Articles\/H.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":21485,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Kadesh-Barnea Kadesh","title_en":"Kadesh-Barnea Kadesh","content_ro":"<h3>KADESH, KADESH-BARNEA<\/h3>\n<p>Home of the wandering Israelites for nearly 38 years. In the vast area of the Sinai there are two main oases: in the south is Wadi Feiran, near the mountain of Moses (Mt Sinai or Horeb); in the north is Kadesh, or Kadesh-barnea. The former was the place where the law was given; the latter, the main campsite of the 12 tribes during their exodus from Egypt (Dt 1:46).<\/p>\n<p>Kadesh-barnea (Gn 14:7, “En-mishpat”) was raided by Chedorlaomer, king of Elam, during the time of Abraham. In this area Hagar was driven from the tent of Sarah, her mistress (16:14), and here Miriam died and was buried (Nm 20:1). The great contention over water took place here, giving rise to the name Meribah or Meribath-kadesh (Nm 20:2-24; Dt 32:51; Ez 47:19; 48:28). This was also the scene of Korah’s rebellion against the leadership of Moses and Aaron (Nm 16–17). This area would long remain in the memory of the Israelite tribes as the place of their unbelief following the report of the 10 spies and a delay of 38 years before their occupancy of the Promised Land (Ps 95:8-11; cf. Heb 3:7-19).<\/p>\n<p>Because of the water, pasture, and agricultural lands, plus its proximity to Canaan, the Israelites found this area the best spot in which to spend most of their time prior to entering the Promised Land.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Meribah #2; Wilderness Wanderings.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>KADESH, KADESH-BARNEA<\/h3>\n<p>Home of the wandering Israelites for nearly 38 years. In the vast area of the Sinai there are two main oases: in the south is Wadi Feiran, near the mountain of Moses (Mt Sinai or Horeb); in the north is Kadesh, or Kadesh-barnea. The former was the place where the law was given; the latter, the main campsite of the 12 tribes during their exodus from Egypt (Dt 1:46).<\/p>\n<p>Kadesh-barnea (Gn 14:7, “En-mishpat”) was raided by Chedorlaomer, king of Elam, during the time of Abraham. In this area Hagar was driven from the tent of Sarah, her mistress (16:14), and here Miriam died and was buried (Nm 20:1). The great contention over water took place here, giving rise to the name Meribah or Meribath-kadesh (Nm 20:2-24; Dt 32:51; Ez 47:19; 48:28). This was also the scene of Korah’s rebellion against the leadership of Moses and Aaron (Nm 16–17). This area would long remain in the memory of the Israelite tribes as the place of their unbelief following the report of the 10 spies and a delay of 38 years before their occupancy of the Promised Land (Ps 95:8-11; cf. Heb 3:7-19).<\/p>\n<p>Because of the water, pasture, and agricultural lands, plus its proximity to Canaan, the Israelites found this area the best spot in which to spend most of their time prior to entering the Promised Land.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Meribah #2; Wilderness Wanderings.<\/p>","summary_ro":"KADESH, KADESH-BARNEA Home of the wandering Israelites for nearly 38 years. In the vast area of the Sinai there are two main oases: in the south is Wadi Feiran, near the mountain of Moses (Mt Sinai or Horeb); in the north is Kadesh, or Kadesh-barnea. The former was the place where the law was given; the latter, the main campsite of the 12 tribes during their exodus from Egypt (Dt 1:46). Kadesh-barnea (Gn 14:7, “En-mishpat”) was raided by Chedorlaomer, king of Elam, during the time of Abraham....","summary_en":"KADESH, KADESH-BARNEA Home of the wandering Israelites for nearly 38 years. In the vast area of the Sinai there are two main oases: in the south is Wadi Feiran, near the mountain of Moses (Mt Sinai or Horeb); in the north is Kadesh, or Kadesh-barnea. The former was the place where the law was given; the latter, the main campsite of the 12 tribes during their exodus from Egypt (Dt 1:46). Kadesh-barnea (Gn 14:7, “En-mishpat”) was raided by Chedorlaomer, king of Elam, during the time of Abraham....","source":"Articles\/K.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":25265,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Meribah","title_en":"Meribah","content_ro":"<h3>MERIBAH<\/h3>\n<li>1. Noun meaning “strife,” named for a place at Horeb, near Rephidim (Wadi Feiran), where Israel contended with Moses for water near the beginning of the wilderness wanderings (Ex 17:7). This is the place probably alluded to in Deuteronomy 33:8 and Psalm 95:8, and is alternately called Massah.<\/li>\n<li>2. Another place, near Kadesh-barnea in the wilderness of Zin, where Israel also quarreled with Moses for water, and God again provided it from a rock (Nm 20:13, 24; 27:14); alternately called Meribath-kadesh in Deuteronomy 32:51. This episode took place toward the close of the desert wanderings. The waters of Meribah were waters of contention. Here God’s anger was provoked against Moses and Aaron because they did not listen to him and sanctify him before Israel. Instead of speaking to the rock as God commanded, Moses—angered at Israel’s hardness of heart—struck the rock twice with his rod. The psalmist records that here God tested Israel (Ps 81:7), and Israel’s subsequent rebellion prodded Moses to sin (106:32). Meribah-kadesh is mentioned as a place on Israel’s southern border (Ez 47:19; 48:28).<\/li>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Massah and Meribah.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>MERIBAH<\/h3>\n<li>1. Noun meaning “strife,” named for a place at Horeb, near Rephidim (Wadi Feiran), where Israel contended with Moses for water near the beginning of the wilderness wanderings (Ex 17:7). This is the place probably alluded to in Deuteronomy 33:8 and Psalm 95:8, and is alternately called Massah.<\/li>\n<li>2. Another place, near Kadesh-barnea in the wilderness of Zin, where Israel also quarreled with Moses for water, and God again provided it from a rock (Nm 20:13, 24; 27:14); alternately called Meribath-kadesh in Deuteronomy 32:51. This episode took place toward the close of the desert wanderings. The waters of Meribah were waters of contention. Here God’s anger was provoked against Moses and Aaron because they did not listen to him and sanctify him before Israel. Instead of speaking to the rock as God commanded, Moses—angered at Israel’s hardness of heart—struck the rock twice with his rod. The psalmist records that here God tested Israel (Ps 81:7), and Israel’s subsequent rebellion prodded Moses to sin (106:32). Meribah-kadesh is mentioned as a place on Israel’s southern border (Ez 47:19; 48:28).<\/li>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Massah and Meribah.<\/p>","summary_ro":"MERIBAH 1. Noun meaning “strife,” named for a place at Horeb, near Rephidim (Wadi Feiran), where Israel contended with Moses for water near the beginning of the wilderness wanderings (Ex 17:7). This is the place probably alluded to in Deuteronomy 33:8 and Psalm 95:8, and is alternately called Massah. 2. Another place, near Kadesh-barnea in the wilderness of Zin, where Israel also quarreled with Moses for water, and God again provided it from a rock (Nm 20:13, 24; 27:14); alternately called Me...","summary_en":"MERIBAH 1. Noun meaning “strife,” named for a place at Horeb, near Rephidim (Wadi Feiran), where Israel contended with Moses for water near the beginning of the wilderness wanderings (Ex 17:7). This is the place probably alluded to in Deuteronomy 33:8 and Psalm 95:8, and is alternately called Massah. 2. Another place, near Kadesh-barnea in the wilderness of Zin, where Israel also quarreled with Moses for water, and God again provided it from a rock (Nm 20:13, 24; 27:14); alternately called Me...","source":"Articles\/M.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":25268,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Meribath-Kadesh* Meribah-Kadesh","title_en":"Meribath-Kadesh* Meribah-Kadesh","content_ro":"<h3>MERIBAH-KADESH, MERIBATH-KADESH*<\/h3>\n<p>Alternate names for Kadesh-barnea (Dt 32:51; Ez 47:19; 48:28), a place for lengthy encampment by the Israelites during the wilderness wanderings. <em>See<\/em> Kadesh, Kadesh-barnea.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>MERIBAH-KADESH, MERIBATH-KADESH*<\/h3>\n<p>Alternate names for Kadesh-barnea (Dt 32:51; Ez 47:19; 48:28), a place for lengthy encampment by the Israelites during the wilderness wanderings. <em>See<\/em> Kadesh, Kadesh-barnea.<\/p>","summary_ro":"MERIBAH-KADESH, MERIBATH-KADESH* Alternate names for Kadesh-barnea (Dt 32:51; Ez 47:19; 48:28), a place for lengthy encampment by the Israelites during the wilderness wanderings. See Kadesh, Kadesh-barnea.","summary_en":"MERIBAH-KADESH, MERIBATH-KADESH* Alternate names for Kadesh-barnea (Dt 32:51; Ez 47:19; 48:28), a place for lengthy encampment by the Israelites during the wilderness wanderings. See Kadesh, Kadesh-barnea.","source":"Articles\/M.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":36742,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Tamar (Place)","title_en":"Tamar (Place)","content_ro":"<h3>TAMAR (P<span>lace<\/span>)<\/h3>\n<p>City located southwest of the Dead Sea in Judah’s tribe (Ez 47:19; 48:28). Tamar is listed in some Hebrew manuscripts of 1 Kings 9:18 as one of the places built up by Solomon in his campaign to increase the might and grandeur of the Jewish empire. It may have been carefully fortified to safeguard the important trade route between the Elath seaport and southern Arabia.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Tadmor.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>TAMAR (P<span>lace<\/span>)<\/h3>\n<p>City located southwest of the Dead Sea in Judah’s tribe (Ez 47:19; 48:28). Tamar is listed in some Hebrew manuscripts of 1 Kings 9:18 as one of the places built up by Solomon in his campaign to increase the might and grandeur of the Jewish empire. It may have been carefully fortified to safeguard the important trade route between the Elath seaport and southern Arabia.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Tadmor.<\/p>","summary_ro":"TAMAR (Place) City located southwest of the Dead Sea in Judah’s tribe (Ez 47:19; 48:28). Tamar is listed in some Hebrew manuscripts of 1 Kings 9:18 as one of the places built up by Solomon in his campaign to increase the might and grandeur of the Jewish empire. It may have been carefully fortified to safeguard the important trade route between the Elath seaport and southern Arabia. See also Tadmor.","summary_en":"TAMAR (Place) City located southwest of the Dead Sea in Judah’s tribe (Ez 47:19; 48:28). Tamar is listed in some Hebrew manuscripts of 1 Kings 9:18 as one of the places built up by Solomon in his campaign to increase the might and grandeur of the Jewish empire. It may have been carefully fortified to safeguard the important trade route between the Elath seaport and southern Arabia. See also Tadmor.","source":"Articles\/T.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"30":[{"id":53408,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ezechiel 48:30","title_en":"Study Note: Ezechiel 48:30","content_ro":"<p><strong>48:30-31<\/strong> At the end of the book, Ezekiel focuses attention on the <em>exits to the city<\/em><em>,<\/em> highlighting once again the theme of access that runs throughout chs 40–48. Like the Temple, the city was a measured square with twelve gates, one for each of the tribes, which established a focus of tribal unity. Unusually, the three most important gates, named for <em>Reuben<\/em> (the oldest of the sons of Israel), <em>Judah<\/em> (the royal tribe), and <em>Levi<\/em> (the priestly tribe), faced north rather than east. This is because the most important direction was northward toward the Temple, the center of the renewed land. South was the second most important side because it was on the axis that pointed toward the Temple.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>48:30-31<\/strong> At the end of the book, Ezekiel focuses attention on the <em>exits to the city<\/em><em>,<\/em> highlighting once again the theme of access that runs throughout chs 40–48. Like the Temple, the city was a measured square with twelve gates, one for each of the tribes, which established a focus of tribal unity. Unusually, the three most important gates, named for <em>Reuben<\/em> (the oldest of the sons of Israel), <em>Judah<\/em> (the royal tribe), and <em>Levi<\/em> (the priestly tribe), faced north rather than east. This is because the most important direction was northward toward the Temple, the center of the renewed land. South was the second most important side because it was on the axis that pointed toward the Temple.<\/p>","summary_ro":"48:30-31 At the end of the book, Ezekiel focuses attention on the exits to the city, highlighting once again the theme of access that runs throughout chs 40–48. Like the Temple, the city was a measured square with twelve gates, one for each of the tribes, which established a focus of tribal unity. Unusually, the three most important gates, named for Reuben (the oldest of the sons of Israel), Judah (the royal tribe), and Levi (the priestly tribe), faced north rather than east. This is because ...","summary_en":"48:30-31 At the end of the book, Ezekiel focuses attention on the exits to the city, highlighting once again the theme of access that runs throughout chs 40–48. Like the Temple, the city was a measured square with twelve gates, one for each of the tribes, which established a focus of tribal unity. Unusually, the three most important gates, named for Reuben (the oldest of the sons of Israel), Judah (the royal tribe), and Levi (the priestly tribe), faced north rather than east. This is because ...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":81034,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ezechiel 48:30","title_en":"Study Note: Ezechiel 48:30","content_ro":"<p><strong>48:30-31<\/strong> At the end of the book, Ezekiel focuses attention on the <em>exits to the city<\/em><em>,<\/em> highlighting once again the theme of access that runs throughout chs 40–48. Like the Temple, the city was a measured square with twelve gates, one for each of the tribes, which established a focus of tribal unity. Unusually, the three most important gates, named for <em>Reuben<\/em> (the oldest of the sons of Israel), <em>Judah<\/em> (the royal tribe), and <em>Levi<\/em> (the priestly tribe), faced north rather than east. This is because the most important direction was northward toward the Temple, the center of the renewed land. South was the second most important side because it was on the axis that pointed toward the Temple.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>48:30-31<\/strong> At the end of the book, Ezekiel focuses attention on the <em>exits to the city<\/em><em>,<\/em> highlighting once again the theme of access that runs throughout chs 40–48. Like the Temple, the city was a measured square with twelve gates, one for each of the tribes, which established a focus of tribal unity. Unusually, the three most important gates, named for <em>Reuben<\/em> (the oldest of the sons of Israel), <em>Judah<\/em> (the royal tribe), and <em>Levi<\/em> (the priestly tribe), faced north rather than east. This is because the most important direction was northward toward the Temple, the center of the renewed land. South was the second most important side because it was on the axis that pointed toward the Temple.<\/p>","summary_ro":"48:30-31 At the end of the book, Ezekiel focuses attention on the exits to the city, highlighting once again the theme of access that runs throughout chs 40–48. Like the Temple, the city was a measured square with twelve gates, one for each of the tribes, which established a focus of tribal unity. Unusually, the three most important gates, named for Reuben (the oldest of the sons of Israel), Judah (the royal tribe), and Levi (the priestly tribe), faced north rather than east. This is because ...","summary_en":"48:30-31 At the end of the book, Ezekiel focuses attention on the exits to the city, highlighting once again the theme of access that runs throughout chs 40–48. Like the Temple, the city was a measured square with twelve gates, one for each of the tribes, which established a focus of tribal unity. Unusually, the three most important gates, named for Reuben (the oldest of the sons of Israel), Judah (the royal tribe), and Levi (the priestly tribe), faced north rather than east. This is because ...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":108660,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ezechiel 48:30","title_en":"Study Note: Ezechiel 48:30","content_ro":"<p><strong>48:30-31<\/strong> At the end of the book, Ezekiel focuses attention on the <em>exits to the city<\/em><em>,<\/em> highlighting once again the theme of access that runs throughout chs 40–48. Like the Temple, the city was a measured square with twelve gates, one for each of the tribes, which established a focus of tribal unity. Unusually, the three most important gates, named for <em>Reuben<\/em> (the oldest of the sons of Israel), <em>Judah<\/em> (the royal tribe), and <em>Levi<\/em> (the priestly tribe), faced north rather than east. This is because the most important direction was northward toward the Temple, the center of the renewed land. South was the second most important side because it was on the axis that pointed toward the Temple.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>48:30-31<\/strong> At the end of the book, Ezekiel focuses attention on the <em>exits to the city<\/em><em>,<\/em> highlighting once again the theme of access that runs throughout chs 40–48. Like the Temple, the city was a measured square with twelve gates, one for each of the tribes, which established a focus of tribal unity. Unusually, the three most important gates, named for <em>Reuben<\/em> (the oldest of the sons of Israel), <em>Judah<\/em> (the royal tribe), and <em>Levi<\/em> (the priestly tribe), faced north rather than east. This is because the most important direction was northward toward the Temple, the center of the renewed land. South was the second most important side because it was on the axis that pointed toward the Temple.<\/p>","summary_ro":"48:30-31 At the end of the book, Ezekiel focuses attention on the exits to the city, highlighting once again the theme of access that runs throughout chs 40–48. Like the Temple, the city was a measured square with twelve gates, one for each of the tribes, which established a focus of tribal unity. Unusually, the three most important gates, named for Reuben (the oldest of the sons of Israel), Judah (the royal tribe), and Levi (the priestly tribe), faced north rather than east. This is because ...","summary_en":"48:30-31 At the end of the book, Ezekiel focuses attention on the exits to the city, highlighting once again the theme of access that runs throughout chs 40–48. Like the Temple, the city was a measured square with twelve gates, one for each of the tribes, which established a focus of tribal unity. Unusually, the three most important gates, named for Reuben (the oldest of the sons of Israel), Judah (the royal tribe), and Levi (the priestly tribe), faced north rather than east. This is because ...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":136286,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ezechiel 48:30","title_en":"Study Note: Ezechiel 48:30","content_ro":"<p><strong>48:30-31<\/strong> At the end of the book, Ezekiel focuses attention on the <em>exits to the city<\/em><em>,<\/em> highlighting once again the theme of access that runs throughout chs 40–48. Like the Temple, the city was a measured square with twelve gates, one for each of the tribes, which established a focus of tribal unity. Unusually, the three most important gates, named for <em>Reuben<\/em> (the oldest of the sons of Israel), <em>Judah<\/em> (the royal tribe), and <em>Levi<\/em> (the priestly tribe), faced north rather than east. This is because the most important direction was northward toward the Temple, the center of the renewed land. South was the second most important side because it was on the axis that pointed toward the Temple.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>48:30-31<\/strong> At the end of the book, Ezekiel focuses attention on the <em>exits to the city<\/em><em>,<\/em> highlighting once again the theme of access that runs throughout chs 40–48. Like the Temple, the city was a measured square with twelve gates, one for each of the tribes, which established a focus of tribal unity. Unusually, the three most important gates, named for <em>Reuben<\/em> (the oldest of the sons of Israel), <em>Judah<\/em> (the royal tribe), and <em>Levi<\/em> (the priestly tribe), faced north rather than east. This is because the most important direction was northward toward the Temple, the center of the renewed land. South was the second most important side because it was on the axis that pointed toward the Temple.<\/p>","summary_ro":"48:30-31 At the end of the book, Ezekiel focuses attention on the exits to the city, highlighting once again the theme of access that runs throughout chs 40–48. Like the Temple, the city was a measured square with twelve gates, one for each of the tribes, which established a focus of tribal unity. Unusually, the three most important gates, named for Reuben (the oldest of the sons of Israel), Judah (the royal tribe), and Levi (the priestly tribe), faced north rather than east. This is because ...","summary_en":"48:30-31 At the end of the book, Ezekiel focuses attention on the exits to the city, highlighting once again the theme of access that runs throughout chs 40–48. Like the Temple, the city was a measured square with twelve gates, one for each of the tribes, which established a focus of tribal unity. Unusually, the three most important gates, named for Reuben (the oldest of the sons of Israel), Judah (the royal tribe), and Levi (the priestly tribe), faced north rather than east. This is because ...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"32":[{"id":53409,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ezechiel 48:32","title_en":"Study Note: Ezechiel 48:32","content_ro":"<p><strong>48:32-34<\/strong> The east-facing gates were assigned to the children of Rachel—<em>Joseph, Benjamin, and<\/em> (through her maidservant) <em>Dan<\/em>. The <em>south . . . gates<\/em> were assigned to <em>Simeon, Issachar, and Zebulun<\/em><em>,<\/em> Leah’s sons, whose lands would be south of the holy square. The least favored <em>west . . . gates<\/em> were assigned to the descendants of the maidservants Bilhah and Zilpah, <em>Gad, Asher, and Naphtali<\/em>.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>48:32-34<\/strong> The east-facing gates were assigned to the children of Rachel—<em>Joseph, Benjamin, and<\/em> (through her maidservant) <em>Dan<\/em>. The <em>south . . . gates<\/em> were assigned to <em>Simeon, Issachar, and Zebulun<\/em><em>,<\/em> Leah’s sons, whose lands would be south of the holy square. The least favored <em>west . . . gates<\/em> were assigned to the descendants of the maidservants Bilhah and Zilpah, <em>Gad, Asher, and Naphtali<\/em>.<\/p>","summary_ro":"48:32-34 The east-facing gates were assigned to the children of Rachel—Joseph, Benjamin, and (through her maidservant) Dan. The south . . . gates were assigned to Simeon, Issachar, and Zebulun, Leah’s sons, whose lands would be south of the holy square. The least favored west . . . gates were assigned to the descendants of the maidservants Bilhah and Zilpah, Gad, Asher, and Naphtali.","summary_en":"48:32-34 The east-facing gates were assigned to the children of Rachel—Joseph, Benjamin, and (through her maidservant) Dan. The south . . . gates were assigned to Simeon, Issachar, and Zebulun, Leah’s sons, whose lands would be south of the holy square. The least favored west . . . gates were assigned to the descendants of the maidservants Bilhah and Zilpah, Gad, Asher, and Naphtali.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":81035,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ezechiel 48:32","title_en":"Study Note: Ezechiel 48:32","content_ro":"<p><strong>48:32-34<\/strong> The east-facing gates were assigned to the children of Rachel—<em>Joseph, Benjamin, and<\/em> (through her maidservant) <em>Dan<\/em>. The <em>south . . . gates<\/em> were assigned to <em>Simeon, Issachar, and Zebulun<\/em><em>,<\/em> Leah’s sons, whose lands would be south of the holy square. The least favored <em>west . . . gates<\/em> were assigned to the descendants of the maidservants Bilhah and Zilpah, <em>Gad, Asher, and Naphtali<\/em>.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>48:32-34<\/strong> The east-facing gates were assigned to the children of Rachel—<em>Joseph, Benjamin, and<\/em> (through her maidservant) <em>Dan<\/em>. The <em>south . . . gates<\/em> were assigned to <em>Simeon, Issachar, and Zebulun<\/em><em>,<\/em> Leah’s sons, whose lands would be south of the holy square. The least favored <em>west . . . gates<\/em> were assigned to the descendants of the maidservants Bilhah and Zilpah, <em>Gad, Asher, and Naphtali<\/em>.<\/p>","summary_ro":"48:32-34 The east-facing gates were assigned to the children of Rachel—Joseph, Benjamin, and (through her maidservant) Dan. The south . . . gates were assigned to Simeon, Issachar, and Zebulun, Leah’s sons, whose lands would be south of the holy square. The least favored west . . . gates were assigned to the descendants of the maidservants Bilhah and Zilpah, Gad, Asher, and Naphtali.","summary_en":"48:32-34 The east-facing gates were assigned to the children of Rachel—Joseph, Benjamin, and (through her maidservant) Dan. The south . . . gates were assigned to Simeon, Issachar, and Zebulun, Leah’s sons, whose lands would be south of the holy square. The least favored west . . . gates were assigned to the descendants of the maidservants Bilhah and Zilpah, Gad, Asher, and Naphtali.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":108661,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ezechiel 48:32","title_en":"Study Note: Ezechiel 48:32","content_ro":"<p><strong>48:32-34<\/strong> The east-facing gates were assigned to the children of Rachel—<em>Joseph, Benjamin, and<\/em> (through her maidservant) <em>Dan<\/em>. The <em>south . . . gates<\/em> were assigned to <em>Simeon, Issachar, and Zebulun<\/em><em>,<\/em> Leah’s sons, whose lands would be south of the holy square. The least favored <em>west . . . gates<\/em> were assigned to the descendants of the maidservants Bilhah and Zilpah, <em>Gad, Asher, and Naphtali<\/em>.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>48:32-34<\/strong> The east-facing gates were assigned to the children of Rachel—<em>Joseph, Benjamin, and<\/em> (through her maidservant) <em>Dan<\/em>. The <em>south . . . gates<\/em> were assigned to <em>Simeon, Issachar, and Zebulun<\/em><em>,<\/em> Leah’s sons, whose lands would be south of the holy square. The least favored <em>west . . . gates<\/em> were assigned to the descendants of the maidservants Bilhah and Zilpah, <em>Gad, Asher, and Naphtali<\/em>.<\/p>","summary_ro":"48:32-34 The east-facing gates were assigned to the children of Rachel—Joseph, Benjamin, and (through her maidservant) Dan. The south . . . gates were assigned to Simeon, Issachar, and Zebulun, Leah’s sons, whose lands would be south of the holy square. The least favored west . . . gates were assigned to the descendants of the maidservants Bilhah and Zilpah, Gad, Asher, and Naphtali.","summary_en":"48:32-34 The east-facing gates were assigned to the children of Rachel—Joseph, Benjamin, and (through her maidservant) Dan. The south . . . gates were assigned to Simeon, Issachar, and Zebulun, Leah’s sons, whose lands would be south of the holy square. The least favored west . . . gates were assigned to the descendants of the maidservants Bilhah and Zilpah, Gad, Asher, and Naphtali.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":136287,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ezechiel 48:32","title_en":"Study Note: Ezechiel 48:32","content_ro":"<p><strong>48:32-34<\/strong> The east-facing gates were assigned to the children of Rachel—<em>Joseph, Benjamin, and<\/em> (through her maidservant) <em>Dan<\/em>. The <em>south . . . gates<\/em> were assigned to <em>Simeon, Issachar, and Zebulun<\/em><em>,<\/em> Leah’s sons, whose lands would be south of the holy square. The least favored <em>west . . . gates<\/em> were assigned to the descendants of the maidservants Bilhah and Zilpah, <em>Gad, Asher, and Naphtali<\/em>.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>48:32-34<\/strong> The east-facing gates were assigned to the children of Rachel—<em>Joseph, Benjamin, and<\/em> (through her maidservant) <em>Dan<\/em>. The <em>south . . . gates<\/em> were assigned to <em>Simeon, Issachar, and Zebulun<\/em><em>,<\/em> Leah’s sons, whose lands would be south of the holy square. The least favored <em>west . . . gates<\/em> were assigned to the descendants of the maidservants Bilhah and Zilpah, <em>Gad, Asher, and Naphtali<\/em>.<\/p>","summary_ro":"48:32-34 The east-facing gates were assigned to the children of Rachel—Joseph, Benjamin, and (through her maidservant) Dan. The south . . . gates were assigned to Simeon, Issachar, and Zebulun, Leah’s sons, whose lands would be south of the holy square. The least favored west . . . gates were assigned to the descendants of the maidservants Bilhah and Zilpah, Gad, Asher, and Naphtali.","summary_en":"48:32-34 The east-facing gates were assigned to the children of Rachel—Joseph, Benjamin, and (through her maidservant) Dan. The south . . . gates were assigned to Simeon, Issachar, and Zebulun, Leah’s sons, whose lands would be south of the holy square. The least favored west . . . gates were assigned to the descendants of the maidservants Bilhah and Zilpah, Gad, Asher, and Naphtali.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"35":[{"id":11747,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Book of Ezekiel","title_en":"Book of Ezekiel","content_ro":"<h3>EZEKIEL, Book of<\/h3>\n<p>Prophetic book of the OT, originating in the time of the Babylonian exile.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Author<\/p>\n<p>• Date and Background<\/p>\n<p>• Content<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Author\">Author<\/p>\n<p>Ezekiel was the son of Buzi (1:3), a member of a priestly family. It is unclear whether he actually served in the temple as a priest, but such was his training. His writings show that he knew the regulations for sacrifices, the rituals, and the people’s expectations of a priest. In exile Ezekiel the priest spoke God’s word about the future of the temple to his fellow exiles. Settled at Tel-abib, on the canal of Kebar, the thousands of deportees eked out a meager existence. They hoped for a speedy return to Judah and a change for the better in the international situation. Their hope was enflamed by the spirited preaching of false prophets, likened to jackals among the ruins (13:4). They piously said, “The Lord declares . . . ,” but they were actually self-commissioned (v 6). They deceived the people with a message of peace at a time when God’s judgment was about to be poured out on his people (v 10). They had led the people to distrust prophecy to such an extent that a proverb circulated among the people that “the days grow long, and every vision comes to nought” (12:22). Much time had passed since visions of God’s judgment had been given to the people, and nothing could be interpreted as a fulfillment of those visions. Ezekiel was called to serve his community by symbolic acts, visions, and verbal messages in order to convince the people that God’s judgment was imminent (v 23).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"DateandBackground\">Date and Background<\/p>\n<p>The ministry of the prophet Ezekiel can be understood best against the backdrop of his time. If, as the church father Origen believed, the vague reference “in the thirtieth year” (1:1) marks the prophet’s age at the time of his first vision, Ezekiel was born during the rule of King Josiah of Judah (c. 640–609 <span>BC<\/span>). Josiah was the grandson of King Manasseh, whose sacrilegious acts had brought God’s judgment on the kingdom of Judah (2 Kgs 21:10-15).<\/p>\n<p>Though Judah’s political situation was perilous, Josiah led the nation in a radical reformation that began with the finding of the “Book of the Law” (2 Kgs 22) in the year that Ezekiel was born (c. 621 <span>BC<\/span>). Idolatry was done away with and the people turned back to God, but God’s judgment on Judah was unchangeable (23:26-27). Josiah erred in trying to make Judah a kingdom with which other states had to reckon. He was threatened when the Egyptian pharaoh Neco passed through Judah on his way to aid the weakened Assyrian kingdom. Josiah marched to meet the Egyptian forces, but his troops were unable to stand against the Egyptians, and he died in battle (v 29). Egypt took control of Judah, and Pharaoh Neco placed Jehoiakim in power over Jerusalem. Egyptian control did not last long, however, for in 605 <span>BC<\/span> Egypt and Assyria were defeated by Babylonia’s king Nebuchadnezzar at Carchemish. The Babylonians then pushed south to Jerusalem, and the first deportation of Judean leaders (among them the prophet Daniel) took place.<\/p>\n<p>Jehoiakim was permitted to continue ruling over Judah as a vassal king of Nebuchadnezzar. But his dealings with Egypt brought the emperor’s wrath down upon him. Before the Babylonians could address the Judean situation, Jehoiakim died and his son Jehoiachin was crowned. When the Babylonian forces arrived at the gates of Jerusalem, Jehoiachin and thousands of the aristocracy were taken to Babylon (2 Kgs 24:10-17). Among those deportees was Ezekiel, then about 25 years old.<\/p>\n<p>Although the book says otherwise, many scholars think that Ezekiel lived and taught in Judah for the duration of the siege and the fall of Jerusalem (586 <span>BC<\/span>). They conclude this from Ezekiel’s familiarity with idolatry in the temple and his vivid descriptions of Jerusalem’s last days (Ez 8:11). Others believe that Ezekiel ministered both to the exiled community and to the Judeans living in Judah. Neither interpretation does full justice to the claims of the book itself. Ezekiel was exiled in 597 <span>BC<\/span>. He was called to bring God’s word to the deportees at Tel-abib; he was granted a vision of the horrible practices in the temple court; and he was familiar with Jerusalem and Judah from having lived there and from reports on affairs in Jerusalem coming to the exiles through messengers. Jeremiah, Ezekiel’s contemporary, was prophesying in Jerusalem, but there is no evidence that Jeremiah and Ezekiel knew of each other’s ministry. If Ezekiel had brought God’s word to Jerusalem during the siege, some reference to Jeremiah might appear in his writings. If Jeremiah was supported by Ezekiel’s ministry in Jerusalem, he probably would have included a positive word for his colleague in his book. The book of Ezekiel plainly says that Ezekiel lived and preached in exile (see 1:1-3; 11:24-25).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Content\">Content<\/p>\n<p>The prophecy of Ezekiel is easily outlined by subject matter and chronology. The chronology of the period permits a division before and after 586 <span>BC<\/span> (the fall of Jerusalem). Chapters 1–24 cover the pre-586 ministry of Ezekiel, whereas chapters 33–48 represent his post-586 ministry. Chapters 25–32 (oracles against the foreign nations) function as a transition between the book’s two major divisions.<\/p>\n<p>The book’s outline according to subject matter divides into four parts: Ezekiel’s call (1:1–3:21); prophecies of judgment against Israel (3:22–24:27); oracles against the nations (25:1–32:32); and proclamation of hope (33:1–48:35).<\/p>\n<h5>Ezekiel’s Call (1:1–3:21)<\/h5>\n<p>The prophet’s call in one sense was similar to that of Isaiah and Jeremiah. Isaiah received his mission in a vision of God’s glory in the temple (Is 6). Jeremiah was called unexpectedly in his youth, and received signs that solemnly set forth the nature of his mission (Jer 1:11-15). The call of Ezekiel combined those two elements. Revelation of God’s glory to the prophet at the same time revealed the nature of the prophet’s mission. Ezekiel’s call contained a full description of God’s glory. Isaiah briefly stated that he saw the Lord enthroned in the temple, and he concentrated on the seraphim representing and magnifying God’s glory. Ezekiel elaborated on the revelation of the Lord’s glory as well as on the ministering angels who went before the Lord as part of his royal entourage. The vision of God’s glory, though difficult to understand, is the key to the book of Ezekiel.<\/p>\n<p>Ezekiel, as a priest, was concerned about the future of the temple. That sacred place had been ordained by God as his home among his people. The glory, presence, and holiness of God were symbolized in the temple (see 1 Kgs 8:10-11). In exile Ezekiel could not serve his people as a priest, for they were far from Jerusalem, the city God had chosen. Against all expectations the Lord revealed himself to Ezekiel in the land of Babylon. In calling Ezekiel to a prophetic ministry, God assured his servant that he had not forsaken his people, even though they had been banished from the Promised Land.<\/p>\n<p>The prophet’s vision began with a storm. As a large cloud approached from the north, Ezekiel saw a brightness surrounding the cloud, four creatures, and four wheels. The combination of creatures and wheels suggests that the Lord appeared in a chariot. God’s chariot is a familiar OT representation of his coming in judgment (see Is 66:15-16). The wheels within wheels and the position of the four living creatures may signify God’s total control over the whole earth, so he could move his “chariot of judgment” in any direction. It is also possible that the living creatures with their four faces, and the wheels full of eyes, may be separate symbols showing that God sees all that happens and thereby knows the plight of the exiles. In the vision the prophet’s attention was drawn to a throne above the heads of the creatures. On the throne was “the appearance of the likeness of the glory of the <span>Lord<\/span>” (1:28). In his vision of God’s coming in judgment, Ezekiel received his call to the prophetic ministry: “Son of man, I send you to the people of Israel, to a nation of rebels who have rebelled against me” (2:3, <span>rsv<\/span>). During a dark hour of Israel’s history, Ezekiel had to prophesy, rebuke his fellow exiles (3:11), and be responsible as a watchman over the house of Israel (3:17; cf. 33:1-9). Symbolic of his mission was a scroll filled with lamentations and woe (2:9-10), which when eaten became sweet as honey (3:1-3). Difficult as the mission was, God’s presence and the certain fulfillment of the prophecies sweetened Ezekiel’s task. Such encouragement was intended to take away any fear of the rebellious Israelites (2:6-7). Instead of being elated with his mission, however, Ezekiel became despondent.<\/p>\n<p>A week later, the word of the Lord came to Ezekiel to remind him of his important role as a watchman (3:16-17). Ezekiel became responsible for Israel as a nation, not just for individuals. His witness to Israel had the express aim of national repentance (vv 18-19).<\/p>\n<p>Ezekiel was confined to his house by God (3:24-25). The house ministry was to be carried on only with those Israelites who sought God’s will, for the Lord had abandoned those who continued in their apostasy. The prophetic word would not help the apostates (v 26). The principle of Ezekiel’s ministry is found in 3:27: “Whenever I give you a message, I will loosen your tongue and let you speak. Then you will say to them, ‘This is what the Sovereign <span>Lord<\/span> says!’ Some of them will listen, but some will ignore you, for they are rebels” (<span>nlt<\/span>; cf. Mt 11:15; 13:43).<\/p>\n<h5>Prophecies of Judgment against Israel (3:22–24:27)<\/h5>\n<p>Symbolism figures prominently in Ezekiel’s writing. His priestly background and preparation probably suited him to receive and communicate God’s word in symbolic acts and speech. Chapters 4 and 5 contain four symbolic acts: (1) Jerusalem’s siege is portrayed on a brick (Ez 4:1-3); (2) Israel’s iniquity is represented by Ezekiel’s lying on his sides (vv 4-8); (3) Jerusalem’s grief and horror in the last days of the siege are represented by Ezekiel’s food and drink (vv 9-17); (4) Jerusalem’s fate is represented by the prophet’s hair being cut off (5:1-4).<\/p>\n<p>Ezekiel’s instructions were further illuminated by God’s explanation of Israel’s apostasy (5:6-7) and his judgment on Israel (vv 8-12). The judgment will last until the Israelites admit that in covenant faithfulness their Lord has inflicted righteous judgment on them (v 13).<\/p>\n<p>God would direct his judgment first against the people and the city of Jerusalem. Next in line were the mountains of Israel (ch 6) and the land (ch 7). God’s wrath included the cities and cultic sites in the hill country of Judah, leaving no protection for the people (6:3-6). Abominations that were practiced throughout the land caused God’s judgment to fall on the land as well as on the people (7:2-3, 10-11, 23). But because God is righteous, he judged the people according to their ways of life, desiring that they would once more acknowledge him as their God (7:27).<\/p>\n<p>The prophet then (chs 8–11) focused on the abominations practiced in Jerusalem, particularly idolatry in the temple courts, which caused the judgment announced in chapters 1–7. An idol had been erected in the inner court (8:3-5). By the wall of the court, elders of the city were paying homage to the idols that surrounded the court (vv 11-12). Closer to the temple, women were weeping for the god Tammuz (v 14), and men were worshiping the sun (v 16). In preparation for the ultimate judgment on the land, the prophet placed a mark on the foreheads of the few faithful Israelites so that they would survive (9:4-6). Then (ch 10), the glory of God, which had filled the temple from the time of Solomon, gradually left: “Then the glory of the <span>Lord<\/span> went up from the city and stopped above the mountain to the east” (11:23, <span>nlt<\/span>). The people, now without divine protection, were being handed over to the Babylonians (v 9).<\/p>\n<p>The message of doom for Jerusalem contains four elements of hope: restoration of the people (11:17), restoration of the land (v 17), purification of the people (v 18), and renewed fellowship between God and his people (vv 19-20). The prophet develops those four themes in chapters 33–48.<\/p>\n<p>The visions of chapters 10 and 11 made clear that when God removed his presence from Jerusalem, the exile was approaching. Those who were already in Babylon were unwilling to believe that such an extensive devastation of Jerusalem would happen or that the people would all be exiled and the land become desolate.<\/p>\n<p>Ezekiel acted out the certainty of God’s word of judgment by packing his bags and showing the baggage to his fellow exiles. First, he placed the bags in the courtyard outside his modest home. Next, he went out by making a hole through the wall. Finally, the prophet walked about the settlement with his bags in full view. Skeptical observers did not understand Ezekiel and probably thought he was crazy. The believers who saw him understood. His strange actions dramatized how the king’s aides would do all they could to help King Zedekiah escape just before the fall of Jerusalem. Second Kings 25 tells how the king and his soldiers left Jerusalem for the wilderness, to be overtaken by the Babylonians at Jericho and brought before Nebuchadnezzar at Riblah. As a captive, Zedekiah witnessed the murder of his sons; then his eyes were put out, and he was sent into exile with the other Judeans (cf. Ez 12:13). The prophet’s explanation concluded with a word of comfort. Because of his covenant with Abraham, God promised not to destroy the people completely. A remnant who overcame the sword, famine, and pestilence would live to tell the story of God’s judgment (vv 15-16).<\/p>\n<p>Ezekiel further illustrated the nation’s plight by eating as though full of fear, depicting the great trauma that all of Judah’s inhabitants would soon undergo.<\/p>\n<p>Both symbolic acts, packing his belongings and eating, emphasized the truthfulness of God’s word. The people needed to face the nature of their God: He is magnificent, and when he speaks, his words are powerful and come to pass. Thus, the devastation of the land and the people’s exile were a fulfillment of God’s word through the prophets. The judgment was meant to produce a recognition of the Lord, repentance, and a return to God. Some in Judah doubted the efficacy of God’s prophecies, saying, “Time passes, making a liar of every prophet” (12:22). Others thought God’s word would come true in the distant future (v 27). The prevailing attitude of distrust in God’s word had been stimulated by the popular preaching of false prophets (ch 13). Never commissioned by the Lord, they deceived God’s people by lying and misdirecting them with messages of peace (vv 8-10). Wickedness, lying, and deceit were encouraged among the people by such false prophets (v 22). The magnitude of their sin and their great responsibility for Judah’s fall would be matched by the Lord’s heavy judgment. Yet God would save his people from such evil and will prepare a righteous nation with whom to maintain his covenant (v 23).<\/p>\n<p>The certainty of the judgment has been connected with the truthfulness of God’s word. Ezekiel’s difficult task of affirming the doom of Jerusalem to stubborn hearers was intensified by the people’s idolatry. Their whole way of life denied the existence of God. They practiced idolatry in their worship, and they had set up idols in their hearts (14:3). Before the covenant with God could be restored, they had to be purified from their idolatry. Even so, repentance would not guarantee immunity from judgment. Sword, famine, wild beasts, and plagues would ravage the population (v 21). After the execution of his judgment, God would take back those survivors who had turned to him for mercy. God would surely accomplish all that he intended for his people’s good (v 23).<\/p>\n<p>In chapters 15–17 Ezekiel uses three parables to set forth the apostasy, present uselessness, and judgment of Israel. Jerusalem and Judah are compared to a piece of charred wood, an adulterous woman, and a vine.<\/p>\n<p>Chapter 15 reviews Jerusalem’s case. Jerusalem is compared to a piece of wood, both ends of which have been charred with fire, so that the wood is of no value. As the whole piece of wood is burned instead of being saved, so Jerusalem would undergo complete devastation (15:7-8).<\/p>\n<p>Chapter 16 presents God’s case against Jerusalem from a different perspective, stressing his care for Jerusalem in the past. The beginnings of her history are compared to the birth of a female child, left abandoned by her mother (16:3-5). God adopted the child and washed and clothed her (vv 6-7). He made a covenant with her (v 8), making her his own possession. He generously gave her all the fine things of life (vv 9-13). In the height of her development, Jerusalem’s fame spread to the nations (v 14). Her self-reliance made her a spiritual prostitute as she took up the religious practices and way of life of the nations (vv 15-34). The cities of Sodom (Gn 19) and Samaria (2 Kgs 17:6), known for their immorality, are called Jerusalem’s sisters (Ez 16:46). They had been judged by God, but the corruption of those cities was little compared to the lewdness of Jerusalem (vv 48-51). Thus, Jerusalem also would surely fall and become desolate. Yet Ezekiel anticipates the judgment’s final outcome; Jerusalem will be restored to covenantal blessing (vv 62-63) after her repentance.<\/p>\n<p>The third parable (ch 17) focuses on God’s sovereignty over political developments. Assyria was no longer a power to be reckoned with. Babylon and Egypt both exercised dominion, although the balance of power was veering in favor of Babylon. Their extension of power is likened to an eagle. Nebuchadnezzar, pictured as “a great eagle with broad wings full of many-colored feathers,” took control over the affairs of Judah by removing Jehoiachin, “the highest branch of a cedar tree,” from office and by exiling him with young leaders of the Judean state (17:3-4). Ezekiel was among them. Nebuchadnezzar let the Judeans control their own affairs under Zedekiah but expected them to be subject to Babylon and not to any other power. But Judah (likened to a vine) tried to ally itself with Pharaoh Hophra of Egypt, “another great eagle with broad wings and full plumage” (v 7), against Nebuchadnezzar. Zedekiah’s folly in turning to Egypt would cause Nebuchadnezzar to pull up the vine by its roots and make it wither (vv 9-10). In explaining the parable, God told the exiles that Judah’s fall was a result of its unfaithfulness to King Nebuchadnezzar, to whom Judah owed allegiance by covenant (vv 13-18). Judah’s unfaithfulness thus extended to all of its relationships: religious, cultural, and political. After the exile, God promised, he would restore his people to their land under a Messiah, “a tender shoot” (v 22). The messianic rule is signified by the young twig, which when planted in the land will become a magnificent cedar, giving shade and protection to the birds. Chapter 17 is an inspiring affirmation of the sovereignty of God in human affairs (“All the trees will know that it is I, the <span>Lord<\/span>, who cuts down the tall tree and helps the short tree to grow tall. It is I who makes the green tree wither and gives new life to the dead tree”—17:24, <span>nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>Chapters 18–22 contain Ezekiel’s oracles to Judah, its leaders, and the exiles. First, he enunciates God’s standard of righteousness: “The person who sins will be the one who dies” (18:4, <span>nlt<\/span>). The people are charging God with injustice, for they believe themselves to be under God’s judgment for the sins of their ancestors (vv 25-29). Although the Ten Commandments do say that God may punish “the sins of their parents to the third and the fourth generations” (Ex 20:5, <span>nlt<\/span>), the prophet vindicates God’s justice, telling the people that they are not being punished merely for their ancestors’ sin. Each person must be directly accountable to God; the sinner will die in wickedness, and the righteous will live by righteousness. A life of faithfulness to God’s moral and civil law will be rewarded (Ez 18:5-9). Even if one’s father was a sinner, the father’s sin is not transferable (vv 14-18). God is ready to forgive any sinner who repents (v 27). The prophet’s vindication of God’s justice becomes a call to repentance. The sinners in Judah and in exile were thus warned of the consequences of their evil, and were exhorted to return to their God and his standard of right and wrong (vv 31-32).<\/p>\n<p>Chapter 19 contains two parables in the form of a lamentation. The first portrays a lioness and her two cubs. The lioness is Hamutal, the wife of King Josiah (2 Kgs 23:31), who bore two sons: Jehoahaz and Zedekiah. Jehoahaz is referred to in Ezekiel 19:3-4 as a cub who grew up and was taken to Egypt (by Pharaoh Neco in 608 <span>BC<\/span>; see 2 Kgs 23:31-34). Zedekiah succeeded to the throne ten years later. In the lamentation the prophet imaginatively represents Zedekiah as a young cub who is ultimately taken to Babylon as a rebellious ruler (Ez 19:7-9). The second parable changes the imagery to a vine, representing Israel (v 10). In its early days God blessed Israel with strong rulers, but now the vine was wilting as Zedekiah irresponsibly led Judah to its last days. Ezekiel’s lamentation stresses the lack of a good candidate for the throne and the lack of life in the vine (vv 13-14).<\/p>\n<p>In chapter 20 the prophet concludes God’s argument against his people. He reviews the history of Israel’s past, starting with God’s self-revelation in Egypt (20:5-6). He took to himself a stubborn nation, tied to idolatry (v 8) and prone to apostasy (vv 13, 21). Israel wanted to be one of the great nations (v 32) instead of a sanctified people (v 12). As a result of its spiritual hardness, Israel is dispersed to live among the nations (v 35). Yet God had a solemn covenant with Israel, made by oath to the patriarchs Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. On the basis of that covenant, God will reach out with compassion to those who repent of their sinful ways (vv 37-44). In Israel’s judgment and restoration the nations will see the holiness of God, which does not tolerate unfaithfulness in Israel (v 41).<\/p>\n<p>Ezekiel’s prophecies alternate between God’s judgment on Israel’s sin and his restoration of Israel, spanning the bridge between Israel’s past and future. In view of the people’s doubts of the coming judgment on Jerusalem, he stresses the necessity of judgment and the need for repentance. Still, the future restoration of a remnant is touched upon here and there as the counterpart of his message of judgment. After announcing the fall of Jerusalem, the prophet shifts from a message of judgment to one of hope.<\/p>\n<p>The prophet returns to the proclamation of judgment in four oracles (20:45–21:32). He speaks against the Negev Desert area (20:45-49), Jerusalem and the land of Israel (21:2-17, 20-27), and against the Ammonites (vv 28-32). God permitted the sword of Nebuchadnezzar to be his instrument of judgment upon the Judeans (v 19). He would see to the judgment on the Ammonites. The Judeans would recover their previous glory, but the memory of the Ammonites would perish (vv 27, 32). The oracle against the Ammonites anticipates a larger treatise on Israel’s other neighbors: Moab, Edom, Philistia, Tyre, Sidon, and Egypt (chs 25–29).<\/p>\n<p>Chapters 22–24 contain a renewed series of indictments against Jerusalem. Jerusalem’s religious and civil leadership (the prophets, priests, and princes) are corrupt, and the people have followed their example (22:25-30). The parable of the two sisters, Oholah and Oholibah, is a variation of the parable of adulterous Jerusalem (ch 23; cf. ch 16). It differs in that the comparison drawn between Jerusalem, soon to be exiled, and Samaria, already in exile, is more explicit in the parable of Oholah and Oholibah. In chapter 16 Jerusalem was charged with greater sins than Sodom and Samaria, but was promised restoration. Only the adulterous nature of the two sisters and God’s judgment on them is emphasized in chapter 23, with no word of restoration. This parable is a fitting introduction to that of the boiling pot (ch 24), in which Jerusalem is compared to a rusty pot boiling with water. The Jerusalemites, likened to pieces of meat in the boiling pot, will die in the city. The parable was pronounced on the starting day of Nebuchadnezzar’s siege of Jerusalem. Thus, the exiles were divinely forewarned of God’s intent to destroy the temple (24:21) and were prepared for messengers bringing the bad news of Jerusalem’s fall.<\/p>\n<p>Those oracles and parables conclude the first division of the book. Ezekiel has stated God’s case against the rebellious house of Judah in many ways. His metaphors have likened Judah to a burnt piece of wood, to an uprooted vine, to a baby who grew up to be an adulteress, and to Oholibah, the adulterous woman. He has countered arguments against the fulfillment of God’s word and against the justice of God. He has reassured the exiles that God will not leave the righteous and that the future of Israel begins with a righteous remnant. The pendulum of Ezekiel’s writing has swung from judgment to restoration, while the clock was bringing Judah closer to the hour of its fall.<\/p>\n<h5>Oracles against the Nations (25:1–32:32)<\/h5>\n<p>Ammon, Moab, and Edom were Israel’s neighbors to the east. Because they were ethnically related to Israel, they were not attacked by the Israelites on their march to the Promised Land. Ammon and Moab were descendants of Lot, Abraham’s nephew, and the Edomites descended from Esau, the brother of Jacob. Although God forbade war with them, relations between Israel and its eastern neighbors were always tense. Israel had been overrun by the Ammonites for a time, and Israel was never successful in controlling the Edomites’ competitive trade relations. Those neighboring nations joined the Babylonian attack against Jerusalem and rejoiced when Jerusalem fell and the temple was devastated (Ez 25:3-12). They were ready to take over and loot Judah’s cities, and to instigate trouble in a time when Jerusalem was distressed. Therefore, says Ezekiel, God’s judgment will also extend to Ammon, Moab, and Edom (vv 4-14).<\/p>\n<p>The Philistines had been Israel’s enemy to the southwest. During the period of the judges and the united monarchy, the Philistines had controlled much of Israel’s territory. King David successfully limited the Philistine threat by confining them to their own territory. But in Ezekiel’s day they were still considered Israel’s “everlasting” enemy (25:15), possibly intensified by Philistine support of the Babylonian invasion of Judah.<\/p>\n<p>The city of Tyre had received reports of the overthrow of Jerusalem and was ready to exploit the opportunity for its own advantage (26:2). Tyre’s trade position was unrivaled; its ships crossed the seas to exchange goods with many distant lands (Ez 27). But Tyre would soon be broken by the Babylonians, its wealth dried up with the destruction of the fleet and the murder of its sailors (27:26).<\/p>\n<p>The prince of Tyre is singled out in chapter 28, but verse 12 refers to the “king” of Tyre. Interpreters disagree whether they are one person or two. Those who distinguish between the two understand the prince of Tyre to be the ruler of that city, but they consider the “king” of Tyre to represent Satan (28:13-15). The Garden of Eden with all its splendor is an appropriate setting for the original glory of an angelic Satan before his fall. But there is no reason within the context to distinguish between the prince and the king of Tyre. Each is said to have exalted himself, and both took authority over men as if they were gods and enjoyed all the splendor and royalty that belong to God. And both prince and king fall from their high position. The passage is a magnificent example of Ezekiel’s literary ability. He draws a glorious picture of the Garden of Eden, reworking the same theme as he depicts the glory and fall of the king of Tyre. Ezekiel presents him as a cherub, in accordance with the local belief that the king was divine. He wore the finest clothing, with nine kinds of precious stones (v 13). Though God had elevated him to the royal throne (vv 13-14), the king’s heart turned to materialism and to religious and judicial corruption (vv 16-18). In a sense the king (prince) represents the people of Tyre. They were all guilty of corruption, injustice, and violence. If God judged his covenant people for their perversion of justice and for their sins, his judgment would surely come also on the city of Tyre (vv 18-19). When the Babylonians marched on Tyre, they laboriously built a jetty from the mainland to the city. At the same time Tyrian ships loaded with goods and treasures sailed out across the Mediterranean, so that when Nebuchadnezzar’s troops finally breached the walls, little loot could be taken (29:18).<\/p>\n<p>The city of Sidon also cheered Jerusalem’s destruction. Sidon was a port city in Phoenicia, to the north of Tyre. By pestilence and war, the inhabitants of Sidon would learn the justice of Israel’s God.<\/p>\n<p>Six nations (Ammon, Moab, Edom, Philistia, Tyre, and Sidon) scorned Israel at the fall of Jerusalem. Because God had invested his holiness in the temple of Jerusalem and in his people, the temple’s destruction and the people’s exile signified to the nations that Israel’s God was impotent. They did not realize that the reason for Israel’s fate was God’s intolerance of his people’s sin. God’s holiness required the punishment of sin, and it also required vindication for his name (28:22-23). God was still concerned for his people, that Israel might know he had removed the scorn of their neighbors (v 24). In the restoration of Israel the Lord would further manifest his holiness before the nations. Israel would receive back the land, vineyards, and houses, and would enjoy the bounty of the Lord in peace (vv 25-26).<\/p>\n<p>Egypt had convinced the people of Israel and Judah that with its help the Assyrians and the Babylonians could not stand their ground in Palestine. In 722 <span>BC<\/span> the Assyrian troops took the northern capital of Samaria, and in 586 the Babylonians conquered Jerusalem, while Egypt remained passive. The Egyptians had desired control over Palestine for economic reasons, but not at the expense of their own welfare. Egypt, too, would lose its leadership under God’s judgment (29:9-16). Reduced to dependence on foreign powers, Egypt would no longer be a stumbling block for Israel. First, Babylonia was permitted to break Egypt’s power (23:1–32:21); later, the Persians, Greeks, and Romans would incorporate Egypt as a province. The fall of Egypt coincided with the fall of several great and small kingdoms: Assyria (32:22-23), Elam (vv 24-25), Meshech and Tubal (vv 26-28), Edom (v 29), and Sidon (v 30).<\/p>\n<h5>Proclamation of Hope (33:1–48:35)<\/h5>\n<p>After the visions of God’s judgment on the surrounding nations, Ezekiel returns to the future hope of Israel. In the first major section of his book he dealt with the reasons for Judah’s exile and the destruction of the temple, alluding often to the future of Israel. But the prophet’s organization of his material included, between prophecies of Israel’s judgment and restoration, the oracles of God’s judgment on Israel’s neighbors who had encouraged and rejoiced in its fall. Throughout its history Israel had allowed foreign nations to influence its religion, culture, and form of government. The reduction of their powers meant Israel, restored to the Promised Land, would be more free for faithfulness to God. Before taking up the theme of the restoration, Ezekiel reviews the emphases of chapters 1–24: (1) He was called to be a watchman over Israel (33:1-9; cf. 1:1–3:21). (2) Israel had sinned against the Lord and had to receive a righteous judgment (33:10). (3) Jerusalem was to be taken by the Babylonians (v 21). (4) Israel’s repentance is necessary for restoration (vv 11-16).<\/p>\n<p>Thus far, his ministry had not met with success. The exiles who had heard his messages were full of appreciation for Ezekiel’s rhetorical and literary abilities (33:32). They readily accepted Ezekiel as a watchman who warned the people of the impending catastrophe at Jerusalem, and they may have admitted that their sin was the reason for God’s judgment on Israel and Jerusalem. But they were slow in applying the prophetic word to their own lives. God was ready to forgive their sins if they repented, acknowledged him, and demonstrated their renewed spirit by practicing the law of God (v 32). Now that the news of Jerusalem had been reported to the exiles (v 21), the necessity for the people to act responsibly was even more urgent. The Lord had demonstrated that Ezekiel was a true prophet (v 33).<\/p>\n<p>The success of Ezekiel’s ministry was not measured in numbers. He faithfully declared the word of God in word, sign, and parable. The exiles had followed the false hopes proclaimed by false “shepherds” who had fattened themselves at the expense of the flock (34:2-3). They did not take care of those in need (v 4), and they allowed the flock to be scattered (vv 5-6). God promised his people that he would be the faithful shepherd, bring the sheep together, feed them, and care for them (34:11-15; cf. Ps 23). God would also distinguish between the sheep and the goats, to find out whose hearts were right with him, so that the true sheep could be restored to God’s flock (Ez 34:20-22). God’s promise included the restoration of the land and the restoration of the divinely appointed Davidic dynasty (v 24). The renewed fellowship between the Lord and Israel under the messianic ruler would be sealed with a new covenant, the “covenant of peace.” That covenant assured the people of God’s blessing on their labor, bringing them abundant harvests (vv 26-27). The people would not be forced to fight against nature in their pursuits (vv 25-28). They would not have to struggle against other peoples who might try to share in their blessings by force (vv 27-29). The prophetic vision telescoped the events of the restoration of Israel after the exile, the coming of Jesus the Messiah (cf. Jn 10), and the full restoration of the sin-cursed world.<\/p>\n<p>Chapter 34 is the key to the messages of restoration. The emphases include the outworking of the frequently repeated verse “They will truly be my people, and I will be their God” (11:20; cf. 34:30; 36:28). The most significant aspects of the restoration theme include: (1) God’s gracious restoration of his people to covenant blessing (36:20-36; 37:23-26; 39:25); (2) God’s restoration of the nation of Israel to the land (36:1-15, 24; 37:14-23; 39:27); (3) God’s new covenant, giving his Spirit to his people (36:25-27; 37:14; 39:29), and his blessing on his people (36:8-12, 29-38; 39:9-10, 26), assuring them of victory over their enemies (35:1-15; 36:36; 37:28; 38:1–39:24); (4) God’s appointment of a Davidic king, the Messiah, over his people (37:24-25); and (5) God’s temple restored among his people (37:26-27).<\/p>\n<h6>The People of God<\/h6>\n<p>The rejection of the exiles did not last forever. Based on the Abrahamic covenant, the Lord promised to bless the faithful remnant and to make of them a new people. The imagery of a valley of dry bones is particularly fitting. The dry bones represent God’s people without hope (37:11). Ezekiel proclaims to them the good news that God will renew and restore them (v 12). The Lord’s purpose for his people is that all the nations may honor his holy name through his people (39:7, 25-27).<\/p>\n<h6>The Land<\/h6>\n<p>The promise also extends to the land, originally given to Abraham and his descendants. The Abrahamic covenant included a messianic element, for through the family of Abraham living in the Promised Land all nations would receive God’s blessing (Gn 12:3). In a vision Ezekiel saw the boundaries and described the division of the land (Ez 47–48). The royal city of Jerusalem is the central symbol of God’s presence among his people; its name will be “The Lord is there” (48:8-35).<\/p>\n<h6>The New Covenant<\/h6>\n<p>The Abrahamic covenant is renewed, a gracious covenant that expresses the restored relationship. “Covenant of peace” fittingly describes its nature and benefits. The restless people of God are promised rest from their searching, their enemies, and their toil. The change in relationship is further emphasized by God’s sending of his Spirit, who will add a new dimension to the lifestyle of his people. Obedience to God will no longer be constrained, for God’s Spirit helps his people to do his will. A new heart, controlled by the Spirit of God, is given to the Lord’s people (36:26-27). The presence of the Spirit also signifies a new life for the people (37:14; see Jn 3:8, 16; Acts 2:38; Rom 8:2-4, 15).<\/p>\n<h6>The Messiah<\/h6>\n<p>The OT hope of a messianic king is crystallized in Ezekiel’s message. His rule will be everlasting (Ez 37:25), over all God’s people who have new hearts (vv 15-25).<\/p>\n<h6>The Temple<\/h6>\n<p>As a priest, Ezekiel remained keenly interested in the temple, priesthood, sacrificial regulations, and festivals. A large section of the prophecy’s last division describes the temple’s revived worship (40:1–46:24). His vision of the glory of God, so important in the messages of God’s judgment on Jerusalem (chs 1, 10–11), now assures the remnant that God did not forsake his people (43:2-5). He will dwell among them, for the temple is a symbol of God’s presence (37:27). Some interpreters believe that the temple, with its ritual as described in Ezekiel 40–46, will be restored in the messianic era before the last judgment. Others believe the promises about the temple provide a positive symbolic answer to Ezekiel’s greatest concern: whether God will return to be with his people (48:35; see Jn 2:21; Rv 21:22).<\/p>\n\n<p>There are various interpretations of chapters 34–48. As a watchman to Israel, Ezekiel had a message for the exiled Jewish community. Thus the prophecy’s fulfillment must have begun with the decree of Cyrus I (538 <span>BC<\/span>) permitting the Jews to return to their land (Ezr 1:1-3). Two rival schools of interpretation exist on how the prophecy is fulfilled beyond Israel’s restoration to the land. Those who interpret Israel as simply the nation view the modern return of Jewish people to the land of Israel as a continuation of God’s prophetic promise. They believe that God’s plan for Israel is being fulfilled along with, and in addition to, his plan for the Christian church. The fulfillment of those prophecies will be inaugurated by the coming of the messianic king, who will give earthly peace to the Jewish people. The temple worship (Ez 40–48) will be restored in some way during the period of the messianic kingdom. The church will enjoy a small share in all the events centered on the Jews. The promises of Ezekiel’s vision are thus limited to the nation of Israel and must be fulfilled before the coming of a new heaven and earth.<\/p>\n<p>Other interpreters believe that Ezekiel wrote for the benefit of spiritual descendants of Abraham who believe, as Abraham did, in God’s promises (Gn 15:6; cf. Rom 4:11-13; Gal 3:6-9, 29). All who have faith like Abraham, whether Jews or Gentiles, are regarded as Abraham’s offspring (Gal 3:28-29). Ezekiel’s message thus would include all of God’s gracious work among Christian Gentiles, who have become the recipients of God’s promises and benefits. It is possible, on the basis of 1 Peter 1:10-11, to interpret Ezekiel’s language as a prophetic expression of how God’s grace would come to all those who become reconciled to God through faith in the gospel.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Diaspora of the Jews; Ezekiel (Person); Prophecy.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>EZEKIEL, Book of<\/h3>\n<p>Prophetic book of the OT, originating in the time of the Babylonian exile.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Author<\/p>\n<p>• Date and Background<\/p>\n<p>• Content<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Author\">Author<\/p>\n<p>Ezekiel was the son of Buzi (1:3), a member of a priestly family. It is unclear whether he actually served in the temple as a priest, but such was his training. His writings show that he knew the regulations for sacrifices, the rituals, and the people’s expectations of a priest. In exile Ezekiel the priest spoke God’s word about the future of the temple to his fellow exiles. Settled at Tel-abib, on the canal of Kebar, the thousands of deportees eked out a meager existence. They hoped for a speedy return to Judah and a change for the better in the international situation. Their hope was enflamed by the spirited preaching of false prophets, likened to jackals among the ruins (13:4). They piously said, “The Lord declares . . . ,” but they were actually self-commissioned (v 6). They deceived the people with a message of peace at a time when God’s judgment was about to be poured out on his people (v 10). They had led the people to distrust prophecy to such an extent that a proverb circulated among the people that “the days grow long, and every vision comes to nought” (12:22). Much time had passed since visions of God’s judgment had been given to the people, and nothing could be interpreted as a fulfillment of those visions. Ezekiel was called to serve his community by symbolic acts, visions, and verbal messages in order to convince the people that God’s judgment was imminent (v 23).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"DateandBackground\">Date and Background<\/p>\n<p>The ministry of the prophet Ezekiel can be understood best against the backdrop of his time. If, as the church father Origen believed, the vague reference “in the thirtieth year” (1:1) marks the prophet’s age at the time of his first vision, Ezekiel was born during the rule of King Josiah of Judah (c. 640–609 <span>BC<\/span>). Josiah was the grandson of King Manasseh, whose sacrilegious acts had brought God’s judgment on the kingdom of Judah (2 Kgs 21:10-15).<\/p>\n<p>Though Judah’s political situation was perilous, Josiah led the nation in a radical reformation that began with the finding of the “Book of the Law” (2 Kgs 22) in the year that Ezekiel was born (c. 621 <span>BC<\/span>). Idolatry was done away with and the people turned back to God, but God’s judgment on Judah was unchangeable (23:26-27). Josiah erred in trying to make Judah a kingdom with which other states had to reckon. He was threatened when the Egyptian pharaoh Neco passed through Judah on his way to aid the weakened Assyrian kingdom. Josiah marched to meet the Egyptian forces, but his troops were unable to stand against the Egyptians, and he died in battle (v 29). Egypt took control of Judah, and Pharaoh Neco placed Jehoiakim in power over Jerusalem. Egyptian control did not last long, however, for in 605 <span>BC<\/span> Egypt and Assyria were defeated by Babylonia’s king Nebuchadnezzar at Carchemish. The Babylonians then pushed south to Jerusalem, and the first deportation of Judean leaders (among them the prophet Daniel) took place.<\/p>\n<p>Jehoiakim was permitted to continue ruling over Judah as a vassal king of Nebuchadnezzar. But his dealings with Egypt brought the emperor’s wrath down upon him. Before the Babylonians could address the Judean situation, Jehoiakim died and his son Jehoiachin was crowned. When the Babylonian forces arrived at the gates of Jerusalem, Jehoiachin and thousands of the aristocracy were taken to Babylon (2 Kgs 24:10-17). Among those deportees was Ezekiel, then about 25 years old.<\/p>\n<p>Although the book says otherwise, many scholars think that Ezekiel lived and taught in Judah for the duration of the siege and the fall of Jerusalem (586 <span>BC<\/span>). They conclude this from Ezekiel’s familiarity with idolatry in the temple and his vivid descriptions of Jerusalem’s last days (Ez 8:11). Others believe that Ezekiel ministered both to the exiled community and to the Judeans living in Judah. Neither interpretation does full justice to the claims of the book itself. Ezekiel was exiled in 597 <span>BC<\/span>. He was called to bring God’s word to the deportees at Tel-abib; he was granted a vision of the horrible practices in the temple court; and he was familiar with Jerusalem and Judah from having lived there and from reports on affairs in Jerusalem coming to the exiles through messengers. Jeremiah, Ezekiel’s contemporary, was prophesying in Jerusalem, but there is no evidence that Jeremiah and Ezekiel knew of each other’s ministry. If Ezekiel had brought God’s word to Jerusalem during the siege, some reference to Jeremiah might appear in his writings. If Jeremiah was supported by Ezekiel’s ministry in Jerusalem, he probably would have included a positive word for his colleague in his book. The book of Ezekiel plainly says that Ezekiel lived and preached in exile (see 1:1-3; 11:24-25).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Content\">Content<\/p>\n<p>The prophecy of Ezekiel is easily outlined by subject matter and chronology. The chronology of the period permits a division before and after 586 <span>BC<\/span> (the fall of Jerusalem). Chapters 1–24 cover the pre-586 ministry of Ezekiel, whereas chapters 33–48 represent his post-586 ministry. Chapters 25–32 (oracles against the foreign nations) function as a transition between the book’s two major divisions.<\/p>\n<p>The book’s outline according to subject matter divides into four parts: Ezekiel’s call (1:1–3:21); prophecies of judgment against Israel (3:22–24:27); oracles against the nations (25:1–32:32); and proclamation of hope (33:1–48:35).<\/p>\n<h5>Ezekiel’s Call (1:1–3:21)<\/h5>\n<p>The prophet’s call in one sense was similar to that of Isaiah and Jeremiah. Isaiah received his mission in a vision of God’s glory in the temple (Is 6). Jeremiah was called unexpectedly in his youth, and received signs that solemnly set forth the nature of his mission (Jer 1:11-15). The call of Ezekiel combined those two elements. Revelation of God’s glory to the prophet at the same time revealed the nature of the prophet’s mission. Ezekiel’s call contained a full description of God’s glory. Isaiah briefly stated that he saw the Lord enthroned in the temple, and he concentrated on the seraphim representing and magnifying God’s glory. Ezekiel elaborated on the revelation of the Lord’s glory as well as on the ministering angels who went before the Lord as part of his royal entourage. The vision of God’s glory, though difficult to understand, is the key to the book of Ezekiel.<\/p>\n<p>Ezekiel, as a priest, was concerned about the future of the temple. That sacred place had been ordained by God as his home among his people. The glory, presence, and holiness of God were symbolized in the temple (see 1 Kgs 8:10-11). In exile Ezekiel could not serve his people as a priest, for they were far from Jerusalem, the city God had chosen. Against all expectations the Lord revealed himself to Ezekiel in the land of Babylon. In calling Ezekiel to a prophetic ministry, God assured his servant that he had not forsaken his people, even though they had been banished from the Promised Land.<\/p>\n<p>The prophet’s vision began with a storm. As a large cloud approached from the north, Ezekiel saw a brightness surrounding the cloud, four creatures, and four wheels. The combination of creatures and wheels suggests that the Lord appeared in a chariot. God’s chariot is a familiar OT representation of his coming in judgment (see Is 66:15-16). The wheels within wheels and the position of the four living creatures may signify God’s total control over the whole earth, so he could move his “chariot of judgment” in any direction. It is also possible that the living creatures with their four faces, and the wheels full of eyes, may be separate symbols showing that God sees all that happens and thereby knows the plight of the exiles. In the vision the prophet’s attention was drawn to a throne above the heads of the creatures. On the throne was “the appearance of the likeness of the glory of the <span>Lord<\/span>” (1:28). In his vision of God’s coming in judgment, Ezekiel received his call to the prophetic ministry: “Son of man, I send you to the people of Israel, to a nation of rebels who have rebelled against me” (2:3, <span>rsv<\/span>). During a dark hour of Israel’s history, Ezekiel had to prophesy, rebuke his fellow exiles (3:11), and be responsible as a watchman over the house of Israel (3:17; cf. 33:1-9). Symbolic of his mission was a scroll filled with lamentations and woe (2:9-10), which when eaten became sweet as honey (3:1-3). Difficult as the mission was, God’s presence and the certain fulfillment of the prophecies sweetened Ezekiel’s task. Such encouragement was intended to take away any fear of the rebellious Israelites (2:6-7). Instead of being elated with his mission, however, Ezekiel became despondent.<\/p>\n<p>A week later, the word of the Lord came to Ezekiel to remind him of his important role as a watchman (3:16-17). Ezekiel became responsible for Israel as a nation, not just for individuals. His witness to Israel had the express aim of national repentance (vv 18-19).<\/p>\n<p>Ezekiel was confined to his house by God (3:24-25). The house ministry was to be carried on only with those Israelites who sought God’s will, for the Lord had abandoned those who continued in their apostasy. The prophetic word would not help the apostates (v 26). The principle of Ezekiel’s ministry is found in 3:27: “Whenever I give you a message, I will loosen your tongue and let you speak. Then you will say to them, ‘This is what the Sovereign <span>Lord<\/span> says!’ Some of them will listen, but some will ignore you, for they are rebels” (<span>nlt<\/span>; cf. Mt 11:15; 13:43).<\/p>\n<h5>Prophecies of Judgment against Israel (3:22–24:27)<\/h5>\n<p>Symbolism figures prominently in Ezekiel’s writing. His priestly background and preparation probably suited him to receive and communicate God’s word in symbolic acts and speech. Chapters 4 and 5 contain four symbolic acts: (1) Jerusalem’s siege is portrayed on a brick (Ez 4:1-3); (2) Israel’s iniquity is represented by Ezekiel’s lying on his sides (vv 4-8); (3) Jerusalem’s grief and horror in the last days of the siege are represented by Ezekiel’s food and drink (vv 9-17); (4) Jerusalem’s fate is represented by the prophet’s hair being cut off (5:1-4).<\/p>\n<p>Ezekiel’s instructions were further illuminated by God’s explanation of Israel’s apostasy (5:6-7) and his judgment on Israel (vv 8-12). The judgment will last until the Israelites admit that in covenant faithfulness their Lord has inflicted righteous judgment on them (v 13).<\/p>\n<p>God would direct his judgment first against the people and the city of Jerusalem. Next in line were the mountains of Israel (ch 6) and the land (ch 7). God’s wrath included the cities and cultic sites in the hill country of Judah, leaving no protection for the people (6:3-6). Abominations that were practiced throughout the land caused God’s judgment to fall on the land as well as on the people (7:2-3, 10-11, 23). But because God is righteous, he judged the people according to their ways of life, desiring that they would once more acknowledge him as their God (7:27).<\/p>\n<p>The prophet then (chs 8–11) focused on the abominations practiced in Jerusalem, particularly idolatry in the temple courts, which caused the judgment announced in chapters 1–7. An idol had been erected in the inner court (8:3-5). By the wall of the court, elders of the city were paying homage to the idols that surrounded the court (vv 11-12). Closer to the temple, women were weeping for the god Tammuz (v 14), and men were worshiping the sun (v 16). In preparation for the ultimate judgment on the land, the prophet placed a mark on the foreheads of the few faithful Israelites so that they would survive (9:4-6). Then (ch 10), the glory of God, which had filled the temple from the time of Solomon, gradually left: “Then the glory of the <span>Lord<\/span> went up from the city and stopped above the mountain to the east” (11:23, <span>nlt<\/span>). The people, now without divine protection, were being handed over to the Babylonians (v 9).<\/p>\n<p>The message of doom for Jerusalem contains four elements of hope: restoration of the people (11:17), restoration of the land (v 17), purification of the people (v 18), and renewed fellowship between God and his people (vv 19-20). The prophet develops those four themes in chapters 33–48.<\/p>\n<p>The visions of chapters 10 and 11 made clear that when God removed his presence from Jerusalem, the exile was approaching. Those who were already in Babylon were unwilling to believe that such an extensive devastation of Jerusalem would happen or that the people would all be exiled and the land become desolate.<\/p>\n<p>Ezekiel acted out the certainty of God’s word of judgment by packing his bags and showing the baggage to his fellow exiles. First, he placed the bags in the courtyard outside his modest home. Next, he went out by making a hole through the wall. Finally, the prophet walked about the settlement with his bags in full view. Skeptical observers did not understand Ezekiel and probably thought he was crazy. The believers who saw him understood. His strange actions dramatized how the king’s aides would do all they could to help King Zedekiah escape just before the fall of Jerusalem. Second Kings 25 tells how the king and his soldiers left Jerusalem for the wilderness, to be overtaken by the Babylonians at Jericho and brought before Nebuchadnezzar at Riblah. As a captive, Zedekiah witnessed the murder of his sons; then his eyes were put out, and he was sent into exile with the other Judeans (cf. Ez 12:13). The prophet’s explanation concluded with a word of comfort. Because of his covenant with Abraham, God promised not to destroy the people completely. A remnant who overcame the sword, famine, and pestilence would live to tell the story of God’s judgment (vv 15-16).<\/p>\n<p>Ezekiel further illustrated the nation’s plight by eating as though full of fear, depicting the great trauma that all of Judah’s inhabitants would soon undergo.<\/p>\n<p>Both symbolic acts, packing his belongings and eating, emphasized the truthfulness of God’s word. The people needed to face the nature of their God: He is magnificent, and when he speaks, his words are powerful and come to pass. Thus, the devastation of the land and the people’s exile were a fulfillment of God’s word through the prophets. The judgment was meant to produce a recognition of the Lord, repentance, and a return to God. Some in Judah doubted the efficacy of God’s prophecies, saying, “Time passes, making a liar of every prophet” (12:22). Others thought God’s word would come true in the distant future (v 27). The prevailing attitude of distrust in God’s word had been stimulated by the popular preaching of false prophets (ch 13). Never commissioned by the Lord, they deceived God’s people by lying and misdirecting them with messages of peace (vv 8-10). Wickedness, lying, and deceit were encouraged among the people by such false prophets (v 22). The magnitude of their sin and their great responsibility for Judah’s fall would be matched by the Lord’s heavy judgment. Yet God would save his people from such evil and will prepare a righteous nation with whom to maintain his covenant (v 23).<\/p>\n<p>The certainty of the judgment has been connected with the truthfulness of God’s word. Ezekiel’s difficult task of affirming the doom of Jerusalem to stubborn hearers was intensified by the people’s idolatry. Their whole way of life denied the existence of God. They practiced idolatry in their worship, and they had set up idols in their hearts (14:3). Before the covenant with God could be restored, they had to be purified from their idolatry. Even so, repentance would not guarantee immunity from judgment. Sword, famine, wild beasts, and plagues would ravage the population (v 21). After the execution of his judgment, God would take back those survivors who had turned to him for mercy. God would surely accomplish all that he intended for his people’s good (v 23).<\/p>\n<p>In chapters 15–17 Ezekiel uses three parables to set forth the apostasy, present uselessness, and judgment of Israel. Jerusalem and Judah are compared to a piece of charred wood, an adulterous woman, and a vine.<\/p>\n<p>Chapter 15 reviews Jerusalem’s case. Jerusalem is compared to a piece of wood, both ends of which have been charred with fire, so that the wood is of no value. As the whole piece of wood is burned instead of being saved, so Jerusalem would undergo complete devastation (15:7-8).<\/p>\n<p>Chapter 16 presents God’s case against Jerusalem from a different perspective, stressing his care for Jerusalem in the past. The beginnings of her history are compared to the birth of a female child, left abandoned by her mother (16:3-5). God adopted the child and washed and clothed her (vv 6-7). He made a covenant with her (v 8), making her his own possession. He generously gave her all the fine things of life (vv 9-13). In the height of her development, Jerusalem’s fame spread to the nations (v 14). Her self-reliance made her a spiritual prostitute as she took up the religious practices and way of life of the nations (vv 15-34). The cities of Sodom (Gn 19) and Samaria (2 Kgs 17:6), known for their immorality, are called Jerusalem’s sisters (Ez 16:46). They had been judged by God, but the corruption of those cities was little compared to the lewdness of Jerusalem (vv 48-51). Thus, Jerusalem also would surely fall and become desolate. Yet Ezekiel anticipates the judgment’s final outcome; Jerusalem will be restored to covenantal blessing (vv 62-63) after her repentance.<\/p>\n<p>The third parable (ch 17) focuses on God’s sovereignty over political developments. Assyria was no longer a power to be reckoned with. Babylon and Egypt both exercised dominion, although the balance of power was veering in favor of Babylon. Their extension of power is likened to an eagle. Nebuchadnezzar, pictured as “a great eagle with broad wings full of many-colored feathers,” took control over the affairs of Judah by removing Jehoiachin, “the highest branch of a cedar tree,” from office and by exiling him with young leaders of the Judean state (17:3-4). Ezekiel was among them. Nebuchadnezzar let the Judeans control their own affairs under Zedekiah but expected them to be subject to Babylon and not to any other power. But Judah (likened to a vine) tried to ally itself with Pharaoh Hophra of Egypt, “another great eagle with broad wings and full plumage” (v 7), against Nebuchadnezzar. Zedekiah’s folly in turning to Egypt would cause Nebuchadnezzar to pull up the vine by its roots and make it wither (vv 9-10). In explaining the parable, God told the exiles that Judah’s fall was a result of its unfaithfulness to King Nebuchadnezzar, to whom Judah owed allegiance by covenant (vv 13-18). Judah’s unfaithfulness thus extended to all of its relationships: religious, cultural, and political. After the exile, God promised, he would restore his people to their land under a Messiah, “a tender shoot” (v 22). The messianic rule is signified by the young twig, which when planted in the land will become a magnificent cedar, giving shade and protection to the birds. Chapter 17 is an inspiring affirmation of the sovereignty of God in human affairs (“All the trees will know that it is I, the <span>Lord<\/span>, who cuts down the tall tree and helps the short tree to grow tall. It is I who makes the green tree wither and gives new life to the dead tree”—17:24, <span>nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>Chapters 18–22 contain Ezekiel’s oracles to Judah, its leaders, and the exiles. First, he enunciates God’s standard of righteousness: “The person who sins will be the one who dies” (18:4, <span>nlt<\/span>). The people are charging God with injustice, for they believe themselves to be under God’s judgment for the sins of their ancestors (vv 25-29). Although the Ten Commandments do say that God may punish “the sins of their parents to the third and the fourth generations” (Ex 20:5, <span>nlt<\/span>), the prophet vindicates God’s justice, telling the people that they are not being punished merely for their ancestors’ sin. Each person must be directly accountable to God; the sinner will die in wickedness, and the righteous will live by righteousness. A life of faithfulness to God’s moral and civil law will be rewarded (Ez 18:5-9). Even if one’s father was a sinner, the father’s sin is not transferable (vv 14-18). God is ready to forgive any sinner who repents (v 27). The prophet’s vindication of God’s justice becomes a call to repentance. The sinners in Judah and in exile were thus warned of the consequences of their evil, and were exhorted to return to their God and his standard of right and wrong (vv 31-32).<\/p>\n<p>Chapter 19 contains two parables in the form of a lamentation. The first portrays a lioness and her two cubs. The lioness is Hamutal, the wife of King Josiah (2 Kgs 23:31), who bore two sons: Jehoahaz and Zedekiah. Jehoahaz is referred to in Ezekiel 19:3-4 as a cub who grew up and was taken to Egypt (by Pharaoh Neco in 608 <span>BC<\/span>; see 2 Kgs 23:31-34). Zedekiah succeeded to the throne ten years later. In the lamentation the prophet imaginatively represents Zedekiah as a young cub who is ultimately taken to Babylon as a rebellious ruler (Ez 19:7-9). The second parable changes the imagery to a vine, representing Israel (v 10). In its early days God blessed Israel with strong rulers, but now the vine was wilting as Zedekiah irresponsibly led Judah to its last days. Ezekiel’s lamentation stresses the lack of a good candidate for the throne and the lack of life in the vine (vv 13-14).<\/p>\n<p>In chapter 20 the prophet concludes God’s argument against his people. He reviews the history of Israel’s past, starting with God’s self-revelation in Egypt (20:5-6). He took to himself a stubborn nation, tied to idolatry (v 8) and prone to apostasy (vv 13, 21). Israel wanted to be one of the great nations (v 32) instead of a sanctified people (v 12). As a result of its spiritual hardness, Israel is dispersed to live among the nations (v 35). Yet God had a solemn covenant with Israel, made by oath to the patriarchs Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. On the basis of that covenant, God will reach out with compassion to those who repent of their sinful ways (vv 37-44). In Israel’s judgment and restoration the nations will see the holiness of God, which does not tolerate unfaithfulness in Israel (v 41).<\/p>\n<p>Ezekiel’s prophecies alternate between God’s judgment on Israel’s sin and his restoration of Israel, spanning the bridge between Israel’s past and future. In view of the people’s doubts of the coming judgment on Jerusalem, he stresses the necessity of judgment and the need for repentance. Still, the future restoration of a remnant is touched upon here and there as the counterpart of his message of judgment. After announcing the fall of Jerusalem, the prophet shifts from a message of judgment to one of hope.<\/p>\n<p>The prophet returns to the proclamation of judgment in four oracles (20:45–21:32). He speaks against the Negev Desert area (20:45-49), Jerusalem and the land of Israel (21:2-17, 20-27), and against the Ammonites (vv 28-32). God permitted the sword of Nebuchadnezzar to be his instrument of judgment upon the Judeans (v 19). He would see to the judgment on the Ammonites. The Judeans would recover their previous glory, but the memory of the Ammonites would perish (vv 27, 32). The oracle against the Ammonites anticipates a larger treatise on Israel’s other neighbors: Moab, Edom, Philistia, Tyre, Sidon, and Egypt (chs 25–29).<\/p>\n<p>Chapters 22–24 contain a renewed series of indictments against Jerusalem. Jerusalem’s religious and civil leadership (the prophets, priests, and princes) are corrupt, and the people have followed their example (22:25-30). The parable of the two sisters, Oholah and Oholibah, is a variation of the parable of adulterous Jerusalem (ch 23; cf. ch 16). It differs in that the comparison drawn between Jerusalem, soon to be exiled, and Samaria, already in exile, is more explicit in the parable of Oholah and Oholibah. In chapter 16 Jerusalem was charged with greater sins than Sodom and Samaria, but was promised restoration. Only the adulterous nature of the two sisters and God’s judgment on them is emphasized in chapter 23, with no word of restoration. This parable is a fitting introduction to that of the boiling pot (ch 24), in which Jerusalem is compared to a rusty pot boiling with water. The Jerusalemites, likened to pieces of meat in the boiling pot, will die in the city. The parable was pronounced on the starting day of Nebuchadnezzar’s siege of Jerusalem. Thus, the exiles were divinely forewarned of God’s intent to destroy the temple (24:21) and were prepared for messengers bringing the bad news of Jerusalem’s fall.<\/p>\n<p>Those oracles and parables conclude the first division of the book. Ezekiel has stated God’s case against the rebellious house of Judah in many ways. His metaphors have likened Judah to a burnt piece of wood, to an uprooted vine, to a baby who grew up to be an adulteress, and to Oholibah, the adulterous woman. He has countered arguments against the fulfillment of God’s word and against the justice of God. He has reassured the exiles that God will not leave the righteous and that the future of Israel begins with a righteous remnant. The pendulum of Ezekiel’s writing has swung from judgment to restoration, while the clock was bringing Judah closer to the hour of its fall.<\/p>\n<h5>Oracles against the Nations (25:1–32:32)<\/h5>\n<p>Ammon, Moab, and Edom were Israel’s neighbors to the east. Because they were ethnically related to Israel, they were not attacked by the Israelites on their march to the Promised Land. Ammon and Moab were descendants of Lot, Abraham’s nephew, and the Edomites descended from Esau, the brother of Jacob. Although God forbade war with them, relations between Israel and its eastern neighbors were always tense. Israel had been overrun by the Ammonites for a time, and Israel was never successful in controlling the Edomites’ competitive trade relations. Those neighboring nations joined the Babylonian attack against Jerusalem and rejoiced when Jerusalem fell and the temple was devastated (Ez 25:3-12). They were ready to take over and loot Judah’s cities, and to instigate trouble in a time when Jerusalem was distressed. Therefore, says Ezekiel, God’s judgment will also extend to Ammon, Moab, and Edom (vv 4-14).<\/p>\n<p>The Philistines had been Israel’s enemy to the southwest. During the period of the judges and the united monarchy, the Philistines had controlled much of Israel’s territory. King David successfully limited the Philistine threat by confining them to their own territory. But in Ezekiel’s day they were still considered Israel’s “everlasting” enemy (25:15), possibly intensified by Philistine support of the Babylonian invasion of Judah.<\/p>\n<p>The city of Tyre had received reports of the overthrow of Jerusalem and was ready to exploit the opportunity for its own advantage (26:2). Tyre’s trade position was unrivaled; its ships crossed the seas to exchange goods with many distant lands (Ez 27). But Tyre would soon be broken by the Babylonians, its wealth dried up with the destruction of the fleet and the murder of its sailors (27:26).<\/p>\n<p>The prince of Tyre is singled out in chapter 28, but verse 12 refers to the “king” of Tyre. Interpreters disagree whether they are one person or two. Those who distinguish between the two understand the prince of Tyre to be the ruler of that city, but they consider the “king” of Tyre to represent Satan (28:13-15). The Garden of Eden with all its splendor is an appropriate setting for the original glory of an angelic Satan before his fall. But there is no reason within the context to distinguish between the prince and the king of Tyre. Each is said to have exalted himself, and both took authority over men as if they were gods and enjoyed all the splendor and royalty that belong to God. And both prince and king fall from their high position. The passage is a magnificent example of Ezekiel’s literary ability. He draws a glorious picture of the Garden of Eden, reworking the same theme as he depicts the glory and fall of the king of Tyre. Ezekiel presents him as a cherub, in accordance with the local belief that the king was divine. He wore the finest clothing, with nine kinds of precious stones (v 13). Though God had elevated him to the royal throne (vv 13-14), the king’s heart turned to materialism and to religious and judicial corruption (vv 16-18). In a sense the king (prince) represents the people of Tyre. They were all guilty of corruption, injustice, and violence. If God judged his covenant people for their perversion of justice and for their sins, his judgment would surely come also on the city of Tyre (vv 18-19). When the Babylonians marched on Tyre, they laboriously built a jetty from the mainland to the city. At the same time Tyrian ships loaded with goods and treasures sailed out across the Mediterranean, so that when Nebuchadnezzar’s troops finally breached the walls, little loot could be taken (29:18).<\/p>\n<p>The city of Sidon also cheered Jerusalem’s destruction. Sidon was a port city in Phoenicia, to the north of Tyre. By pestilence and war, the inhabitants of Sidon would learn the justice of Israel’s God.<\/p>\n<p>Six nations (Ammon, Moab, Edom, Philistia, Tyre, and Sidon) scorned Israel at the fall of Jerusalem. Because God had invested his holiness in the temple of Jerusalem and in his people, the temple’s destruction and the people’s exile signified to the nations that Israel’s God was impotent. They did not realize that the reason for Israel’s fate was God’s intolerance of his people’s sin. God’s holiness required the punishment of sin, and it also required vindication for his name (28:22-23). God was still concerned for his people, that Israel might know he had removed the scorn of their neighbors (v 24). In the restoration of Israel the Lord would further manifest his holiness before the nations. Israel would receive back the land, vineyards, and houses, and would enjoy the bounty of the Lord in peace (vv 25-26).<\/p>\n<p>Egypt had convinced the people of Israel and Judah that with its help the Assyrians and the Babylonians could not stand their ground in Palestine. In 722 <span>BC<\/span> the Assyrian troops took the northern capital of Samaria, and in 586 the Babylonians conquered Jerusalem, while Egypt remained passive. The Egyptians had desired control over Palestine for economic reasons, but not at the expense of their own welfare. Egypt, too, would lose its leadership under God’s judgment (29:9-16). Reduced to dependence on foreign powers, Egypt would no longer be a stumbling block for Israel. First, Babylonia was permitted to break Egypt’s power (23:1–32:21); later, the Persians, Greeks, and Romans would incorporate Egypt as a province. The fall of Egypt coincided with the fall of several great and small kingdoms: Assyria (32:22-23), Elam (vv 24-25), Meshech and Tubal (vv 26-28), Edom (v 29), and Sidon (v 30).<\/p>\n<h5>Proclamation of Hope (33:1–48:35)<\/h5>\n<p>After the visions of God’s judgment on the surrounding nations, Ezekiel returns to the future hope of Israel. In the first major section of his book he dealt with the reasons for Judah’s exile and the destruction of the temple, alluding often to the future of Israel. But the prophet’s organization of his material included, between prophecies of Israel’s judgment and restoration, the oracles of God’s judgment on Israel’s neighbors who had encouraged and rejoiced in its fall. Throughout its history Israel had allowed foreign nations to influence its religion, culture, and form of government. The reduction of their powers meant Israel, restored to the Promised Land, would be more free for faithfulness to God. Before taking up the theme of the restoration, Ezekiel reviews the emphases of chapters 1–24: (1) He was called to be a watchman over Israel (33:1-9; cf. 1:1–3:21). (2) Israel had sinned against the Lord and had to receive a righteous judgment (33:10). (3) Jerusalem was to be taken by the Babylonians (v 21). (4) Israel’s repentance is necessary for restoration (vv 11-16).<\/p>\n<p>Thus far, his ministry had not met with success. The exiles who had heard his messages were full of appreciation for Ezekiel’s rhetorical and literary abilities (33:32). They readily accepted Ezekiel as a watchman who warned the people of the impending catastrophe at Jerusalem, and they may have admitted that their sin was the reason for God’s judgment on Israel and Jerusalem. But they were slow in applying the prophetic word to their own lives. God was ready to forgive their sins if they repented, acknowledged him, and demonstrated their renewed spirit by practicing the law of God (v 32). Now that the news of Jerusalem had been reported to the exiles (v 21), the necessity for the people to act responsibly was even more urgent. The Lord had demonstrated that Ezekiel was a true prophet (v 33).<\/p>\n<p>The success of Ezekiel’s ministry was not measured in numbers. He faithfully declared the word of God in word, sign, and parable. The exiles had followed the false hopes proclaimed by false “shepherds” who had fattened themselves at the expense of the flock (34:2-3). They did not take care of those in need (v 4), and they allowed the flock to be scattered (vv 5-6). God promised his people that he would be the faithful shepherd, bring the sheep together, feed them, and care for them (34:11-15; cf. Ps 23). God would also distinguish between the sheep and the goats, to find out whose hearts were right with him, so that the true sheep could be restored to God’s flock (Ez 34:20-22). God’s promise included the restoration of the land and the restoration of the divinely appointed Davidic dynasty (v 24). The renewed fellowship between the Lord and Israel under the messianic ruler would be sealed with a new covenant, the “covenant of peace.” That covenant assured the people of God’s blessing on their labor, bringing them abundant harvests (vv 26-27). The people would not be forced to fight against nature in their pursuits (vv 25-28). They would not have to struggle against other peoples who might try to share in their blessings by force (vv 27-29). The prophetic vision telescoped the events of the restoration of Israel after the exile, the coming of Jesus the Messiah (cf. Jn 10), and the full restoration of the sin-cursed world.<\/p>\n<p>Chapter 34 is the key to the messages of restoration. The emphases include the outworking of the frequently repeated verse “They will truly be my people, and I will be their God” (11:20; cf. 34:30; 36:28). The most significant aspects of the restoration theme include: (1) God’s gracious restoration of his people to covenant blessing (36:20-36; 37:23-26; 39:25); (2) God’s restoration of the nation of Israel to the land (36:1-15, 24; 37:14-23; 39:27); (3) God’s new covenant, giving his Spirit to his people (36:25-27; 37:14; 39:29), and his blessing on his people (36:8-12, 29-38; 39:9-10, 26), assuring them of victory over their enemies (35:1-15; 36:36; 37:28; 38:1–39:24); (4) God’s appointment of a Davidic king, the Messiah, over his people (37:24-25); and (5) God’s temple restored among his people (37:26-27).<\/p>\n<h6>The People of God<\/h6>\n<p>The rejection of the exiles did not last forever. Based on the Abrahamic covenant, the Lord promised to bless the faithful remnant and to make of them a new people. The imagery of a valley of dry bones is particularly fitting. The dry bones represent God’s people without hope (37:11). Ezekiel proclaims to them the good news that God will renew and restore them (v 12). The Lord’s purpose for his people is that all the nations may honor his holy name through his people (39:7, 25-27).<\/p>\n<h6>The Land<\/h6>\n<p>The promise also extends to the land, originally given to Abraham and his descendants. The Abrahamic covenant included a messianic element, for through the family of Abraham living in the Promised Land all nations would receive God’s blessing (Gn 12:3). In a vision Ezekiel saw the boundaries and described the division of the land (Ez 47–48). The royal city of Jerusalem is the central symbol of God’s presence among his people; its name will be “The Lord is there” (48:8-35).<\/p>\n<h6>The New Covenant<\/h6>\n<p>The Abrahamic covenant is renewed, a gracious covenant that expresses the restored relationship. “Covenant of peace” fittingly describes its nature and benefits. The restless people of God are promised rest from their searching, their enemies, and their toil. The change in relationship is further emphasized by God’s sending of his Spirit, who will add a new dimension to the lifestyle of his people. Obedience to God will no longer be constrained, for God’s Spirit helps his people to do his will. A new heart, controlled by the Spirit of God, is given to the Lord’s people (36:26-27). The presence of the Spirit also signifies a new life for the people (37:14; see Jn 3:8, 16; Acts 2:38; Rom 8:2-4, 15).<\/p>\n<h6>The Messiah<\/h6>\n<p>The OT hope of a messianic king is crystallized in Ezekiel’s message. His rule will be everlasting (Ez 37:25), over all God’s people who have new hearts (vv 15-25).<\/p>\n<h6>The Temple<\/h6>\n<p>As a priest, Ezekiel remained keenly interested in the temple, priesthood, sacrificial regulations, and festivals. A large section of the prophecy’s last division describes the temple’s revived worship (40:1–46:24). His vision of the glory of God, so important in the messages of God’s judgment on Jerusalem (chs 1, 10–11), now assures the remnant that God did not forsake his people (43:2-5). He will dwell among them, for the temple is a symbol of God’s presence (37:27). Some interpreters believe that the temple, with its ritual as described in Ezekiel 40–46, will be restored in the messianic era before the last judgment. Others believe the promises about the temple provide a positive symbolic answer to Ezekiel’s greatest concern: whether God will return to be with his people (48:35; see Jn 2:21; Rv 21:22).<\/p>\n\n<p>There are various interpretations of chapters 34–48. As a watchman to Israel, Ezekiel had a message for the exiled Jewish community. Thus the prophecy’s fulfillment must have begun with the decree of Cyrus I (538 <span>BC<\/span>) permitting the Jews to return to their land (Ezr 1:1-3). Two rival schools of interpretation exist on how the prophecy is fulfilled beyond Israel’s restoration to the land. Those who interpret Israel as simply the nation view the modern return of Jewish people to the land of Israel as a continuation of God’s prophetic promise. They believe that God’s plan for Israel is being fulfilled along with, and in addition to, his plan for the Christian church. The fulfillment of those prophecies will be inaugurated by the coming of the messianic king, who will give earthly peace to the Jewish people. The temple worship (Ez 40–48) will be restored in some way during the period of the messianic kingdom. The church will enjoy a small share in all the events centered on the Jews. The promises of Ezekiel’s vision are thus limited to the nation of Israel and must be fulfilled before the coming of a new heaven and earth.<\/p>\n<p>Other interpreters believe that Ezekiel wrote for the benefit of spiritual descendants of Abraham who believe, as Abraham did, in God’s promises (Gn 15:6; cf. Rom 4:11-13; Gal 3:6-9, 29). All who have faith like Abraham, whether Jews or Gentiles, are regarded as Abraham’s offspring (Gal 3:28-29). Ezekiel’s message thus would include all of God’s gracious work among Christian Gentiles, who have become the recipients of God’s promises and benefits. It is possible, on the basis of 1 Peter 1:10-11, to interpret Ezekiel’s language as a prophetic expression of how God’s grace would come to all those who become reconciled to God through faith in the gospel.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Diaspora of the Jews; Ezekiel (Person); Prophecy.<\/p>","summary_ro":"EZEKIEL, Book of Prophetic book of the OT, originating in the time of the Babylonian exile. Preview • Author • Date and Background • Content Author Ezekiel was the son of Buzi (1:3), a member of a priestly family. It is unclear whether he actually served in the temple as a priest, but such was his training. His writings show that he knew the regulations for sacrifices, the rituals, and the people’s expectations of a priest. In exile Ezekiel the priest spoke God’s word about the future of the ...","summary_en":"EZEKIEL, Book of Prophetic book of the OT, originating in the time of the Babylonian exile. Preview • Author • Date and Background • Content Author Ezekiel was the son of Buzi (1:3), a member of a priestly family. It is unclear whether he actually served in the temple as a priest, but such was his training. His writings show that he knew the regulations for sacrifices, the rituals, and the people’s expectations of a priest. In exile Ezekiel the priest spoke God’s word about the future of the ...","source":"Articles\/E.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":37066,"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":53410,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ezechiel 48:35","title_en":"Study Note: Ezechiel 48:35","content_ro":"<p><strong>48:35<\/strong> To cap off the whole vision, the city was given a new name, <em>The<\/em> <span>Lord<\/span><em> Is There<\/em>. Although the Lord had once departed from Jerusalem and ordered its destruction because of its gross idolatry and bloodshed, the new city was so much a part of the new order of things that it could receive that name. This also implied that the bloody city condemned in earlier chapters had now been replaced by a holy city, fit for God to dwell among representatives of all twelve of Israel’s tribes (cp. Isa 4:2-6; Zech 14:20-21). Thus the prophecy of Ezek 37:26-27 finally reaches its conclusion and its fulfillment, as God establishes his sanctuary in the midst of his people forever, just as he promised.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>48:35<\/strong> To cap off the whole vision, the city was given a new name, <em>The<\/em> <span>Lord<\/span><em> Is There<\/em>. Although the Lord had once departed from Jerusalem and ordered its destruction because of its gross idolatry and bloodshed, the new city was so much a part of the new order of things that it could receive that name. This also implied that the bloody city condemned in earlier chapters had now been replaced by a holy city, fit for God to dwell among representatives of all twelve of Israel’s tribes (cp. Isa 4:2-6; Zech 14:20-21). Thus the prophecy of Ezek 37:26-27 finally reaches its conclusion and its fulfillment, as God establishes his sanctuary in the midst of his people forever, just as he promised.<\/p>","summary_ro":"48:35 To cap off the whole vision, the city was given a new name, The Lord Is There. Although the Lord had once departed from Jerusalem and ordered its destruction because of its gross idolatry and bloodshed, the new city was so much a part of the new order of things that it could receive that name. This also implied that the bloody city condemned in earlier chapters had now been replaced by a holy city, fit for God to dwell among representatives of all twelve of Israel’s tribes (cp. Isa 4:2-...","summary_en":"48:35 To cap off the whole vision, the city was given a new name, The Lord Is There. Although the Lord had once departed from Jerusalem and ordered its destruction because of its gross idolatry and bloodshed, the new city was so much a part of the new order of things that it could receive that name. This also implied that the bloody city condemned in earlier chapters had now been replaced by a holy city, fit for God to dwell among representatives of all twelve of Israel’s tribes (cp. Isa 4:2-...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":81036,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ezechiel 48:35","title_en":"Study Note: Ezechiel 48:35","content_ro":"<p><strong>48:35<\/strong> To cap off the whole vision, the city was given a new name, <em>The<\/em> <span>Lord<\/span><em> Is There<\/em>. Although the Lord had once departed from Jerusalem and ordered its destruction because of its gross idolatry and bloodshed, the new city was so much a part of the new order of things that it could receive that name. This also implied that the bloody city condemned in earlier chapters had now been replaced by a holy city, fit for God to dwell among representatives of all twelve of Israel’s tribes (cp. Isa 4:2-6; Zech 14:20-21). Thus the prophecy of Ezek 37:26-27 finally reaches its conclusion and its fulfillment, as God establishes his sanctuary in the midst of his people forever, just as he promised.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>48:35<\/strong> To cap off the whole vision, the city was given a new name, <em>The<\/em> <span>Lord<\/span><em> Is There<\/em>. Although the Lord had once departed from Jerusalem and ordered its destruction because of its gross idolatry and bloodshed, the new city was so much a part of the new order of things that it could receive that name. This also implied that the bloody city condemned in earlier chapters had now been replaced by a holy city, fit for God to dwell among representatives of all twelve of Israel’s tribes (cp. Isa 4:2-6; Zech 14:20-21). Thus the prophecy of Ezek 37:26-27 finally reaches its conclusion and its fulfillment, as God establishes his sanctuary in the midst of his people forever, just as he promised.<\/p>","summary_ro":"48:35 To cap off the whole vision, the city was given a new name, The Lord Is There. Although the Lord had once departed from Jerusalem and ordered its destruction because of its gross idolatry and bloodshed, the new city was so much a part of the new order of things that it could receive that name. This also implied that the bloody city condemned in earlier chapters had now been replaced by a holy city, fit for God to dwell among representatives of all twelve of Israel’s tribes (cp. Isa 4:2-...","summary_en":"48:35 To cap off the whole vision, the city was given a new name, The Lord Is There. Although the Lord had once departed from Jerusalem and ordered its destruction because of its gross idolatry and bloodshed, the new city was so much a part of the new order of things that it could receive that name. This also implied that the bloody city condemned in earlier chapters had now been replaced by a holy city, fit for God to dwell among representatives of all twelve of Israel’s tribes (cp. Isa 4:2-...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":108662,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ezechiel 48:35","title_en":"Study Note: Ezechiel 48:35","content_ro":"<p><strong>48:35<\/strong> To cap off the whole vision, the city was given a new name, <em>The<\/em> <span>Lord<\/span><em> Is There<\/em>. Although the Lord had once departed from Jerusalem and ordered its destruction because of its gross idolatry and bloodshed, the new city was so much a part of the new order of things that it could receive that name. This also implied that the bloody city condemned in earlier chapters had now been replaced by a holy city, fit for God to dwell among representatives of all twelve of Israel’s tribes (cp. Isa 4:2-6; Zech 14:20-21). Thus the prophecy of Ezek 37:26-27 finally reaches its conclusion and its fulfillment, as God establishes his sanctuary in the midst of his people forever, just as he promised.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>48:35<\/strong> To cap off the whole vision, the city was given a new name, <em>The<\/em> <span>Lord<\/span><em> Is There<\/em>. Although the Lord had once departed from Jerusalem and ordered its destruction because of its gross idolatry and bloodshed, the new city was so much a part of the new order of things that it could receive that name. This also implied that the bloody city condemned in earlier chapters had now been replaced by a holy city, fit for God to dwell among representatives of all twelve of Israel’s tribes (cp. Isa 4:2-6; Zech 14:20-21). Thus the prophecy of Ezek 37:26-27 finally reaches its conclusion and its fulfillment, as God establishes his sanctuary in the midst of his people forever, just as he promised.<\/p>","summary_ro":"48:35 To cap off the whole vision, the city was given a new name, The Lord Is There. Although the Lord had once departed from Jerusalem and ordered its destruction because of its gross idolatry and bloodshed, the new city was so much a part of the new order of things that it could receive that name. This also implied that the bloody city condemned in earlier chapters had now been replaced by a holy city, fit for God to dwell among representatives of all twelve of Israel’s tribes (cp. Isa 4:2-...","summary_en":"48:35 To cap off the whole vision, the city was given a new name, The Lord Is There. Although the Lord had once departed from Jerusalem and ordered its destruction because of its gross idolatry and bloodshed, the new city was so much a part of the new order of things that it could receive that name. This also implied that the bloody city condemned in earlier chapters had now been replaced by a holy city, fit for God to dwell among representatives of all twelve of Israel’s tribes (cp. Isa 4:2-...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":136288,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ezechiel 48:35","title_en":"Study Note: Ezechiel 48:35","content_ro":"<p><strong>48:35<\/strong> To cap off the whole vision, the city was given a new name, <em>The<\/em> <span>Lord<\/span><em> Is There<\/em>. Although the Lord had once departed from Jerusalem and ordered its destruction because of its gross idolatry and bloodshed, the new city was so much a part of the new order of things that it could receive that name. This also implied that the bloody city condemned in earlier chapters had now been replaced by a holy city, fit for God to dwell among representatives of all twelve of Israel’s tribes (cp. Isa 4:2-6; Zech 14:20-21). Thus the prophecy of Ezek 37:26-27 finally reaches its conclusion and its fulfillment, as God establishes his sanctuary in the midst of his people forever, just as he promised.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>48:35<\/strong> To cap off the whole vision, the city was given a new name, <em>The<\/em> <span>Lord<\/span><em> Is There<\/em>. Although the Lord had once departed from Jerusalem and ordered its destruction because of its gross idolatry and bloodshed, the new city was so much a part of the new order of things that it could receive that name. This also implied that the bloody city condemned in earlier chapters had now been replaced by a holy city, fit for God to dwell among representatives of all twelve of Israel’s tribes (cp. Isa 4:2-6; Zech 14:20-21). Thus the prophecy of Ezek 37:26-27 finally reaches its conclusion and its fulfillment, as God establishes his sanctuary in the midst of his people forever, just as he promised.<\/p>","summary_ro":"48:35 To cap off the whole vision, the city was given a new name, The Lord Is There. Although the Lord had once departed from Jerusalem and ordered its destruction because of its gross idolatry and bloodshed, the new city was so much a part of the new order of things that it could receive that name. This also implied that the bloody city condemned in earlier chapters had now been replaced by a holy city, fit for God to dwell among representatives of all twelve of Israel’s tribes (cp. Isa 4:2-...","summary_en":"48:35 To cap off the whole vision, the city was given a new name, The Lord Is There. Although the Lord had once departed from Jerusalem and ordered its destruction because of its gross idolatry and bloodshed, the new city was so much a part of the new order of things that it could receive that name. This also implied that the bloody city condemned in earlier chapters had now been replaced by a holy city, fit for God to dwell among representatives of all twelve of Israel’s tribes (cp. Isa 4:2-...","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 48
— 35 versete
Ezechiel 48
📘 Info carte
Se încarcă...
📖 Resurse