📖 Biblia online

Citește Biblia

Biblia audio Planuri audio structurate — ascultă Biblia zilnică

Ezra 5

¹ Proorocii: Hagai, proorocul, şi Zaharia, fiul lui Ido, au proorocit Iudeilor cari erau în Iuda şi la Ierusalim, în Numele Dumnezeului lui Israel.

² Atunci Zorobabel, fiul lui Şealtiel, şi Iosua, fiul lui Ioţadac, s-au sculat şi au început zidirea Casei lui Dumnezeu la Ierusalim. Şi împreună cu ei erau şi proorocii lui Dumnezeu cari-i ajutau.

³ În aceeaş vreme, Tatnai, dregătorul de dincoace de Râu, Şetar-Boznai, şi tovarăşii lor de slujbă au venit la ei şi le-au vorbit aşa: ,,Cine v-a dat învoire să zidiţi casa aceasta şi să ridicaţi zidurile acestea?``

⁴ Ei le-au mai zis: ,,Cari sânt numele oamenilor cari zidesc clădirea aceasta?``

⁵ Dar ochiul lui Dumnezeu veghea asupra bătrânilor Iudeilor. Şi au lăsat să meargă înainte lucrările până la trimeterea unei înştiinţări către Dariu, şi până la primirea unei scrisori dela el în această privinţă.

⁶ Iată cuprinsul scrisorii trimese împăratului Dariu de Tatnai, dregătorul de dincoace de Râu, de Şetar-Boznai, şi tovarăşii lor din Afarsac, cari locuiau dincoace de Râu.

⁷ I-au trimes o scrisoare cu următorul cuprins: ,,Către împăratul Dariu, sănătate!

⁸ Să ştie împăratul că ne-am dus în ţinuturile lui Iuda, la Casa Dumnezeului celui mare. Ea se zideşte din pietre cioplite, şi în pereţi se pune lemn; lucrul merge repede şi izbuteşte în mânile lor.

⁹ Am întrebat pe bătrâni, şi le-am vorbit aşa: ,Cine v-a dat învoire să zidiţi casa aceasta şi să ridicaţi zidurile acestea?`

¹⁰ Le-am cerut şi numele lor ca să ţi le facem cunoscut, şi am pus în scris numele oamenilor cari sânt în fruntea lor.

¹¹ Iată răspunsul pe care ni l-au dat: ,Noi sântem slujitorii Dumnezeului cerurilor şi al pământului, şi zidim din nou casa care fusese zidită acum mulţi ani. Un mare împărat al lui Israel o zidise şi o isprăvise.

¹² Dar, dupăce părinţii noştri au mâniat pe Dumnezeul cerurilor, El i-a dat în mânile lui Nebucadneţar, împăratul Babilonului, Haldeianul, care a nimicit casa aceasta şi a luat pe popor rob la Babilon.

¹³ Totuş, în cel dintâi an al lui Cir, împăratul Babilonului, împăratul Cir a dat poruncă să se zidească din nou această casă a lui Dumnezeu.

¹⁴ Şi chiar împăratul Cir a scos din templul din Babilon uneltele de aur şi de argint ale Casei lui Dumnezeu, pe cari le luase Nebucadneţar din Templul dela Ierusalim şi le dusese în templul din Babilon, le-a dat în mâna aşa zisului Şeşbaţar, pe care l-a pus dregător,

¹⁵ şi i-a zis: ,Ia uneltele acestea, du-te de le pune în Templul din Ierusalim, şi să se zidească din nou Casa lui Dumnezeu pe locul unde era.`

¹⁶ Acest Şeşbaţar a venit dar, şi a pus temeliile Casei lui Dumnezeu la Ierusalim. De atunci până acum se zideşte ea, şi nu s-a isprăvit.`

¹⁷ Acum, dacă împăratul găseşte cu cale, să se facă cercetări în casa vistieriilor împăratului la Babilon, ca să vadă dacă s-a dat din partea împăratului Cir o poruncă pentru zidirea Casei acesteia a lui Dumnezeu la Ierusalim. Apoi, să ne trimeată împăratul voinţa lui asupra acestui lucru.

{"verseMap":{"1":[{"id":8604,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Darius","title_en":"Darius","content_ro":"<h3>DARIUS<\/h3>\nName of three emperors in the Persian dynasty of the legendary King Achaemenes. A Darius appears in the biblical books of Ezra, Nehemiah, Haggai, and Zechariah as a Persian king, and in the book of Daniel as a Mede who became king over the Chaldeans (Dn 9:1).<\/p>\nDarius I (521–486 BC<\/span>)<\/p>\nAlso known as Darius Hystaspes and Darius the Great, Darius I seized the throne of the Persian Empire after the death of Cambyses II. Although he was an Achaemenid, he was from a different branch of the royal family than Cyrus and Cambyses, and his authority was not accepted in all the provinces. After Darius quelled several revolts, however, his power was firmly established, and he turned his attention to expanding the empire. His military campaigns extended Persian borders to the Danube River in the west and to the Indus River in the east, making him ruler of the largest empire the world had known. Greco-Persian conflict, which continued until Alexander the Great conquered the empire in 330 BC<\/span>, began when Darius launched two invasions of Greece after conquering Thrace and Macedonia. The first expedition was destroyed by a storm in the Aegean Sea; the second was defeated by the Athenians in the famous battle of Marathon in 490 BC<\/span>.<\/p>\nAn able administrator, Darius did much to promote trade and commerce. He instituted a uniform system of weights and measures. During his reign, a canal from the Nile River to the Red Sea was completed, and a sea route from the Indus River to Egypt was explored.<\/p>\nDuring Darius’s reign, Persian architecture developed a style that continued until the end of the Achaemenid dynasty. Darius built at Babylon, Ecbatana, and Susa, his capital. A great royal road was constructed from Susa to the Lydian capital of Sardis. His greatest architectural accomplishment was the founding of Persepolis, a new royal city to replace the emperor’s residence at Pasargadae. Darius also allowed temples to be built in Egypt and in Jerusalem, continuing Cyrus’s policy of respecting the religious customs of his subjects.<\/p>\nDarius I is the Darius, king of Persia, mentioned in the books of Ezra, Haggai, and Zechariah. Ezra 5–6 record that Zerubbabel and Jeshua, with the help of Haggai and Zechariah, finished rebuilding the temple during Darius’s reign while Tattenai was governor of the province “Beyond the River” (Syria-Palestine). Zerubbabel and Jeshua had returned to Jerusalem under Cyrus II about 538 BC<\/span> (Ezr 2:2). They completed the temple in the sixth year of Darius (6:15). That must have been the sixth year of Darius I (516 BC<\/span>), since the sixth year of Darius II would certainly be too late. That identification was confirmed by discovery of a Babylonian document, dated June 5, 502 BC<\/span>, which refers to Tattenai as “the governor of Beyond the River.”<\/p>\nIn chapter 4 of Ezra three Persian rulers are mentioned: Darius (vv 5, 24); Ahasuerus (probably Xerxes I, v 6); and Artaxerxes (probably Artaxerxes I, vv 7-23). The chapter is a brief record of resistance to Jewish efforts to rebuild the city of Jerusalem and the temple. Verse 24 states that work on the temple stopped until “the second year of the reign of Darius,” yet the temple was completed in the sixth year of Darius I. Obviously, work on the temple could not have stopped in the second year of Artaxerxes’ son Darius II (421 BC<\/span>) if it had already been finished in 515 BC<\/span>. Therefore, Ezra 4:24 should be understood not as a chronological continuation of the first 23 verses but as an introduction to the next two chapters, which discuss the building of the temple.<\/p>\nDarius II (423–404 BC<\/span>)<\/p>\nAlso known as Ochus (his real name) and Darius Nothus (“Darius the bastard”), Darius II was the son of Artaxerxes I by a Babylonian concubine. Before he became emperor, Ochus was a satrap (governor) of Hyrcania, a region on the southeast coast of the Caspian Sea. In 423 BC<\/span> his half brother, Sogdianus (or Secydianus), killed Xerxes II. Ochus then seized the throne from Sogdianus, whom he executed, and adopted the name Darius II. His reign was plagued with revolution and corruption. His own full brother, Arsites, revolted soon after Darius seized the throne, and Darius had him executed.<\/p>\nAfter an alliance with Sparta was formed against Athens, Persia joined the Peloponnesian War. Several successful military campaigns succeeded in recovering the Greek coastal cities of Asia Minor and breaking Athenian power in the Aegean area. Darius II died in Babylon in 404 BC<\/span>, the year the Peloponnesian War ended.<\/p>\nThe Darius mentioned only once in the book of Nehemiah probably is Darius II. The passage states that Jewish priests were recorded “until the reign of Darius the Persian” (Neh 12:22b); descendants of Levi were recorded “until the days of Johanan son of Eliashib” (Neh 12:23). An Aramaic document found in Elephantine, Egypt, refers to Johanan the high priest in Jerusalem. The document was written in 407 BC<\/span>, thus placing Johanan in the reign of Darius II.<\/p>\nDarius the Mede<\/p>\nUnknown in historical documents of the period of the Babylonian and Persian empires, this biblical Darius has been identified with several known figures. The most important efforts have identified Darius the Mede as another name for Cyrus II (“Cyrus the Persian,” Dn 6:28); for Cambyses II, Cyrus’s son; or for Gubaru, who was governor of Babylon and the province Beyond the River during the reigns of Cyrus II and Cambyses II.<\/p>\nAccording to the book of Daniel, “Darius the Mede received the kingdom” when Belshazzar, king of Babylon, was slain (Dn 5:30-31). Darius was about 62 years old (v 31) and was “the son of Ahasuerus, by birth a Mede” (9:1). Daniel never suggested that Darius was king of Media or of the whole Persian Empire, only of the Chaldean (Babylonian) kingdom. The Babylonian Empire included Mesopotamia (Babylonia and Assyria) and Syro-Palestine (Syria, Phoenicia, and Palestine). In the Persian Empire, that huge area became known as the province of Babylon (Mesopotamia) and Beyond the River (Syro-Palestine). Daniel also recorded that Darius appointed governors in the kingdom. By the third year of Cyrus the Persian (536 BC<\/span>), the first year of Darius the Mede had already passed (Dn 10:1–11:1).<\/p>\nAccording to Nabonidus’s Chronicle and the Persian Verse Account of Nabonidus (two cuneiform documents from Nabonidus’s reign), Nabonidus was in Tema until Cyrus’s invasion of Babylonia. While he was away, he “entrusted the kingship” to his son Belshazzar. On October 12, 539 BC<\/span>, Babylon fell to Ugbaru, general of Cyrus’s army. Cyrus entered Babylon on October 29, 539 BC<\/span>, and appointed a person named Gubaru governor of Babylon. Gubaru then appointed other governors under him. General Ugbaru died on November 6, 539 BC<\/span>.<\/p>\nClearly there is no place for Darius the Mede between the reigns of Nabonidus\/Belshazzar and Cyrus II. Thus Darius the Mede must be Cyrus, a subordinate of Cyrus, or Cambyses, crown prince under Cyrus. But Cyrus II is mentioned as a separate person (Dn 6:28; 10:1–11:1), and it seems unlikely that the author would name the same figure both “Cyrus the Persian” and “Darius the Mede.” Cambyses II could not have been 62 years old; also, since he was not made king of Babylon until he became king of the empire in 529 BC<\/span>, Cambyses’ first year could not precede Cyrus’s third year (536 BC<\/span>).<\/p>\nDarius the Mede was thus probably a subordinate of Cyrus who was made ruler of “the realm of the Chaldeans” after Belshazzar and who could have been considered a king by his subjects. Accordingly, the reign of Darius (Dn 6:28) should be understood as simultaneous with that of Cyrus, not as a preceding reign. Thus, Gubaru was made governor of Babylon immediately following the reign of Belshazzar, and he appointed governors, as did Darius the Mede. There is no record of Gubaru’s age, nationality, or ancestry. He may well have been a 62-year-old Mede whose father was named Ahasuerus. The Ahasuerus of the book of Esther and of Ezra 4:6 should be identified with a later king, probably Xerxes I.<\/p>\nMany Babylonian texts record that Gubaru was governor of Babylon and the province Beyond the River for about 14 years (539–525 BC<\/span>). The documents attribute much power to him. His name is a final warning to officials who might disobey the laws. In documents that mention Cyrus II or Cambyses II, crimes in Babylon are stated to be sins against Gubaru, not against Cyrus or Cambyses. The province of Babylon and Beyond the River was the richest and most populous in the Persian Empire, encompassing many nations and languages. For a powerful governor of such a region to be called “king” by his subjects seems only natural.<\/p>\nThe case for Gubaru is admittedly circumstantial, but it remains the best solution to the problem. Until further evidence comes to light, it is safe to assume that Darius the Mede, “king over the realm of the Chaldeans,” was actually Gubaru, the known governor of that realm.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Medes, Media, Median; Persia, Persians.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>DARIUS<\/h3>\nName of three emperors in the Persian dynasty of the legendary King Achaemenes. A Darius appears in the biblical books of Ezra, Nehemiah, Haggai, and Zechariah as a Persian king, and in the book of Daniel as a Mede who became king over the Chaldeans (Dn 9:1).<\/p>\nDarius I (521–486 BC<\/span>)<\/p>\nAlso known as Darius Hystaspes and Darius the Great, Darius I seized the throne of the Persian Empire after the death of Cambyses II. Although he was an Achaemenid, he was from a different branch of the royal family than Cyrus and Cambyses, and his authority was not accepted in all the provinces. After Darius quelled several revolts, however, his power was firmly established, and he turned his attention to expanding the empire. His military campaigns extended Persian borders to the Danube River in the west and to the Indus River in the east, making him ruler of the largest empire the world had known. Greco-Persian conflict, which continued until Alexander the Great conquered the empire in 330 BC<\/span>, began when Darius launched two invasions of Greece after conquering Thrace and Macedonia. The first expedition was destroyed by a storm in the Aegean Sea; the second was defeated by the Athenians in the famous battle of Marathon in 490 BC<\/span>.<\/p>\nAn able administrator, Darius did much to promote trade and commerce. He instituted a uniform system of weights and measures. During his reign, a canal from the Nile River to the Red Sea was completed, and a sea route from the Indus River to Egypt was explored.<\/p>\nDuring Darius’s reign, Persian architecture developed a style that continued until the end of the Achaemenid dynasty. Darius built at Babylon, Ecbatana, and Susa, his capital. A great royal road was constructed from Susa to the Lydian capital of Sardis. His greatest architectural accomplishment was the founding of Persepolis, a new royal city to replace the emperor’s residence at Pasargadae. Darius also allowed temples to be built in Egypt and in Jerusalem, continuing Cyrus’s policy of respecting the religious customs of his subjects.<\/p>\nDarius I is the Darius, king of Persia, mentioned in the books of Ezra, Haggai, and Zechariah. Ezra 5–6 record that Zerubbabel and Jeshua, with the help of Haggai and Zechariah, finished rebuilding the temple during Darius’s reign while Tattenai was governor of the province “Beyond the River” (Syria-Palestine). Zerubbabel and Jeshua had returned to Jerusalem under Cyrus II about 538 BC<\/span> (Ezr 2:2). They completed the temple in the sixth year of Darius (6:15). That must have been the sixth year of Darius I (516 BC<\/span>), since the sixth year of Darius II would certainly be too late. That identification was confirmed by discovery of a Babylonian document, dated June 5, 502 BC<\/span>, which refers to Tattenai as “the governor of Beyond the River.”<\/p>\nIn chapter 4 of Ezra three Persian rulers are mentioned: Darius (vv 5, 24); Ahasuerus (probably Xerxes I, v 6); and Artaxerxes (probably Artaxerxes I, vv 7-23). The chapter is a brief record of resistance to Jewish efforts to rebuild the city of Jerusalem and the temple. Verse 24 states that work on the temple stopped until “the second year of the reign of Darius,” yet the temple was completed in the sixth year of Darius I. Obviously, work on the temple could not have stopped in the second year of Artaxerxes’ son Darius II (421 BC<\/span>) if it had already been finished in 515 BC<\/span>. Therefore, Ezra 4:24 should be understood not as a chronological continuation of the first 23 verses but as an introduction to the next two chapters, which discuss the building of the temple.<\/p>\nDarius II (423–404 BC<\/span>)<\/p>\nAlso known as Ochus (his real name) and Darius Nothus (“Darius the bastard”), Darius II was the son of Artaxerxes I by a Babylonian concubine. Before he became emperor, Ochus was a satrap (governor) of Hyrcania, a region on the southeast coast of the Caspian Sea. In 423 BC<\/span> his half brother, Sogdianus (or Secydianus), killed Xerxes II. Ochus then seized the throne from Sogdianus, whom he executed, and adopted the name Darius II. His reign was plagued with revolution and corruption. His own full brother, Arsites, revolted soon after Darius seized the throne, and Darius had him executed.<\/p>\nAfter an alliance with Sparta was formed against Athens, Persia joined the Peloponnesian War. Several successful military campaigns succeeded in recovering the Greek coastal cities of Asia Minor and breaking Athenian power in the Aegean area. Darius II died in Babylon in 404 BC<\/span>, the year the Peloponnesian War ended.<\/p>\nThe Darius mentioned only once in the book of Nehemiah probably is Darius II. The passage states that Jewish priests were recorded “until the reign of Darius the Persian” (Neh 12:22b); descendants of Levi were recorded “until the days of Johanan son of Eliashib” (Neh 12:23). An Aramaic document found in Elephantine, Egypt, refers to Johanan the high priest in Jerusalem. The document was written in 407 BC<\/span>, thus placing Johanan in the reign of Darius II.<\/p>\nDarius the Mede<\/p>\nUnknown in historical documents of the period of the Babylonian and Persian empires, this biblical Darius has been identified with several known figures. The most important efforts have identified Darius the Mede as another name for Cyrus II (“Cyrus the Persian,” Dn 6:28); for Cambyses II, Cyrus’s son; or for Gubaru, who was governor of Babylon and the province Beyond the River during the reigns of Cyrus II and Cambyses II.<\/p>\nAccording to the book of Daniel, “Darius the Mede received the kingdom” when Belshazzar, king of Babylon, was slain (Dn 5:30-31). Darius was about 62 years old (v 31) and was “the son of Ahasuerus, by birth a Mede” (9:1). Daniel never suggested that Darius was king of Media or of the whole Persian Empire, only of the Chaldean (Babylonian) kingdom. The Babylonian Empire included Mesopotamia (Babylonia and Assyria) and Syro-Palestine (Syria, Phoenicia, and Palestine). In the Persian Empire, that huge area became known as the province of Babylon (Mesopotamia) and Beyond the River (Syro-Palestine). Daniel also recorded that Darius appointed governors in the kingdom. By the third year of Cyrus the Persian (536 BC<\/span>), the first year of Darius the Mede had already passed (Dn 10:1–11:1).<\/p>\nAccording to Nabonidus’s Chronicle and the Persian Verse Account of Nabonidus (two cuneiform documents from Nabonidus’s reign), Nabonidus was in Tema until Cyrus’s invasion of Babylonia. While he was away, he “entrusted the kingship” to his son Belshazzar. On October 12, 539 BC<\/span>, Babylon fell to Ugbaru, general of Cyrus’s army. Cyrus entered Babylon on October 29, 539 BC<\/span>, and appointed a person named Gubaru governor of Babylon. Gubaru then appointed other governors under him. General Ugbaru died on November 6, 539 BC<\/span>.<\/p>\nClearly there is no place for Darius the Mede between the reigns of Nabonidus\/Belshazzar and Cyrus II. Thus Darius the Mede must be Cyrus, a subordinate of Cyrus, or Cambyses, crown prince under Cyrus. But Cyrus II is mentioned as a separate person (Dn 6:28; 10:1–11:1), and it seems unlikely that the author would name the same figure both “Cyrus the Persian” and “Darius the Mede.” Cambyses II could not have been 62 years old; also, since he was not made king of Babylon until he became king of the empire in 529 BC<\/span>, Cambyses’ first year could not precede Cyrus’s third year (536 BC<\/span>).<\/p>\nDarius the Mede was thus probably a subordinate of Cyrus who was made ruler of “the realm of the Chaldeans” after Belshazzar and who could have been considered a king by his subjects. Accordingly, the reign of Darius (Dn 6:28) should be understood as simultaneous with that of Cyrus, not as a preceding reign. Thus, Gubaru was made governor of Babylon immediately following the reign of Belshazzar, and he appointed governors, as did Darius the Mede. There is no record of Gubaru’s age, nationality, or ancestry. He may well have been a 62-year-old Mede whose father was named Ahasuerus. The Ahasuerus of the book of Esther and of Ezra 4:6 should be identified with a later king, probably Xerxes I.<\/p>\nMany Babylonian texts record that Gubaru was governor of Babylon and the province Beyond the River for about 14 years (539–525 BC<\/span>). The documents attribute much power to him. His name is a final warning to officials who might disobey the laws. In documents that mention Cyrus II or Cambyses II, crimes in Babylon are stated to be sins against Gubaru, not against Cyrus or Cambyses. The province of Babylon and Beyond the River was the richest and most populous in the Persian Empire, encompassing many nations and languages. For a powerful governor of such a region to be called “king” by his subjects seems only natural.<\/p>\nThe case for Gubaru is admittedly circumstantial, but it remains the best solution to the problem. Until further evidence comes to light, it is safe to assume that Darius the Mede, “king over the realm of the Chaldeans,” was actually Gubaru, the known governor of that realm.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Medes, Media, Median; Persia, Persians.<\/p>","summary_ro":"DARIUS Name of three emperors in the Persian dynasty of the legendary King Achaemenes. A Darius appears in the biblical books of Ezra, Nehemiah, Haggai, and Zechariah as a Persian king, and in the book of Daniel as a Mede who became king over the Chaldeans (Dn 9:1). Darius I (521–486 BC) Also known as Darius Hystaspes and Darius the Great, Darius I seized the throne of the Persian Empire after the death of Cambyses II. Although he was an Achaemenid, he was from a different branch of the royal...","summary_en":"DARIUS Name of three emperors in the Persian dynasty of the legendary King Achaemenes. A Darius appears in the biblical books of Ezra, Nehemiah, Haggai, and Zechariah as a Persian king, and in the book of Daniel as a Mede who became king over the Chaldeans (Dn 9:1). Darius I (521–486 BC) Also known as Darius Hystaspes and Darius the Great, Darius I seized the throne of the Persian Empire after the death of Cambyses II. Although he was an Achaemenid, he was from a different branch of the royal...","source":"Articles\/D.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":11796,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Book of Ezra","title_en":"Book of Ezra","content_ro":"<h3>EZRA, Book of<\/h3>\nOne of the historical books of the OT, associated with 2 Chronicles and Nehemiah.<\/p>\nPreview<\/p>\n• Name<\/p>\n• Background<\/p>\n• Sources<\/p>\n• Date<\/p>\n• Languages, Texts, and Versions<\/p>\n• Purpose and Content<\/p>\nName<\/p>\nIn the Talmud tractate Baba Bathra<\/em> 15a, the rabbis and scribes regarded Ezra and Nehemiah as one book. Josephus (Apion<\/em> 1.8) also considered the two books to be one when the number of OT books was given as 22. Some church fathers, such as Melito of Sardis and Jerome, thought of them as one book. The Septuagint (Greek translation of the OT) also grouped the two books as one, referring to them as 2 Ezra to distinguish them from an apocryphal book known as 1 Ezra. The Latin Vulgate, however, called Ezra “1 Ezra” and Nehemiah “2 Ezra.”<\/p>\nBackground<\/p>\nThe Jewish people came under the rule of the Persian Empire when Cyrus conquered Babylon in 539 BC<\/span>. From then until Ezra’s time, the Persian kings were Cyrus (539–530 BC<\/span>), who allowed the Jewish people and other captives to return to their homeland (Ezr 1); Cambyses (529–522 BC<\/span>); Gaumata, a usurper of the throne (522 BC<\/span>); Darius I (521–486 BC<\/span>; Ezr 5:6); Xerxes I (OT Ahasuerus, 486–465 BC<\/span>; Ezr 4:6); and Artaxerxes I (465–424 BC<\/span>; Ezr 4:7-23; 7:1–10:44). Both Ezra’s and Nehemiah’s work fall within the period between Cyrus and Artaxerxes I. Some scholars, however, place Ezra during the reign of Artaxerxes II (404–359 BC<\/span>).<\/p>\nSources<\/p>\nBy tradition, the Jewish leader Ezra researched and put together the material that forms his book. Chapters 7–10 are written in the first person singular, and Ezra may have used the autobiographical passages as the core of this book, adding information from other sources. That the book contains portions written in Aramaic has been used as justification for assigning a date later than Ezra’s time. But the Aramaic of Ezra bears a remarkable similarity to fifth-century BC<\/span> Aramaic papyri from the Jewish community at Elephantine in Egypt.<\/p>\nThe book is largely a compilation, using autobiography, official documents, edicts, and other material. The present book of Ezra contains four identifiable strata of source material.<\/p>\n<h5>Memoirs of Ezra<\/h5>\nCertain sections appear in the first person singular (7:27–9:15), located between third-person narratives (7:1-26; 10). The memoirs were probably part of Ezra’s own official reports.<\/p>\n<h5>Aramaic Documents<\/h5>\nAramaic was the diplomatic language of the Persian Empire, and a number of documents appear in the book of Ezra. A letter of complaint was written to Artaxerxes I about the rebuilding of the city walls, for example, and Ezra also included the official reply (Ezr 4:8-23). There is also a letter of Darius I and the king’s reply (5:1–6:18). An official authorization by the Persian court of Artaxerxes permitted Ezra to return, and this included a description of material entrusted into his keeping (7:12-26). Since all of those sections were official correspondence, the record naturally is written in Aramaic.<\/p>\n<h5>Hebrew Lists<\/h5>\nEzra included Hebrew documents listing people’s names for a number of purposes. One such document indicated the Persian government’s permission for Jewish immigrants to return to the land of Israel (Ezr 1:2-4). It was a Jewish version of Cyrus’s general edict expressing concern for all his subjects. The edict in Aramaic is repeated by Ezra in 6:3-5, and that version is probably taken from an original memorandum of a royal decision. Ezra included lists of the immigrants who returned to begin the second commonwealth of Israel (ch 2, repeated in Neh 7). The book also contains a list of immigrants who returned with Ezra by permission of Artaxerxes I (Ezr 8:1-14). Lists of those who had married pagan wives are provided as well (10:18-43).<\/p>\n<h5>Narrative<\/h5>\nThe rest of the book comprises narrative by Ezra himself. For the period of the first return prior to his own time, he probably drew upon existing sources, either oral or documentary. Material in the book that was contemporary with the scribe would be his personal account about his own work.<\/p>\nDate<\/p>\nTraditionally, the Artaxerxes in Ezra 7:1 has been identified with Artaxerxes I Longimanus. Ezra’s arrival in Jerusalem would thus have been in 458 BC<\/span> (see nlt<\/span> mg for 7:8). Therefore, Ezra’s work at Jerusalem started before that of Nehemiah, who came in 445 BC<\/span>.<\/p>\nBut the traditional dates are questioned from a number of sources. One alternative is to place Nehemiah during the reign of Artaxerxes I (464–424 BC<\/span>) and Ezra at a later date, in the reign of Artaxerxes II Mnemon (404–359 BC<\/span>). Such a suggestion creates a difficulty with Nehemiah 8:2, because there Ezra is named as Nehemiah’s contemporary and coworker.<\/p>\nIn addition, the Elephantine papyri (407–400 BC<\/span>) mention the high priest Johanan in Jerusalem, and Sanballat as governor of Samaria. Johanan is considered a grandson of Eliashib, but Nehemiah was a contemporary of Eliashib (Neh 3:1, 20). The biblical material that speaks of Nehemiah going to Jerusalem in the 20th year of Artaxerxes (Neh 2:1, 445 BC<\/span>) and again during the 32nd year (Neh 13:6, 433 BC<\/span>) refers to Eliashib’s contemporary high priesthood with Ezra. The traditional position thus furnishes a reasonable date for the book of Ezra. If the scribe were placed during the reign of Artaxerxes II (c. 397 BC<\/span>), his ministry would be too late for the high priesthood of Johanan.<\/p>\nLanguages, Texts, and Versions<\/p>\nThe primary language of the book of Ezra is Hebrew; the exceptions are 4:7, 6:18, and 7:12-26, which are written in Aramaic. The Hebrew portion appears to resemble the language of Daniel, Haggai, and 2 Chronicles much more than later Hebrew, such as that of Ecclesiasticus. As indicated, the Aramaic portions resemble the Elephantine papyri, dated about 407–400 BC<\/span>. In addition, Persian personal and family names and Persian words and expressions occur in the book, such as Bigvai, Mithredath, and Elam. All of these evidences serve to place the book in about the fifth century BC<\/span>.<\/p>\nThe Hebrew Masoretic Text of Ezra seems well preserved. The Septuagint version is a bit shorter than the Masoretic Text. Only parts of Ezra 4 and 5 have been found among the Dead Sea Scrolls.<\/p>\nPurpose and Content<\/p>\nThe book of Ezra is a straightforward account of one of the most important events in Jewish history. From a priestly point of view, it is an account of the restoration of Jewish people to their homeland following the Babylonian dispersion. The record tells of two distinct returns, one under the leadership of Zerubbabel (chs 1–6; 538 BC<\/span>), and 80 years later, the second return led by Ezra (chs 7–10; 458 BC<\/span>). The book emphasizes Ezra’s leadership and the reestablishment of the people on their land, both of which were to have important future consequences.<\/p>\nLittle is known about the political activity of Ezra in the Persian court. He appears to have been a man of considerable influence, however, and could well be described as an official who held a position corresponding to that of “Secretary of State for Jewish Affairs.” To what extent that function applied to the Persian Empire as a whole is uncertain, since Ezra’s recorded activities took place only in the area known to the Persians as the province “Beyond the River,” that is, the territory lying to the west of the Euphrates. The importance of Ezra’s position in the Persian Empire is indicated by the fact that King Artaxerxes gave him full authority to do whatever he thought necessary for the welfare of his people and the empire (7:21-26). Ezra’s genealogy is given in 7:1-5, and he is consistently spoken of as a scribe learned in the Mosaic law. As a descendant of Zadok the priest, he would have the authority to instruct others in the Torah.<\/p>\nChapter 4 speaks of the opposition to rebuilding the temple and the walls. We should recognize that Ezra’s approach in this chapter is topical rather than chronological where, in the middle of describing the earlier opposition to building the temple (5:1-5), he complained that the same kind of opposition was being repeated in his day concerning the attempt to rebuild the city walls and repair the fortifications of Jerusalem (5:7-23). Internal evidence suggests that a long historical interval ensued during the reign of Ahasuerus, or Xerxes, and the early part of Artaxerxes’ regime. During this period, complaints were made to the Persian authorities that the returned Judeans were rebuilding the city wall of Jerusalem, and as a result the work was halted for some time. It readily can be seen that Ezra was dealing with the evil intentions of Judah’s enemies and that the opposition of Rehum and Shimshai did not appear in the 520s (when the temple was being built) because they lived in the 460s, early in the reign of Artaxerxes I.<\/p>\nBut the initial passage is actually a history of opposition to rebuilding the ruined temple. It narrates the frustrations experienced by the Judean community from the time of return to their homeland during Cyrus’s rule (4:1-5) up to the time of King Darius (v 24). The prophet Haggai (520 BC<\/span>) aroused the people with his message and persuaded them to lay the foundations of the new temple.<\/p>\nEzra resumes the theme of the book in chapter 5. He points out the problems, frustrations, and hindrances the Jewish people had with the construction of the temple. It was not until a diligent search had been made in the archives by the Persian authorities that the original edict granting permission to build the temple was found (5:7–6:5).<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Ezra (Person) #1; Postexilic Period.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>EZRA, Book of<\/h3>\nOne of the historical books of the OT, associated with 2 Chronicles and Nehemiah.<\/p>\nPreview<\/p>\n• Name<\/p>\n• Background<\/p>\n• Sources<\/p>\n• Date<\/p>\n• Languages, Texts, and Versions<\/p>\n• Purpose and Content<\/p>\nName<\/p>\nIn the Talmud tractate Baba Bathra<\/em> 15a, the rabbis and scribes regarded Ezra and Nehemiah as one book. Josephus (Apion<\/em> 1.8) also considered the two books to be one when the number of OT books was given as 22. Some church fathers, such as Melito of Sardis and Jerome, thought of them as one book. The Septuagint (Greek translation of the OT) also grouped the two books as one, referring to them as 2 Ezra to distinguish them from an apocryphal book known as 1 Ezra. The Latin Vulgate, however, called Ezra “1 Ezra” and Nehemiah “2 Ezra.”<\/p>\nBackground<\/p>\nThe Jewish people came under the rule of the Persian Empire when Cyrus conquered Babylon in 539 BC<\/span>. From then until Ezra’s time, the Persian kings were Cyrus (539–530 BC<\/span>), who allowed the Jewish people and other captives to return to their homeland (Ezr 1); Cambyses (529–522 BC<\/span>); Gaumata, a usurper of the throne (522 BC<\/span>); Darius I (521–486 BC<\/span>; Ezr 5:6); Xerxes I (OT Ahasuerus, 486–465 BC<\/span>; Ezr 4:6); and Artaxerxes I (465–424 BC<\/span>; Ezr 4:7-23; 7:1–10:44). Both Ezra’s and Nehemiah’s work fall within the period between Cyrus and Artaxerxes I. Some scholars, however, place Ezra during the reign of Artaxerxes II (404–359 BC<\/span>).<\/p>\nSources<\/p>\nBy tradition, the Jewish leader Ezra researched and put together the material that forms his book. Chapters 7–10 are written in the first person singular, and Ezra may have used the autobiographical passages as the core of this book, adding information from other sources. That the book contains portions written in Aramaic has been used as justification for assigning a date later than Ezra’s time. But the Aramaic of Ezra bears a remarkable similarity to fifth-century BC<\/span> Aramaic papyri from the Jewish community at Elephantine in Egypt.<\/p>\nThe book is largely a compilation, using autobiography, official documents, edicts, and other material. The present book of Ezra contains four identifiable strata of source material.<\/p>\n<h5>Memoirs of Ezra<\/h5>\nCertain sections appear in the first person singular (7:27–9:15), located between third-person narratives (7:1-26; 10). The memoirs were probably part of Ezra’s own official reports.<\/p>\n<h5>Aramaic Documents<\/h5>\nAramaic was the diplomatic language of the Persian Empire, and a number of documents appear in the book of Ezra. A letter of complaint was written to Artaxerxes I about the rebuilding of the city walls, for example, and Ezra also included the official reply (Ezr 4:8-23). There is also a letter of Darius I and the king’s reply (5:1–6:18). An official authorization by the Persian court of Artaxerxes permitted Ezra to return, and this included a description of material entrusted into his keeping (7:12-26). Since all of those sections were official correspondence, the record naturally is written in Aramaic.<\/p>\n<h5>Hebrew Lists<\/h5>\nEzra included Hebrew documents listing people’s names for a number of purposes. One such document indicated the Persian government’s permission for Jewish immigrants to return to the land of Israel (Ezr 1:2-4). It was a Jewish version of Cyrus’s general edict expressing concern for all his subjects. The edict in Aramaic is repeated by Ezra in 6:3-5, and that version is probably taken from an original memorandum of a royal decision. Ezra included lists of the immigrants who returned to begin the second commonwealth of Israel (ch 2, repeated in Neh 7). The book also contains a list of immigrants who returned with Ezra by permission of Artaxerxes I (Ezr 8:1-14). Lists of those who had married pagan wives are provided as well (10:18-43).<\/p>\n<h5>Narrative<\/h5>\nThe rest of the book comprises narrative by Ezra himself. For the period of the first return prior to his own time, he probably drew upon existing sources, either oral or documentary. Material in the book that was contemporary with the scribe would be his personal account about his own work.<\/p>\nDate<\/p>\nTraditionally, the Artaxerxes in Ezra 7:1 has been identified with Artaxerxes I Longimanus. Ezra’s arrival in Jerusalem would thus have been in 458 BC<\/span> (see nlt<\/span> mg for 7:8). Therefore, Ezra’s work at Jerusalem started before that of Nehemiah, who came in 445 BC<\/span>.<\/p>\nBut the traditional dates are questioned from a number of sources. One alternative is to place Nehemiah during the reign of Artaxerxes I (464–424 BC<\/span>) and Ezra at a later date, in the reign of Artaxerxes II Mnemon (404–359 BC<\/span>). Such a suggestion creates a difficulty with Nehemiah 8:2, because there Ezra is named as Nehemiah’s contemporary and coworker.<\/p>\nIn addition, the Elephantine papyri (407–400 BC<\/span>) mention the high priest Johanan in Jerusalem, and Sanballat as governor of Samaria. Johanan is considered a grandson of Eliashib, but Nehemiah was a contemporary of Eliashib (Neh 3:1, 20). The biblical material that speaks of Nehemiah going to Jerusalem in the 20th year of Artaxerxes (Neh 2:1, 445 BC<\/span>) and again during the 32nd year (Neh 13:6, 433 BC<\/span>) refers to Eliashib’s contemporary high priesthood with Ezra. The traditional position thus furnishes a reasonable date for the book of Ezra. If the scribe were placed during the reign of Artaxerxes II (c. 397 BC<\/span>), his ministry would be too late for the high priesthood of Johanan.<\/p>\nLanguages, Texts, and Versions<\/p>\nThe primary language of the book of Ezra is Hebrew; the exceptions are 4:7, 6:18, and 7:12-26, which are written in Aramaic. The Hebrew portion appears to resemble the language of Daniel, Haggai, and 2 Chronicles much more than later Hebrew, such as that of Ecclesiasticus. As indicated, the Aramaic portions resemble the Elephantine papyri, dated about 407–400 BC<\/span>. In addition, Persian personal and family names and Persian words and expressions occur in the book, such as Bigvai, Mithredath, and Elam. All of these evidences serve to place the book in about the fifth century BC<\/span>.<\/p>\nThe Hebrew Masoretic Text of Ezra seems well preserved. The Septuagint version is a bit shorter than the Masoretic Text. Only parts of Ezra 4 and 5 have been found among the Dead Sea Scrolls.<\/p>\nPurpose and Content<\/p>\nThe book of Ezra is a straightforward account of one of the most important events in Jewish history. From a priestly point of view, it is an account of the restoration of Jewish people to their homeland following the Babylonian dispersion. The record tells of two distinct returns, one under the leadership of Zerubbabel (chs 1–6; 538 BC<\/span>), and 80 years later, the second return led by Ezra (chs 7–10; 458 BC<\/span>). The book emphasizes Ezra’s leadership and the reestablishment of the people on their land, both of which were to have important future consequences.<\/p>\nLittle is known about the political activity of Ezra in the Persian court. He appears to have been a man of considerable influence, however, and could well be described as an official who held a position corresponding to that of “Secretary of State for Jewish Affairs.” To what extent that function applied to the Persian Empire as a whole is uncertain, since Ezra’s recorded activities took place only in the area known to the Persians as the province “Beyond the River,” that is, the territory lying to the west of the Euphrates. The importance of Ezra’s position in the Persian Empire is indicated by the fact that King Artaxerxes gave him full authority to do whatever he thought necessary for the welfare of his people and the empire (7:21-26). Ezra’s genealogy is given in 7:1-5, and he is consistently spoken of as a scribe learned in the Mosaic law. As a descendant of Zadok the priest, he would have the authority to instruct others in the Torah.<\/p>\nChapter 4 speaks of the opposition to rebuilding the temple and the walls. We should recognize that Ezra’s approach in this chapter is topical rather than chronological where, in the middle of describing the earlier opposition to building the temple (5:1-5), he complained that the same kind of opposition was being repeated in his day concerning the attempt to rebuild the city walls and repair the fortifications of Jerusalem (5:7-23). Internal evidence suggests that a long historical interval ensued during the reign of Ahasuerus, or Xerxes, and the early part of Artaxerxes’ regime. During this period, complaints were made to the Persian authorities that the returned Judeans were rebuilding the city wall of Jerusalem, and as a result the work was halted for some time. It readily can be seen that Ezra was dealing with the evil intentions of Judah’s enemies and that the opposition of Rehum and Shimshai did not appear in the 520s (when the temple was being built) because they lived in the 460s, early in the reign of Artaxerxes I.<\/p>\nBut the initial passage is actually a history of opposition to rebuilding the ruined temple. It narrates the frustrations experienced by the Judean community from the time of return to their homeland during Cyrus’s rule (4:1-5) up to the time of King Darius (v 24). The prophet Haggai (520 BC<\/span>) aroused the people with his message and persuaded them to lay the foundations of the new temple.<\/p>\nEzra resumes the theme of the book in chapter 5. He points out the problems, frustrations, and hindrances the Jewish people had with the construction of the temple. It was not until a diligent search had been made in the archives by the Persian authorities that the original edict granting permission to build the temple was found (5:7–6:5).<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Ezra (Person) #1; Postexilic Period.<\/p>","summary_ro":"EZRA, Book of One of the historical books of the OT, associated with 2 Chronicles and Nehemiah. Preview • Name • Background • Sources • Date • Languages, Texts, and Versions • Purpose and Content Name In the Talmud tractate Baba Bathra 15a, the rabbis and scribes regarded Ezra and Nehemiah as one book. Josephus (Apion 1.8) also considered the two books to be one when the number of OT books was given as 22. Some church fathers, such as Melito of Sardis and Jerome, thought of them as one book. ...","summary_en":"EZRA, Book of One of the historical books of the OT, associated with 2 Chronicles and Nehemiah. Preview • Name • Background • Sources • Date • Languages, Texts, and Versions • Purpose and Content Name In the Talmud tractate Baba Bathra 15a, the rabbis and scribes regarded Ezra and Nehemiah as one book. Josephus (Apion 1.8) also considered the two books to be one when the number of OT books was given as 22. Some church fathers, such as Melito of Sardis and Jerome, thought of them as one book. ...","source":"Articles\/E.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":15003,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Haggai (Person)","title_en":"Haggai (Person)","content_ro":"<h3>HAGGAI (Person<\/span>)<\/h3>\nProphet whose book is the 10th in a series of 12 brief prophetic books concluding the OT. Haggai’s name probably came from a word for “festival.” We have no information concerning his family or social background. He is referred to merely as Haggai the prophet (Hg 1:1; Ezr 5:1; 6:14). His place in the postexilic community seems to have been a conspicuous one, and according to Jewish tradition, he was known as a prophet in Babylon during the exile. The major concern of his prophetic ministry was to encourage the people to rebuild the temple, which had been destroyed during the earlier years of the exile.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Haggai, Book of; Prophet, Prophetess.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>HAGGAI (Person<\/span>)<\/h3>\nProphet whose book is the 10th in a series of 12 brief prophetic books concluding the OT. Haggai’s name probably came from a word for “festival.” We have no information concerning his family or social background. He is referred to merely as Haggai the prophet (Hg 1:1; Ezr 5:1; 6:14). His place in the postexilic community seems to have been a conspicuous one, and according to Jewish tradition, he was known as a prophet in Babylon during the exile. The major concern of his prophetic ministry was to encourage the people to rebuild the temple, which had been destroyed during the earlier years of the exile.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Haggai, Book of; Prophet, Prophetess.<\/p>","summary_ro":"HAGGAI (Person) Prophet whose book is the 10th in a series of 12 brief prophetic books concluding the OT. Haggai’s name probably came from a word for “festival.” We have no information concerning his family or social background. He is referred to merely as Haggai the prophet (Hg 1:1; Ezr 5:1; 6:14). His place in the postexilic community seems to have been a conspicuous one, and according to Jewish tradition, he was known as a prophet in Babylon during the exile. The major concern of his proph...","summary_en":"HAGGAI (Person) Prophet whose book is the 10th in a series of 12 brief prophetic books concluding the OT. Haggai’s name probably came from a word for “festival.” We have no information concerning his family or social background. He is referred to merely as Haggai the prophet (Hg 1:1; Ezr 5:1; 6:14). His place in the postexilic community seems to have been a conspicuous one, and according to Jewish tradition, he was known as a prophet in Babylon during the exile. The major concern of his proph...","source":"Articles\/H.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":15005,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Book of Haggai","title_en":"Book of Haggai","content_ro":"<h3>HAGGAI, Book of<\/h3>\nTenth of the 12 short prophetic books at the end of the OT.<\/p>\nPreview<\/p>\n• Author and Date<\/p>\n• Purpose<\/p>\n• Teaching<\/p>\n• Content<\/p>\nAuthor and Date<\/p>\nHaggai was among the Jewish colonists at Jerusalem in the year 520 BC<\/span> when his prophetic words were recorded (Ezr 5:1-2; 6:14). The four messages the Lord gave to Haggai were to be directed to specific individuals. The first was to Zerubbabel the governor and Joshua the high priest (Hg 1:1). The second was to Zerubbabel, Joshua, and the remnant of the people (2:2). The third was a word to the priests (v 11). The final message was limited to Zerubbabel (v 21).<\/p>\nPurpose<\/p>\nThe key phrase of Haggai’s prophecies is “Consider your ways” or “Consider” (1:5, 7; 2:15, 18). The purpose of God’s messages to the Judean leadership and people, therefore, was to awaken them to their spiritual responsibilities. Two different classes of Judeans had to be turned from their indifference. The true believers needed to be reminded that God was merciful. The situation could be remedied, even though they thought the sins committed by their fathers were unforgivable. The hypocrites among the Judeans had only sought the promised blessings. They had only exchanged one form of idolatry for another. When the blessings did not materialize, they were disappointed.<\/p>\nThe unifying message was that today gives no key to what God will do tomorrow. God’s fulfillment of his promises cannot be judged by appearances. Haggai’s message was twofold: reproof and encouragement. The colonists needed to be chastised for their indifference and consoled in the midst of their troubles.<\/p>\nTeaching<\/p>\nHaggai is a practical book, dealing with the believer’s service to God. Procrastination and indifference have been debilitating sins among God’s people throughout all ages. Concern and a sense of urgency are always pleasing to God (Rom 13:11-14).<\/p>\nThe presence of God is the primary motivation for boldness and the means of banishing discouragement (Mt 28:19-20; Eph 3:8-21; Heb 13:5-6).<\/p>\nSeparation from contaminating influences and sin is demanded of all believers (2 Cor 6:14–7:1). Without this quality of life, the believer cannot expect to be found fit for God’s service (2 Tm 2:19-26). The disobedient child of God can expect removal of blessing and chastisement from God (Heb 12:3-13; Jas 4:1-3).<\/p>\nThe message concerning God’s judgment of sin and the establishment of the messianic kingdom is a message of hope to the NT believer as well as the Jews of Haggai’s day (Rom 15:4-13; 2 Pt 3:10-18).<\/p>\nThe key phrase of Haggai (“consider your ways”) has echoes in 1 Corinthians 11:28 and 2 Corinthians 13:5, as do his writings about the effects of sin and the blessings of God (Jude 1:1-25).<\/p>\nThe God of Haggai is given the title “Lord of hosts” (“Lord<\/span> Almighty”) 14 times in the book. This title is characteristic of the postexilic prophetic books, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, where it is found more than 80 times. It teaches that God is all-powerful and is Master of all spirit beings in heaven and all created beings on the earth.<\/p>\nHaggai also testifies to the God-breathed quality of the Word of God and its divine authority. Over and over the prophet announces ways that God has spoken to him and is the author of these messages (at least 25 times in the space of 28 verses).<\/p>\nContent<\/p>\n<h5>First Message<\/h5>\nThe first message Haggai was to deliver to the Judeans was given to him “on the first day of the month” (Hg 1:1). Upon the first day of each month, the Jews were to bring special offerings to the sanctuary (Nm 28:11-15). God chose this special time to reveal the sin of the people with regard to the unfinished sanctuary.<\/p>\nThe leaders of the Judeans were singled out for the first message from the Lord (Hg 1:1). Zerubbabel was the civil leader or governor, and Joshua was the spiritual leader or high priest. Together, they were responsible for the activity (or inactivity) of God’s people.<\/p>\nThe word of the Lord revealed the procrastination of the people (1:2). God’s temple had not been completed because his people had determined for themselves that “the time is not come.” The energies and finances of God’s people had been channeled selfishly into their own homes (v 4).<\/p>\n“Now” (1:5, rsv<\/span>) focused the attention of the Jews upon the present requirement of God in the light of their sinful indifference. They were to give attention to their own condition spiritually and materially: “Consider how you have fared.” This key phrase of Haggai’s prophecies is literally “Set your heart on your ways” or “Lay your ways to your heart.” Self-examination would reveal that their procrastination had robbed them of more than just 16 years.<\/p>\nVerse 6 reveals the poverty in which the Jews were living as a result of God’s chastisement for their sin. The blessings of God had been withdrawn in accord with his covenant (see Dt 28:15–29:1).<\/p>\nFollowing another exhortation to “consider” their ways (Hg 1:7), the Lord revealed the remedy for the Jews’ cursed condition: “rebuild my house” (v 8). The disobedience with regard to the completion of the temple was the reason for their poverty (vv 9-11).<\/p>\nThe response of the leaders and the people was encouraging. The resumption of the construction of the temple was a definite manifestation of belief in the word of God (1:12). Immediate obedience also testified to the acceptance of the ministry of Haggai, who was “the Lord<\/span>’s messenger” delivering “the Lord<\/span>’s message” (v 13).<\/p>\n<h5>Second Message<\/h5>\nApproximately one month later Haggai was summoned again by the Lord (2:1). The second message continued the note of encouragement with which the first message closed. Perhaps the builders had begun to feel the pressures of their service. Perhaps the old doubts and discouragements had plagued their faith again. The adversaries had reappeared to hinder them (Ezr 5:3–6:12). Haggai’s second message was similar to Ezra’s claim that “the eye of their God was upon the elders of the Jews” (Ezr 5:5, rsv<\/span>). The Lord not only sees his servants’ needs but also sends relief and encouragement.<\/p>\nThe day of this second message was the last day of the Feast of Tabernacles (Lv 23:33-43). Perhaps this reminder of God’s glorious presence with their ancestors in the wilderness made their present situation all the more discouraging. Therefore, the Lord spoke to all the people rather than just to their leaders (Hg 2:2). Was there any survivor of the preexilic days who had personally beheld the glory of God as it resided in the Solomonic temple (cf. 1 Kgs 8:1-11; Ez 9:1–11:23)? Was the present temple “as nothing” in comparison (Hg 2:3)? The Babylonian Talmud listed five things that were absent in the new temple that had been present in the Solomonic temple: (1) the ark of the covenant, (2) the sacred fire, (3) the shekinah glory, (4) the Holy Spirit, and (5) the Urim and Thummim.<\/p>\nAgain, “now” calls attention to God’s remedy. Three times the command “take courage” is proclaimed (2:4). Each time the command is given, one of the recipients of God’s message is addressed (cf. v 2). The concluding command was “work.” The reason for the strength and the activity was God’s presence. The Holy Spirit might seem to be absent from the temple, but he would remain among the people “according to the word” of God (v 5).<\/p>\nTo encourage the workers further, God revealed the future glory of his house (2:6-9). That glory would come to pass after a time of judgment (vv 6-7a), when the treasures of all nations come in (v 7b). The exact meaning of this verse has been variously interpreted. The views center around two different translations: “the desire of all nations shall come” (kjv<\/span>) and “and the treasures of all the nations will come to this Temple” (nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\nThe arguments for the messianic interpretation based on the first translation may be summarized as follows: (1) The vast majority of both Christian and Jewish interpreters took this phrase as a reference to the Messiah. (2) The abstract noun “desire” may have the concrete concept of the one who is desirable. (3) Though the verb in the Hebrew is plural, it is grammatically possible for the agreement of subject and predicate to be based upon the second noun (“nations”) in a genitive relationship. (4) The time element is suitable since God has just judged the nations and the hour of Christ’s coming would be at hand. (5) An alternate translation is available that meets the grammatical difficulties but retains the messianic import: “They [the nations] have come to the desire of all the nations.”<\/p>\nIn spite of the weight of the arguments for this first view, it seems better to accept the second translation and corresponding view. The arguments are as follows: (1) The vast majority of early Christian and Jewish interpreters base their view on the Latin Vulgate translation (c. AD<\/span> 400), while the second translation is in agreement with an older version, the Greek Septuagint (c. 300 BC<\/span>). (2) The singular “desire” may be taken as a collective noun referring to “features” or “wealth.” (3) The principle of Hebrew grammar that allows the noun “nations” to be the one with which the verb agrees is a rare occurrence in poetic books for such constructions as this. It is unlikely that such phraseology would be used without Haggai’s declaring the exact meaning in the immediate context. (4) The immediate context does solve the difficulty by the plain declaration that the silver and the gold belong to the Lord (2:8). (5) The kingdom context of these verses accords well with such parallel passages as Isaiah 60:5, 11 and Revelation 21:24.<\/p>\nThe conclusion to this message of encouragement is that the future glory of the temple (cf. Hg 2:3) will be greater than in the days of the Solomonic temple (v 9), because the shekinah glory will return (Hg 2:7; Ez 43:1-5) and the building will have great beauty (cf. Hg 2:8; Is 60:13, 17). God will also grant peace (Hg 2:9) in his kingdom at the time of this future glorious temple (see Is 9:6-7; 66:12; Zec 6:13).<\/p>\n<h5>Third Message<\/h5>\nAbout two months later Haggai received a third message from God (Hg 2:10). This time exhortation would be the theme, and the message was directed to the priests alone (v 11). Haggai used questions concerning the law of Moses to instruct the priests in the polluting character of sin. Something clean or holy cannot transfer its sanctity to something else (v 12). But that which is unholy can<\/em> transfer its<\/em> character to something clean, defiling it (Hg 2:13; cf. Lv 22:4-6; Nm 19:11).<\/p>\nThe application of this principle to the Judeans was clear: the offerings they brought during their years of disobedience were unacceptable to God because of Judah’s uncleanness (Hg 2:14).<\/p>\nBy reviving the memory of past disobedience and chastisement, God was exhorting the Jews to constantly “consider” (2:15, 18) the consequences of disobedience. Such consideration should prevent future spiritual indifference. The conclusion of the message was a reminder of the blessing of God upon the obedient (v 19).<\/p>\n<h5>Fourth Message<\/h5>\nOn the same day Haggai received another message from God (2:20). This message was to be directed toward Zerubbabel (v 21), who was to be encouraged by the permanency of his inherited Davidic office (cf. Hg 1:1; 2 Sm 7:4-17; 1 Chr 3:1, 5, 10, 17-20). The gentile nations would be judged and the kingdoms of the world overthrown (Hg 2:6-7, 21-22). This would be but the preparation for God’s rule (cf. Rv 11:15-18).<\/p>\nThe promise to Zerubbabel in Haggai 2:23 was God’s means of confirming that his promises to David were still operative even after the 70-year Babylonian captivity and the 16-year stagnation among the Judeans who had returned to Jerusalem. Zerubbabel was appointed “as a signet ring” by God. A signet was a personal cylinder or ring seal and a sign of the authenticity of their signature. Kings used them for identifying their decrees (Est 3:10; 8:8-10) and for confirming the authority of their deputies (Gn 41:42). God’s appointment of Zerubbabel “as a signet ring,” therefore, meant that Zerubbabel would be God’s seal of authority on the continuation of the Davidic line from which the Messiah should come and reign (cf. Mt 1:12; Lk 3:27).<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Haggai (Person); Israel, History of; Postexilic Period; Prophecy; Prophet, Prophetess.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>HAGGAI, Book of<\/h3>\nTenth of the 12 short prophetic books at the end of the OT.<\/p>\nPreview<\/p>\n• Author and Date<\/p>\n• Purpose<\/p>\n• Teaching<\/p>\n• Content<\/p>\nAuthor and Date<\/p>\nHaggai was among the Jewish colonists at Jerusalem in the year 520 BC<\/span> when his prophetic words were recorded (Ezr 5:1-2; 6:14). The four messages the Lord gave to Haggai were to be directed to specific individuals. The first was to Zerubbabel the governor and Joshua the high priest (Hg 1:1). The second was to Zerubbabel, Joshua, and the remnant of the people (2:2). The third was a word to the priests (v 11). The final message was limited to Zerubbabel (v 21).<\/p>\nPurpose<\/p>\nThe key phrase of Haggai’s prophecies is “Consider your ways” or “Consider” (1:5, 7; 2:15, 18). The purpose of God’s messages to the Judean leadership and people, therefore, was to awaken them to their spiritual responsibilities. Two different classes of Judeans had to be turned from their indifference. The true believers needed to be reminded that God was merciful. The situation could be remedied, even though they thought the sins committed by their fathers were unforgivable. The hypocrites among the Judeans had only sought the promised blessings. They had only exchanged one form of idolatry for another. When the blessings did not materialize, they were disappointed.<\/p>\nThe unifying message was that today gives no key to what God will do tomorrow. God’s fulfillment of his promises cannot be judged by appearances. Haggai’s message was twofold: reproof and encouragement. The colonists needed to be chastised for their indifference and consoled in the midst of their troubles.<\/p>\nTeaching<\/p>\nHaggai is a practical book, dealing with the believer’s service to God. Procrastination and indifference have been debilitating sins among God’s people throughout all ages. Concern and a sense of urgency are always pleasing to God (Rom 13:11-14).<\/p>\nThe presence of God is the primary motivation for boldness and the means of banishing discouragement (Mt 28:19-20; Eph 3:8-21; Heb 13:5-6).<\/p>\nSeparation from contaminating influences and sin is demanded of all believers (2 Cor 6:14–7:1). Without this quality of life, the believer cannot expect to be found fit for God’s service (2 Tm 2:19-26). The disobedient child of God can expect removal of blessing and chastisement from God (Heb 12:3-13; Jas 4:1-3).<\/p>\nThe message concerning God’s judgment of sin and the establishment of the messianic kingdom is a message of hope to the NT believer as well as the Jews of Haggai’s day (Rom 15:4-13; 2 Pt 3:10-18).<\/p>\nThe key phrase of Haggai (“consider your ways”) has echoes in 1 Corinthians 11:28 and 2 Corinthians 13:5, as do his writings about the effects of sin and the blessings of God (Jude 1:1-25).<\/p>\nThe God of Haggai is given the title “Lord of hosts” (“Lord<\/span> Almighty”) 14 times in the book. This title is characteristic of the postexilic prophetic books, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, where it is found more than 80 times. It teaches that God is all-powerful and is Master of all spirit beings in heaven and all created beings on the earth.<\/p>\nHaggai also testifies to the God-breathed quality of the Word of God and its divine authority. Over and over the prophet announces ways that God has spoken to him and is the author of these messages (at least 25 times in the space of 28 verses).<\/p>\nContent<\/p>\n<h5>First Message<\/h5>\nThe first message Haggai was to deliver to the Judeans was given to him “on the first day of the month” (Hg 1:1). Upon the first day of each month, the Jews were to bring special offerings to the sanctuary (Nm 28:11-15). God chose this special time to reveal the sin of the people with regard to the unfinished sanctuary.<\/p>\nThe leaders of the Judeans were singled out for the first message from the Lord (Hg 1:1). Zerubbabel was the civil leader or governor, and Joshua was the spiritual leader or high priest. Together, they were responsible for the activity (or inactivity) of God’s people.<\/p>\nThe word of the Lord revealed the procrastination of the people (1:2). God’s temple had not been completed because his people had determined for themselves that “the time is not come.” The energies and finances of God’s people had been channeled selfishly into their own homes (v 4).<\/p>\n“Now” (1:5, rsv<\/span>) focused the attention of the Jews upon the present requirement of God in the light of their sinful indifference. They were to give attention to their own condition spiritually and materially: “Consider how you have fared.” This key phrase of Haggai’s prophecies is literally “Set your heart on your ways” or “Lay your ways to your heart.” Self-examination would reveal that their procrastination had robbed them of more than just 16 years.<\/p>\nVerse 6 reveals the poverty in which the Jews were living as a result of God’s chastisement for their sin. The blessings of God had been withdrawn in accord with his covenant (see Dt 28:15–29:1).<\/p>\nFollowing another exhortation to “consider” their ways (Hg 1:7), the Lord revealed the remedy for the Jews’ cursed condition: “rebuild my house” (v 8). The disobedience with regard to the completion of the temple was the reason for their poverty (vv 9-11).<\/p>\nThe response of the leaders and the people was encouraging. The resumption of the construction of the temple was a definite manifestation of belief in the word of God (1:12). Immediate obedience also testified to the acceptance of the ministry of Haggai, who was “the Lord<\/span>’s messenger” delivering “the Lord<\/span>’s message” (v 13).<\/p>\n<h5>Second Message<\/h5>\nApproximately one month later Haggai was summoned again by the Lord (2:1). The second message continued the note of encouragement with which the first message closed. Perhaps the builders had begun to feel the pressures of their service. Perhaps the old doubts and discouragements had plagued their faith again. The adversaries had reappeared to hinder them (Ezr 5:3–6:12). Haggai’s second message was similar to Ezra’s claim that “the eye of their God was upon the elders of the Jews” (Ezr 5:5, rsv<\/span>). The Lord not only sees his servants’ needs but also sends relief and encouragement.<\/p>\nThe day of this second message was the last day of the Feast of Tabernacles (Lv 23:33-43). Perhaps this reminder of God’s glorious presence with their ancestors in the wilderness made their present situation all the more discouraging. Therefore, the Lord spoke to all the people rather than just to their leaders (Hg 2:2). Was there any survivor of the preexilic days who had personally beheld the glory of God as it resided in the Solomonic temple (cf. 1 Kgs 8:1-11; Ez 9:1–11:23)? Was the present temple “as nothing” in comparison (Hg 2:3)? The Babylonian Talmud listed five things that were absent in the new temple that had been present in the Solomonic temple: (1) the ark of the covenant, (2) the sacred fire, (3) the shekinah glory, (4) the Holy Spirit, and (5) the Urim and Thummim.<\/p>\nAgain, “now” calls attention to God’s remedy. Three times the command “take courage” is proclaimed (2:4). Each time the command is given, one of the recipients of God’s message is addressed (cf. v 2). The concluding command was “work.” The reason for the strength and the activity was God’s presence. The Holy Spirit might seem to be absent from the temple, but he would remain among the people “according to the word” of God (v 5).<\/p>\nTo encourage the workers further, God revealed the future glory of his house (2:6-9). That glory would come to pass after a time of judgment (vv 6-7a), when the treasures of all nations come in (v 7b). The exact meaning of this verse has been variously interpreted. The views center around two different translations: “the desire of all nations shall come” (kjv<\/span>) and “and the treasures of all the nations will come to this Temple” (nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\nThe arguments for the messianic interpretation based on the first translation may be summarized as follows: (1) The vast majority of both Christian and Jewish interpreters took this phrase as a reference to the Messiah. (2) The abstract noun “desire” may have the concrete concept of the one who is desirable. (3) Though the verb in the Hebrew is plural, it is grammatically possible for the agreement of subject and predicate to be based upon the second noun (“nations”) in a genitive relationship. (4) The time element is suitable since God has just judged the nations and the hour of Christ’s coming would be at hand. (5) An alternate translation is available that meets the grammatical difficulties but retains the messianic import: “They [the nations] have come to the desire of all the nations.”<\/p>\nIn spite of the weight of the arguments for this first view, it seems better to accept the second translation and corresponding view. The arguments are as follows: (1) The vast majority of early Christian and Jewish interpreters base their view on the Latin Vulgate translation (c. AD<\/span> 400), while the second translation is in agreement with an older version, the Greek Septuagint (c. 300 BC<\/span>). (2) The singular “desire” may be taken as a collective noun referring to “features” or “wealth.” (3) The principle of Hebrew grammar that allows the noun “nations” to be the one with which the verb agrees is a rare occurrence in poetic books for such constructions as this. It is unlikely that such phraseology would be used without Haggai’s declaring the exact meaning in the immediate context. (4) The immediate context does solve the difficulty by the plain declaration that the silver and the gold belong to the Lord (2:8). (5) The kingdom context of these verses accords well with such parallel passages as Isaiah 60:5, 11 and Revelation 21:24.<\/p>\nThe conclusion to this message of encouragement is that the future glory of the temple (cf. Hg 2:3) will be greater than in the days of the Solomonic temple (v 9), because the shekinah glory will return (Hg 2:7; Ez 43:1-5) and the building will have great beauty (cf. Hg 2:8; Is 60:13, 17). God will also grant peace (Hg 2:9) in his kingdom at the time of this future glorious temple (see Is 9:6-7; 66:12; Zec 6:13).<\/p>\n<h5>Third Message<\/h5>\nAbout two months later Haggai received a third message from God (Hg 2:10). This time exhortation would be the theme, and the message was directed to the priests alone (v 11). Haggai used questions concerning the law of Moses to instruct the priests in the polluting character of sin. Something clean or holy cannot transfer its sanctity to something else (v 12). But that which is unholy can<\/em> transfer its<\/em> character to something clean, defiling it (Hg 2:13; cf. Lv 22:4-6; Nm 19:11).<\/p>\nThe application of this principle to the Judeans was clear: the offerings they brought during their years of disobedience were unacceptable to God because of Judah’s uncleanness (Hg 2:14).<\/p>\nBy reviving the memory of past disobedience and chastisement, God was exhorting the Jews to constantly “consider” (2:15, 18) the consequences of disobedience. Such consideration should prevent future spiritual indifference. The conclusion of the message was a reminder of the blessing of God upon the obedient (v 19).<\/p>\n<h5>Fourth Message<\/h5>\nOn the same day Haggai received another message from God (2:20). This message was to be directed toward Zerubbabel (v 21), who was to be encouraged by the permanency of his inherited Davidic office (cf. Hg 1:1; 2 Sm 7:4-17; 1 Chr 3:1, 5, 10, 17-20). The gentile nations would be judged and the kingdoms of the world overthrown (Hg 2:6-7, 21-22). This would be but the preparation for God’s rule (cf. Rv 11:15-18).<\/p>\nThe promise to Zerubbabel in Haggai 2:23 was God’s means of confirming that his promises to David were still operative even after the 70-year Babylonian captivity and the 16-year stagnation among the Judeans who had returned to Jerusalem. Zerubbabel was appointed “as a signet ring” by God. A signet was a personal cylinder or ring seal and a sign of the authenticity of their signature. Kings used them for identifying their decrees (Est 3:10; 8:8-10) and for confirming the authority of their deputies (Gn 41:42). God’s appointment of Zerubbabel “as a signet ring,” therefore, meant that Zerubbabel would be God’s seal of authority on the continuation of the Davidic line from which the Messiah should come and reign (cf. Mt 1:12; Lk 3:27).<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Haggai (Person); Israel, History of; Postexilic Period; Prophecy; Prophet, Prophetess.<\/p>","summary_ro":"HAGGAI, Book of Tenth of the 12 short prophetic books at the end of the OT. Preview • Author and Date • Purpose • Teaching • Content Author and Date Haggai was among the Jewish colonists at Jerusalem in the year 520 BC when his prophetic words were recorded (Ezr 5:1-2; 6:14). The four messages the Lord gave to Haggai were to be directed to specific individuals. The first was to Zerubbabel the governor and Joshua the high priest (Hg 1:1). The second was to Zerubbabel, Joshua, and the remnant o...","summary_en":"HAGGAI, Book of Tenth of the 12 short prophetic books at the end of the OT. Preview • Author and Date • Purpose • Teaching • Content Author and Date Haggai was among the Jewish colonists at Jerusalem in the year 520 BC when his prophetic words were recorded (Ezr 5:1-2; 6:14). The four messages the Lord gave to Haggai were to be directed to specific individuals. The first was to Zerubbabel the governor and Joshua the high priest (Hg 1:1). The second was to Zerubbabel, Joshua, and the remnant o...","source":"Articles\/H.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":17115,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Iddo","title_en":"Iddo","content_ro":"<h3>IDDO<\/h3>\n<li>1. Father of Ahinadab, Solomon’s official at Mahanaim, who provisioned the royal household (1 Kgs 4:14).<\/li>\n<li>2. Gershonite Levite, descendant of Joah and forefather of Zerah (1 Chr 6:21); perhaps alternately called Adaiah in verse 41. See<\/em> Adaiah #2.<\/li>\n<li>3. Zechariah’s son and the chief officer of Manasseh’s half-tribe in Gilead during David’s reign (1 Chr 27:21).<\/li>\n<li>4. Prophet and seer who recorded the events of Solomon’s reign concerning Jeroboam, Nebat’s son in a book of visions (2 Chr 9:29), Rehoboam’s acts in his genealogical records (12:15), and Abijah’s life as part of a commentary (13:22).<\/li>\n<li>5. Grandfather of Zechariah the prophet (Zec 1:1, 7). Iddo was a well-known priest who returned to Jerusalem from exile in 538 BC<\/span>, and whose household was headed by Zechariah during Joiakim’s reign as high priest during the postexilic era (Neh 12:16). According to Ezra 5:1 and 6:14, Zechariah, and not Berechiah his father, was considered Iddo’s successor. See<\/em> Zechariah (Person) #20.<\/li>\n<li>6. Leading Levite at Casiphia in Babylonia to whom Ezra sent a delegation of men requesting priests and temple servants to join Ezra’s caravan returning to Palestine for service in the Jerusalem temple (Ezr 8:17).<\/li>","content_en":"<h3>IDDO<\/h3>\n<li>1. Father of Ahinadab, Solomon’s official at Mahanaim, who provisioned the royal household (1 Kgs 4:14).<\/li>\n<li>2. Gershonite Levite, descendant of Joah and forefather of Zerah (1 Chr 6:21); perhaps alternately called Adaiah in verse 41. See<\/em> Adaiah #2.<\/li>\n<li>3. Zechariah’s son and the chief officer of Manasseh’s half-tribe in Gilead during David’s reign (1 Chr 27:21).<\/li>\n<li>4. Prophet and seer who recorded the events of Solomon’s reign concerning Jeroboam, Nebat’s son in a book of visions (2 Chr 9:29), Rehoboam’s acts in his genealogical records (12:15), and Abijah’s life as part of a commentary (13:22).<\/li>\n<li>5. Grandfather of Zechariah the prophet (Zec 1:1, 7). Iddo was a well-known priest who returned to Jerusalem from exile in 538 BC<\/span>, and whose household was headed by Zechariah during Joiakim’s reign as high priest during the postexilic era (Neh 12:16). According to Ezra 5:1 and 6:14, Zechariah, and not Berechiah his father, was considered Iddo’s successor. See<\/em> Zechariah (Person) #20.<\/li>\n<li>6. Leading Levite at Casiphia in Babylonia to whom Ezra sent a delegation of men requesting priests and temple servants to join Ezra’s caravan returning to Palestine for service in the Jerusalem temple (Ezr 8:17).<\/li>","summary_ro":"IDDO 1. Father of Ahinadab, Solomon’s official at Mahanaim, who provisioned the royal household (1 Kgs 4:14). 2. Gershonite Levite, descendant of Joah and forefather of Zerah (1 Chr 6:21); perhaps alternately called Adaiah in verse 41. See Adaiah #2. 3. Zechariah’s son and the chief officer of Manasseh’s half-tribe in Gilead during David’s reign (1 Chr 27:21). 4. Prophet and seer who recorded the events of Solomon’s reign concerning Jeroboam, Nebat’s son in a book of visions (2 Chr 9:29), Reh...","summary_en":"IDDO 1. Father of Ahinadab, Solomon’s official at Mahanaim, who provisioned the royal household (1 Kgs 4:14). 2. Gershonite Levite, descendant of Joah and forefather of Zerah (1 Chr 6:21); perhaps alternately called Adaiah in verse 41. See Adaiah #2. 3. Zechariah’s son and the chief officer of Manasseh’s half-tribe in Gilead during David’s reign (1 Chr 27:21). 4. Prophet and seer who recorded the events of Solomon’s reign concerning Jeroboam, Nebat’s son in a book of visions (2 Chr 9:29), Reh...","source":"Articles\/I.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":18034,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"History of Israel","title_en":"History of Israel","content_ro":"<h3>ISRAEL, History of<\/h3>\nAn account of God’s sovereign purpose in calling a people out of paganism and establishing them as witnesses for the true faith among the nations, of God’s sovereign power in protecting them from extinction, of his sovereign justice in dealing with their departure from his ways of holiness, of God’s sovereign grace in forgiving their sins and restoring them to fellowship with himself by providing through them a Savior for the entire world.<\/p>\nPreview<\/p>\n• Patriarchal Age<\/p>\n• Sojourn in Egypt<\/p>\n• The Exodus<\/p>\n• Wilderness Wanderings<\/p>\n• The Conquest<\/p>\n• The Judges<\/p>\n• The United Monarchy<\/p>\n• The Divided Kingdom<\/p>\n• The Restoration<\/p>\n• The Intertestamental Period<\/p>\n• The Roman Period<\/p>\nPatriarchal Age<\/p>\nThe story of Israel begins with Abraham, whom God called first at Ur, and perhaps later at Haran (Acts 7:2-4), to leave Mesopotamia and go into a land to which God would direct the way. In calling Abraham, God made with him a covenant (Gn 12:1-3) that promised him a land, special divine favor (“I will bless those who bless you, and the one who curses you I will curse,” nasb<\/span>), and the privilege of being a channel of blessing to the entire world (“In you all the families of the earth shall be blessed,” nasb<\/span>). In Genesis 12:4-8 God confirmed this unconditional covenant, promising Abraham this new land forever, along with innumerable descendants. Subsequently, in Genesis 15:1-21, God again confirmed the covenant but added the significant prediction that the guarantee of holding Canaan in perpetuity did not mean occupation of the land in every generation. God also spelled out the limits of the Promised Land (from the river of Egypt to the Euphrates, some 500 to 600 miles or 804 to 965 kilometers in extent). A final confirmation of the covenant to Abraham appears in Genesis 17:6-8. It guaranteed the land of Canaan to Abraham’s posterity and added that kings (an anticipation of the Davidic dynasty) would arise in his line. The covenant was confirmed to Abraham’s son Isaac (Gn 26:3-5) and his grandson Jacob (ch 28).<\/p>\nThis period is known as the patriarchal age in Hebrew history. The patriarchs were Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. They were called patriarchs because they were fathers, not only to their immediate families, but also to the extended family of Hebrews, over which they exercised a fatherly control. They served as political, legal, and spiritual heads of their migratory community, looking after their interests and leading them in worship. Periodically they built altars on which they offered sacrifices. That the patriarchal community was very large can be seen from Genesis 14:14, which says that Abraham had 318 armed men in his camp. If one assumes that most of the men were married and had one or more children each, the total extended family may have numbered in excess of 1,000.<\/p>\nAdditional developments in the life of Abraham and Jacob were particularly important for world history. Abraham, frustrated at not having an heir, accepted Sarah’s suggestion to obtain an heir by the slave girl Hagar. (This was also the custom of the land.) The son born was named Ishmael, progenitor of the Arabs. Thus Abraham is revered by Arabs and Muslims as well as by Jews and Christians. He is the father of the Jews through his son Isaac, child of promise. He holds a special place in Christianity as an example of Christ, through whom all Christians obtain their salvation.<\/p>\nJacob, a scheming scoundrel in his earlier years, wound up in exile in northern Mesopotamia for 20 years in the home of his uncle Laban. There he married Leah and Rachel and fathered the sons who became the progenitors of the 12 tribes of Israel. On his return to Palestine he met God along the banks of the Jabbok River (Gn 32), and God changed his name to Israel (“a prince of God,” kjv<\/span> mg).<\/p>\nThe patriarchal period in Canaan lasted for 215 years. One estimate places Abraham’s entry into Canaan at about 2085 BC<\/span>, when he was 75 years of age. Jacob and his sons migrated to Egypt to escape a severe famine in Canaan in about 1870 BC<\/span>. During much of the patriarchal period, Palestine experienced a decline in population and was occupied largely by nomadic or seminomadic tribes. It was relatively easy for the Hebrews to enter such a situation. After 1900 Palestine began to enjoy more settled conditions. Shortly thereafter, the Hebrews made the trek into Egypt.<\/p>\nSojourn in Egypt<\/p>\nIf Jacob and his sons entered Egypt about 1870 BC<\/span>, it was the period of the Middle Kingdom. And by that time other migrants from Asia were coming in increasing numbers. The Hebrews settled in Goshen, in the eastern delta region, under the protecting care of Joseph, who held a position at the Egyptian court roughly equivalent to that of prime minister. As more and more Asiatic Hyksos came into Egypt, they began to take over the country—northern Egypt at least. During this same time the Hebrews became increasingly numerous. Some who hold to a different chronology believe the Hebrews were welcomed into Egypt during the days of Hyksos domination (after 1750 BC<\/span>). At any rate, by about 1580 BC<\/span> native Egyptian princes regained control of the country and expelled many of the Asiatics.<\/p>\nIn process of time there arose a king over Egypt who “knew not Joseph” (Ex 1:8, kjv<\/span>). Very possibly this meant that a native Egyptian dynasty had arisen in Egypt and they were apprehensive over the fact that the growing numbers and wealth of the Hebrews might jeopardize their own supremacy. But Egyptian measures to subjugate the Hebrews and reduce their birthrate had a reverse effect (Ex 1:12). Finally, the Egyptians ordered the killing of all male Hebrew infants at birth. Among those who disobeyed were the parents of Moses, who set him afloat in a waterproof basket made of reeds. Found by a daughter of Pharaoh, he was brought up in the Egyptian court, was given a first-class education, and became a high official of the realm.<\/p>\nAt the age of 40, Moses identified himself with his own people. He killed an Egyptian in defense of a fellow Hebrew, and immediately fled to the land of Midian in the northeastern part of the Sinai Peninsula. He married and lived there for 40 years, becoming thoroughly familiar with the geography and the ways of the wilderness through which he would later lead the Hebrews. The Egyptians continued to oppress the Hebrew people severely until they cried urgently to God for deliverance. In response, God confronted Moses in the famous burning bush experience and called on him to return to Egypt and lead the people back into the land of Canaan (Ex 3–4). He was to have the help of his brother, Aaron.<\/p>\nThe Exodus<\/p>\nUnderstandably the pharaoh of Egypt was reluctant to permit the Hebrews to leave permanently. The value of this great labor force was incalculable. But finally, after suffering a series of ten plagues, lasting perhaps a year, the Egyptians were persuaded to let the Hebrews go (Ex 7–12).<\/p>\nThe plagues had a theological as well as a practical purpose. They discredited the gods of Egypt and exalted the most high God of heaven (Ex 12:12). The plagues clearly discredited specific gods of Egypt (e.g., the Nile was worshiped as Hapi, plague one; the frog, worshiped as Heqt, plague two; the bull, worshiped as Ptah, plague five; the sun, worshiped as Amon-Re\/Aton, plague nine). Taken together, they struck a direct blow at the Egyptian pantheon.<\/p>\nJust before the last plague, which was the night in which the death angel invaded the homes of the Egyptians, the Israelites made the Passover sacrifice according to divine instructions. This involved killing a lamb for each household (unless the household was too small; in that event, households could combine). Anyone who was careless about applying the blood to the doorpost or who rejected this divine provision came under the judgment of God. After the death of the firstborn throughout the land, the Egyptians begged the Hebrews to leave. Their company numbered 600,000 men over 20 years of age, plus women and children, for a total of over 2,500,000. In addition they took their flocks and herds and personal belongings.<\/p>\nThe date they left Egypt is a matter of continuing debate. Traditionally a date of about 1446 BC<\/span> is given for the exodus (cf. 1 Kgs 6:1, which places the exodus 480 years before construction of the temple started in 966 BC<\/span>) and 1406 BC<\/span> for the Conquest under Joshua, and there do not seem to be any compelling arguments for rejecting that position. But a great many scholars prefer 1275 BC<\/span> for a variety of reasons.<\/p>\nThe early date of the exodus would place the later years of the wilderness wanderings and the subsequent conquest of Palestine during the reigns of Amenhotep III and IV (1412–1366), a time when the pharaohs allowed Egyptian control of Palestine to disintegrate. When the Egyptians did reassert their power, about 1300, they restricted their movements largely to the coastal area, and thus did not come in contact with the Hebrews who were living in the hill country of Judea, Samaria, and Galilee.<\/p>\nWilderness Wanderings<\/p>\nThe wilderness wanderings were an important interlude in the history of Israel. During those years, significant and basic institutions came into existence at God’s command. At Sinai, Moses delivered to Israel the law, the pattern of the tabernacle (which later became the model for the temple) and orders for its operation, as well as detailed instructions for the priesthood and sacrificial system of worship.<\/p>\nThe period of the wanderings was truly a remarkable time. The presence of God was evidenced by a pillar of cloud that hovered over the people by day and a pillar of fire by night. God provided food in the form of manna, periodically provided water by miraculous means, and made sure that clothes did not wear out. In spite of all that, the people murmured and complained continually.<\/p>\nAt Sinai, God gave the law (Ex 19:2–24:18), and the people promptly made a commitment to keep it (24:3). Then God gave the pattern for the tabernacle and its furniture (chs 25–27, 30–31, 35–40) and established the priesthood (chs 28–29). While Moses was on the mountain receiving God’s revelation, the people grew restless and clamored for gods they could see. Even Aaron was carried away with the idolatrous wave and supervised the casting of a golden calf and building of an altar before it. The fact that they turned to Egyptian cattle worship so readily indicates that paganism must have made deep inroads among them while in captivity (chs 32–34). Moses’ intercessory response to God’s announcement that he would destroy Israel because of her idolatry led to a divine determination to execute judgment on only the worst offenders (32:9-14).<\/p>\nSubsequently, God revealed the legal and priestly order (Lv 1:1–27:34). Among the divinely appointed institutions described or alluded to in Leviticus are several special days or feasts, including the Sabbath, Passover, Feast of Unleavened Bread, Firstfruits, Pentecost or Feast of Weeks, Feast of Trumpets, Day of Atonement, Feast of Tabernacles, the Year of Sabbath, and the Year of Jubilee.<\/p>\nAfter camping at Sinai for about a year, the Israelites got their orders to go forward (Nm 10:11-12). Miriam (Moses’ sister) and Aaron criticized Moses’ leadership and suffered divine punishment as a consequence (ch 12). When the people arrived at Kadesh-barnea, the gate to southern Palestine, they were frightened by the report of most of the spies who had been reconnoitering in Canaan and decided that they should not advance into Canaan. They called for a new leader to bring them back to Egypt. God declared that the entire generation would wander in the wilderness until the adults had died. Only Joshua and Caleb (the two spies in favor of invading immediately) would enter the Promised Land (14:26-30). Near the end of the period of wandering, Moses also lost the privilege of entering the land by an act of disobedience.<\/p>\nThe Conquest<\/p>\nThe latter part of the book of Numbers describes how Moses led the Israelites to victory over the peoples living east of the Jordan River. Reuben, Gad, and the half-tribe of Manasseh requested permission to settle there and reluctantly were allowed to do so on the condition that they would join the rest of the Israelites in conquering Canaan before settling down. Prior to victories in Transjordan, a new census of adult males was taken in order to determine the military capabilities of Israel and to provide a basis for equitable division of the land they were about to enter. The number of males above 20 years of age was 601,730 (Nm 26:51). The book of Deuteronomy consists primarily of a series of speeches delivered by Moses in a covenant renewal ceremony on the plains of Moab just before his death and the appointment of Joshua as leader.<\/p>\nJoshua lost no time in moving forward. Spies sent across the Jordan to Jericho to reconnoiter reported a situation quite different from what the Hebrews had experienced at Kadesh-barnea a generation earlier. Now the people of Canaan were terrified because they had heard of the numerical strength and victories of the Hebrews. Apparently the day after the spies returned, Joshua moved the people to the edge of the Jordan and prepared to cross over. The waters parted for them here as the Red Sea had parted earlier.<\/p>\nThe narrative of conquest that appears in the book of Joshua is not a detailed battle account. It describes a thrust into the middle of Palestine around Jericho and Ai, a southerly drive to defeat the Amorite league, and a northern campaign against Hazor and other towns. The history of Joshua is extremely telescoped, for Joshua’s major military action must have required about six years. Joshua’s friend Caleb was 79 when the Conquest began and 85 after the last great battle with Jabin, king of Hazor (Jos 14:7-10).<\/p>\nWhen the war was over, major strongholds (e.g., Jerusalem) still remained in enemy hands, but the land west of the Jordan was allocated to the nine and a half Hebrew tribes. The task of reducing enemy towns was left to the individual tribes in whose land they were located. The Joshua account was not so much a narrative of Israelite battle prowess as of God’s faithfulness and intervention on behalf of his people. For example, at Jericho they did not attack but merely followed divine orders and watched the defenses collapse; at Gibeon hailstones killed more Amorites than Israelite soldiers did (Jos 10:7-11).<\/p>\nThe Judges<\/p>\nJoshua died some 30 years after he had led the Hebrews into Canaan, and he was followed by a series of divinely appointed leaders who ruled sometimes over the whole of Israel as a loose confederacy and sometimes over one or more tribes. They were judges, civil functionaries, and military leaders all at the same time.<\/p>\nThe book of Judges pictures a series of recurring cycles: apostasy from God, punishment in the form of oppression by neighboring tribes, cries to God for relief, release from bondage under the leadership of a judge, and a period of rest from oppression.<\/p>\nEstablishment of the chronology of the judges is one of the thorniest problems of Scripture. Adding up all years of oppression and rest mentioned in the book gives a total of 410. The book of Acts gives a total of 450 years from the days of Joshua to Samuel (Acts 13:19). The difference in Acts may be accounted for by the addition of 40 years of Eli’s ministry (1 Sm 4:18). Allowing 410 years for the period of the judges, about 30 for the Conquest to the judges, and 40 for the wilderness wanderings, means 480 years from 1050 BC<\/span>, the date for Saul’s kingship, and would give a date of about 1530 for the exodus. This is about 100 years more than even the early date for the exodus. The most probable explanation is that there is some overlap in oppressions and judgeships. For instance, the activities of Jephthah were centered on the eastern frontier, those of Samson in the Philistine plain to the southwest, and those of Deborah and Barak in the north.<\/p>\nThe United Monarchy<\/p>\nBecause of the weakness of Israel resulting from political disunity and the ineptness and corruption of both Eli’s and Samuel’s sons, the people of Israel called for a king to rule over them. This demand was in reality a rejection of the divine plan of theocracy—the rule of God. God granted the Hebrews’ wish but warned them of the disadvantages of monarchy (1 Sm 8:9-21). The concept of kingship was not new to Israel. It had been hinted at in Genesis 49:10 and Numbers 24:17, and Moses had made some very clear statements about it in Deuteronomy 17:14-20.<\/p>\nThe first stage of Hebrew monarchy is commonly called the united monarchy because all Israel was ruled by a single king. This period lasted for 120 years—encompassing the 40-year reigns of Saul (Acts 13:21), David (2 Sm 5:5), and Solomon (1 Kgs 11:42).<\/p>\nThe people asked for a king, and God granted them one, but not one like those of the surrounding nations. The Hebrew king was to be a man who followed God’s dictates in his public and private life, who did not intrude into the affairs of the priesthood, and who did not fall into idolatry, but exerted all his influence to keep the people faithful to God. If he failed in any of these respects, he ran the risk of being deposed by God, of having his line brought to an end, or even of having the people fall into captivity to a foreign power. All this must be kept in mind when evaluating the reigns of Saul, David, Solomon, and the kings of the divided monarchy.<\/p>\nSaul began well. He won a great victory over the Ammonites at Jabesh-gilead and showed considerable wisdom in administrative matters. But after about two years he intruded into the priest’s office to offer sacrifice, bringing the divine prediction that his kingdom would be taken from him (1 Sm 13:8-14). He would go on to enjoy great military victory and ability as a ruler until about the middle of his reign.<\/p>\nAfter Saul’s disobedience to God’s command to totally destroy the Amalekites, the Lord repudiated Saul and instructed Samuel to anoint David privately as future king of Israel. David’s rise to prominence was spurred by his victory over Goliath and the accompanying defeat of the Philistines. Saul later made David commander of the army, and the young man soon earned a reputation greater than that of the king himself. Saul, who had become increasingly mentally disturbed after his relationship with God was broken, began to make attempts on David’s life, and for the last years of Saul’s reign David lived as a fugitive. Meanwhile, the Philistines got completely out of control and finally killed Saul and most of his sons in the great battle of Mt Gilboa, which gave the Philistines control over much of Palestine west of the Jordan (1 Sm 31:1-7).<\/p>\nSoon David became king in Judah with his capital in Hebron. A son of Saul, Ishbosheth, established himself at Mahanaim, east of the Jordan. For seven years the two tiny kingdoms existed side by side (2 Sm 2:2-11). But after the Israelite king and his army commander were assassinated, David became ruler of a united Hebrew kingdom.<\/p>\nNot long after the beginning of his reign (1010–970 BC<\/span>) David completely defeated and subjugated the Philistines. Soon thereafter he captured Jerusalem, making it the capital of the united kingdom. During succeeding years, David built up an empire (2 Sm 8:10; 1 Chr 18–19), conquering Moab, Edom, Damascus, Zobah, and Ammon, so he controlled territory from the Gulf of Aqaba (a branch of the Red Sea) and the Sinai in the south almost to the Euphrates in the north. Moreover, he established good relations, if not an alliance, with Tyre. The establishment of David’s empire was possible because of a power vacuum in the Middle East. The Egyptians, Mycenaeans, Hittites, and Assyrians were either decadent or removed from the stage of history. The Phoenicians, a peaceful commercial people, were also free to expand their trade, and they were happy to sell cedar to David for his palace and the temple.<\/p>\nWithout doubt, David was Israel’s greatest king. Jerusalem came to be known as the city of David. When the king wanted to build the temple as God’s house, God replied that his son should do it instead. But God would in a very real sense build David’s house; he made a covenant with David, promising him that his house (dynasty, kingdom, throne) would be established forever (2 Sm 7). Christ, the infinite One who came from the line of David, alone was capable of fulfilling this divine promise (see Lk 1:31-33; Acts 2:29-36; 13:32-39; 15:14-17).<\/p>\nLike other Oriental monarchs, David fell into the practice of keeping a harem. Scripture names 8 wives and 21 children and refers to other wives and concubines. Such a situation opened the door to family rivalries and questions about succession to the throne. Two sons, Absalom and Adonijah, made a try for the throne, but both efforts were squelched. Solomon, son of David’s favorite wife, Bathsheba, became the next king.<\/p>\nSolomon (970–930 BC<\/span>) was a man of peace and a builder of palaces, cities, fortifications, and the temple. He fortified cities all over his realm and outfitted cities for his chariot corps and cavalry units. With the help of the Phoenicians, he built a seaport and kept a fleet at Ezion-geber, near modern Eilat on the Gulf of Aqaba. He greatly enlarged Jerusalem by enclosing the temple area to the north of David’s city and the southwestern hill now known as Zion. His best-known project was the temple, which took seven years to build. Twice the size of the tabernacle, it was built on the same basic plan; it measured 90 feet (27.4 meters) long and 30 feet (9.1 meters) wide and had magnificent appointments. But he also constructed a palace complex that took 13 years to complete. This included an armory, a throne room, the king’s private residence, and a house for the daughter of pharaoh.<\/p>\nApparently much influenced by the spiritual testimony of David and desiring God’s blessing on his rule, Solomon made a great sacrifice to God at Gibeon near the beginning of his reign. God met him there and offered to grant whatever he might request. Solomon asked for understanding and wisdom to govern God’s people (1 Kgs 3:9). His God-given wisdom is apparent in many administrative decisions and official policies and building plans.<\/p>\nUnfortunately, Solomon did not show such wisdom in maintaining a harem of 700 wives and 300 concubines or in excessive expenditures that left the state in serious financial straits. He even erected places of worship for his foreign wives, thus subsidizing their idolatries and incurring the wrath of God. In fact, foreign wives and their idolatry proved to be his downfall; before Solomon died, God informed him that for this reason he would divide the kingdom at his death and give most of it to someone other than Solomon’s son. But for David’s sake, God would keep Judah and Jerusalem in the hands of the Davidic line (1 Kgs 11:9-13).<\/p>\nThe Divided Kingdom<\/p>\nAfter the death of Solomon, the Near East was destined to become a very different place. Israel was no longer in a power vacuum. The Assyrian Empire rose in Mesopotamia, to be followed by the Neo-Babylonian and the Medo-Persian Empires in turn. Egypt was temporarily powerful in the south, but it would later come under control of Assyria and Medo-Persia. These empires exerted great pressure on Israel and dominated one or both of the two Hebrew kingdoms.<\/p>\n\nWhen Solomon died, his son Rehoboam took the throne and was forced to deal with a rising tide of resentment over the high taxes and economic stagnation of Solomon’s last years. When Rehoboam refused to give relief, all the northern tribes broke away and formed the northern kingdom, Israel, under the leadership of Jeroboam. The southern kingdom, Judah, was left with only the territory of Judah and Benjamin. A total of 20 kings ruled in each of the separate kingdoms. While the north had several dynasties and the reigns of kings were generally short, in the south the dynasty of David continued to rule and the reigns were longer.<\/p>\n<h5>The Northern Kingdom<\/h5>\nThe northern kingdom lasted from the division in 930 BC<\/span> until its conquest by Assyria in 722. Jeroboam, fearing that he would lose the loyalty of the people if they continued to go to Jerusalem to worship, set up a new religion of his own. Instituting calf worship, he built shrines at Dan in the north and Bethel in the south. This idolatry drew the condemnation of God and fulfilled the prediction that Jeroboam’s line would be wiped out. All his successors are said to have followed in his idolatrous steps. Israel found itself at war during much of its history—with Judah, Syria, or Assyria. Jeroboam established his capital first at Shechem and later at Tirzah.<\/p>\nFour other kings of the north require special comment: Omri, Ahab, Jehu, and Jeroboam II. Omri (885–874 BC<\/span>) must have been an impressive ruler. Generations later, Assyrians still spoke of Israel as the land of Omri. After he had established himself on the throne, he located the permanent capital of the kingdom at Samaria and began the palace complex there. Early in his reign he was successful in conquering Moab, and later he reestablished the good relations with Tyre that existed in the days of David and Solomon. Apparently he established a full alliance and cemented it with the marriage of his son Ahab to Jezebel, a princess of Tyre.<\/p>\nAhab (874–853 BC<\/span>) was one of the most significant of Israel’s kings. He and his wife, Jezebel, promoted the vile idolatry of Baal worship with its religious prostitution, arousing the powerful opposition of the prophet Elijah. Ahab was a formidable military man, defeating the Syrians in major campaigns and participating in a coalition that fought the Assyrians to a virtual standstill. He also built extensively at Samaria, Hazor, Megiddo, and other towns, as excavations show.<\/p>\nJehu (841–814 BC<\/span>) was God’s agent for punishing the house of Omri and destroying Baal worship in Israel. He did eradicate Baal worship and liquidated literally scores of relatives and court officials of Ahab. But he was so ruthless that he killed off the people who knew how to run the government; subsequently, it did not work well. Jehu also was forced to become a vassal to Assyria.<\/p>\nJeroboam II ruled during most of the first half of the eighth century (793–753 BC<\/span>) and brought the kingdom to its greatest extent and prosperity. He, with his contemporary Uzziah in the south, ruled most of the land David had once controlled. This was possible because the Assyrians were in a period of decline during most of the first half of the century.<\/p>\nProphets who were active during the history of the northern kingdom include the nonwriting prophets Elijah and Elisha and the writing prophets Jonah, Amos, and Hosea.<\/p>\n<h5>The Southern Kingdom<\/h5>\nThe history of the southern kingdom of Judah was quite different from that of the northern kingdom. The temple was there and so were large numbers of Levites, many of whom came south after the division of the kingdom to protest the idolatry of the north. In addition to this spiritual strength, there was greater political stability and unity, promoted by the fact that only two tribes—Judah and Benjamin—shared power, and all the kings were of the Davidic dynasty. Moreover, eight of the kings were good monarchs. There were also periodic religious revivals. God granted the southern kingdom about 100 more years of existence than the north. But Judah, too, fell into idolatry and went into captivity for her sins.<\/p>\nRehoboam, the first king in the south, is especially remembered because he refused to listen to wise counsel about fiscal matters and perpetrated the division of the kingdom. He is also remembered for his religious policies. After a good beginning, he allowed apostasy to get out of control and brought the judgment of God in the form of an invasion in his fifth year (926 BC<\/span>) by Shishak I of Egypt, resulting in extensive plunder and payment of tribute. Thereafter, he launched an extensive program to fortify the realm. Shishak’s invasion did have the effect of producing a partial and temporary spiritual reform, but the general trend of Rehoboam’s reign was downward.<\/p>\nConditions during the reign of his son, Abijam, were worse, but Asa (910–869 BC<\/span>) initiated a religious reform that was effective for most of his reign. When threatened by the northern kingdom during his latter years, however, Asa turned to Syria for help instead of to God, and he seems to have defied the prophets of God to his dying day.<\/p>\nAsa’s son Jehoshaphat (872–848 BC<\/span>) was apparently influenced by his father’s early religious devotion, and his reign was characterized by faithfulness, winning the favor of God. However, he seems to have made a full alliance with Ahab of Israel, which resulted in the marriage of his son Jehoram to Ahab’s daughter Athaliah. This alliance involved Jehoshaphat in almost ruinous joint ventures with Ahab, and later with two of his sons when they became kings of Israel. It also opened the door for the introduction of Baal worship into Judah when Jehoram came to the throne in the southern kingdom. For his sin Jehoram (853–841 BC<\/span>) suffered internal revolt, invasion, and death from a horrible disease.<\/p>\nAfter his death, his last remaining son, Ahaziah, ruled less than a year, following the wicked ways of his father. When Ahaziah died in battle, the queen mother, Athaliah, decided to seize the throne for herself and to secure her power by killing off all those in line to the throne. But she missed Ahaziah’s infant son Joash, who was kept hidden in the temple for six years.<\/p>\nWhen Joash was seven, Jehoiada the high priest arranged his coronation and also the execution of the murderous and idolatrous Athaliah. During his early years when Joash was influenced by good counsel, he did well. But after the middle of his reign (835–796 BC<\/span>), he began to listen to the princes who wanted to restore idolatry, and conditions deteriorated. Military reversals brought on economic decline and ultimately the king’s assassination.<\/p>\nHis son Amaziah (796–767 BC<\/span>) started well with victory over Edom and faithfulness to God. But he, too, fell into idolatry and was totally defeated by the northern kingdom, being held prisoner there. At that point his son Uzziah took over (c. 792 BC<\/span>) and began a long and generally successful reign. During the several decades that followed, Assyria was in decline, and Uzziah and his contemporary in the north, Jeroboam II, were able to expand Hebrew holdings so that between them they controlled most of the territory Solomon had ruled.<\/p>\nUzziah (792–740 BC<\/span>) was able to restore the power of Judah rather quickly after his father’s defeat by Israel. Then he subjugated the Philistines in the southwest and the Ammonites across the Jordan; he strengthened his hold on the Edomites. All during his reign economic conditions improved. But at the height of his power Uzziah foolishly violated the high priest’s prerogatives and offered sacrifice in the temple. For this he was smitten with leprosy; his son Jotham was co-regent during the years 750–740 BC<\/span>, going on to rule alone for about five more years. Meanwhile, Assyrian power became resurgent.<\/p>\nBy and large, Jotham merely carried on the policies of Uzziah. But the administration of his son Ahaz (735–715 BC<\/span>) was very much affected by the Assyrian threat. Israel and Syria wanted him to join in war against Assyria, but he refused, being pro-Assyrian in sympathy. When Israel and Syria invaded Judah, King Ahaz sent tribute to Assyria and became her vassal in return for protection. This rash course of action was vainly opposed by Isaiah, who was prophet at court (c. 740–700 BC<\/span>). Contemporaneously, the prophet Micah ministered to the common people of Judah. The pro-Assyrian policy of Ahaz was accompanied by a renewed sympathy for idolatry, and this brought the judgment of God in the form of invasion by Edomites and Philistines and trouble with Assyria. In fact, during this period, Assyria had annexed the northern kingdom (722 BC<\/span>) and removed many of her people into captivity.<\/p>\nThe next king of Judah, Hezekiah (715–686 BC<\/span>), was greatly sobered by the fall of Israel because of her sins, and he determined to launch a reform in his realm. He was anti-Assyrian too, but he did not dare to discontinue tribute payments and strike for independence until after Sennacherib came to the throne in Nineveh in 705 BC<\/span>. At first Sennacherib was too preoccupied to attend to Judah, but finally in 701 he invaded. Despite tremendous initial success, he was stopped by a divinely sent plague (Is 36–39). Isaiah stood by the king to reassure and sustain him during this emergency.<\/p>\nHezekiah’s son Manasseh (697–642 BC<\/span>) ruled longer than any other king of Israel or Judah. Unfortunately, he turned his back on his father’s example and caused the people to fall into gross idolatry (2 Kgs 21:9). Carried away captive by the Assyrians late in his reign, he repented of his evil and God restored him to his throne; thereafter, he led some reforms. But the land was too steeped in iniquity to be rescued. His son Amon (642–640 BC<\/span>) reverted to the idolatry he knew in his youth.<\/p>\nThe situation was different with Josiah (640–609 BC<\/span>), however. Throughout his reign he dedicated himself to reform. He sought to root out idolatry and to restore the temple and its worship. In 622 BC<\/span> the Book of the Law was found during repair of the temple, and its demands—which had been forgotten—made a great impression on king and people alike. It is certain that Jeremiah and Zephaniah ministered during Josiah’s reign, as did Nahum and Habakkuk (in all probability).<\/p>\nInternational conditions were now changing rapidly. Assyria was declining, and Nineveh fell to Babylon and the Medes in 612 BC<\/span>. Three years later Pharaoh Neco of Egypt marched north to aid his Assyrian ally. When Josiah tried to stop him, he was killed in battle.<\/p>\nFrom this point everything was downhill for Judah. None of the rest of the kings was devout, and political power and economic health rapidly declined. The people put one of Josiah’s sons, Jehoahaz, on the throne. He lasted three months. Pharaoh Neco replaced him with Jehoiakim (609–598 BC<\/span>), another son of Josiah. In 605 Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon defeated Neco, invaded Judah, and took tribute and hostages from Jehoiakim, including Daniel and his friends (Dn 1:1). Jehoiakim revolted in 600 BC<\/span>, but Nebuchadnezzar did not come to deal with him personally until 597 BC<\/span>. He died before the Babylonians arrived, and his son Jehoiachin came to the throne in 598 BC<\/span> to rule for only three months before the Babylonians carried him away into exile. Ezekiel was among the many captives taken on that occasion.<\/p>\nThe Babylonians then put Zedekiah, youngest son of Josiah, on the throne in 597 BC<\/span>. When he rebelled, Nebuchadnezzar laid siege to Jerusalem and took the city (587 BC<\/span>), destroying it and the temple and carrying off large numbers of people. The judgment of God had finally fallen on the Jews for their idolatrous ways.<\/p>\nThe Restoration<\/p>\nIn judgment God remembered mercy. This is evident in individual lives, when faithful ones like Daniel, Esther, or Nehemiah rose to a position of importance in political life, or as numerous other persons became prosperous in the foreign environment. It is evident on the community level as God moved to protect Hebrew enclaves scattered abroad and to restore an organized society in Palestine.<\/p>\nAmong the exiles, Judaism as a way of life separated from its own political system or cultic center and began to emerge. Jews finally turned their backs on idolatry. And without a temple, priesthood, king, or land, they turned to the divine Scriptures as their rallying point and the foundation of their community. During this period they developed the synagogue as a place for fellowship, prayer, and study.<\/p>\nGod’s restoration of an organized community to Palestine involved particularly the fortunes of his “anointed” Cyrus (Is 44:28; 45:1). Cyrus was a Persian prince who in 559 BC<\/span> revolted against the dominant dynasty controlling the Median Empire. After consolidating his hold on the throne, he proceeded to conquer Asia Minor and the Chaldean or Neo-Babylonian Empire. As a humane man and a wise administrator, he permitted the captive peoples to return to their homes and rebuild their communities. Cyrus’s decree to the Jews appears in Ezra 1 and dates probably to 538 BC<\/span>. A total of almost 50,000 went back to Judah as a result of this edict (Ezr 2:64-65).<\/p>\nUnder the stresses and strains of reestablishment, the people built their houses but got no further than laying the foundation of a new temple. Finally, the prophets Haggai and Zechariah stirred the people to build the house of God (Ezr 5:1). They began in the second year of Darius I, the Great (520 BC<\/span>; Hg 1:1; Zec 1:1), and completed the work in his sixth year (515 BC<\/span>; Ezr 6:15).<\/p>\nDuring the reign of Darius’s son Xerxes (486–465 BC<\/span>), a plot was hatched to exterminate all the Jews in the Persian Empire, which at that time controlled the lands where Jews lived. Fortunately, Xerxes (Ahasuerus in the book of Esther), in his third year (483 BC<\/span>; Est 1:3), went searching for a new queen and chose Esther, who managed to preserve her people.<\/p>\nXerxes’ son Artaxerxes I (465–424 BC<\/span>) also figured significantly in Jewish history. In his seventh year (458 BC<\/span>; Ezr 7:7), under the leadership of Ezra, a second contingent of Jews returned to Jerusalem. And in Artaxerxes’ 20th year (445 BC<\/span>; Neh 2:1), Nehemiah went to Jerusalem to supervise the rebuilding of the walls of the city. Malachi probably wrote his prophecy to the Jews in Jerusalem during the latter part of Artaxerxes’ reign.<\/p>\nAfter the fall of Samaria and the captivity of Judah, the Hebrews remaining in the land intermarried with various pagan groups in the area. Their offspring became the Samaritans, a religious and racial admixture. These people had moved into the vacuum left by the destruction of Judah, and naturally they looked with disfavor on an intrusion of Babylonian Jews into an area they had come to call their own. They did all they could to frustrate the efforts of Nehemiah to rebuild the walls. It took all the courage, tact, energy, and persuasiveness Ezra and Nehemiah could muster to prevent the returning Jews from intermarrying with racially mixed people of the land. Such intermarriage would have meant the ultimate absorption and destruction of the Jewish people.<\/p>\nA Samaritan temple was later built on Mt Gerizim (probably during the fifth century BC<\/span>), and it became the center of the Samaritan worship. The hostility between Samaritans and Jews continued on into the NT period (Jn 4) and exists to the present.<\/p>\nThe Intertestamental Period<\/p>\nAlexander the Great conquered the Persian Empire with lightning speed. When the people of Jerusalem threw open their gates in 332 BC<\/span> and capitulated without a fight, Alexander treated them well. After his death in 323 BC<\/span>, Palestine passed back and forth among his successors until Ptolemy I of Egypt managed to establish control in 301 BC<\/span>. Thereafter the area remained in Egyptian hands until 198 BC<\/span>. The Ptolemies were tolerant and granted the Jews considerable autonomy, allowing them to develop their unique culture undisturbed as long as they paid their taxes and remained submissive. Many Jews settled in Alexandria and gradually forgot their Hebrew in the Hellenistic environment. As a result, a translation of the OT into Greek (the Septuagint) was produced there. While the Ptolemies did not force Hellenism on the Jews of either Alexandria or Palestine, many were influenced by Hellenistic ideas.<\/p>\nWhen Ptolemy V came to the throne as a minor in 203 BC<\/span>, Antiochus III of Syria took advantage of the weakened Egypt and conquered Palestine (198 BC<\/span>). Apparently the Jews hoped to gain something from the change and welcomed the Syrians. But their hope was ill-founded. Antiochus III suffered disastrous defeat at the hands of Rome at Magnesia in 190 BC<\/span>. Syria not only lost much territory but also was forced to pay a huge indemnity. Thereafter, the Jews suffered under great financial burdens, along with other peoples of the empire. The next Syrian king, Antiochus IV Epiphanes (175–164 BC<\/span>), decided to launch an effort to achieve greater internal strength and unity within the empire by forcing, among other things, a greater acceptance of Greek culture and the cult of the divine ruler. Naturally this idolatrous requirement weighed heavily on the monotheistic Jews and incited revolution.<\/p>\nBut this does not completely explain the Maccabean revolt against Syria. In 168 BC<\/span> armed conflict broke out between Jewish factions in Jerusalem. Antiochus IV chose to interpret this as open rebellion and sent an army against the city. His forces demolished part of the city wall and many houses. After this Antiochus decided to suppress Judaism completely, and he dedicated the temple to Zeus and sacrificed swine on the altar. Circumcision, Sabbath observance, and other religious festivals were no longer permitted, and public worship of heathen gods became compulsory.<\/p>\nSome Jews capitulated to Antiochus’s orders or only resisted passively, but a few decided to resist openly. Chief among them were Mattathias and his five sons. After the early death of Mattathias, his son Judas Maccabeus led his forces to victory over the Syrians, regaining the right to restore Jewish worship. The rededication of the temple on December 25, 164 BC<\/span>, inaugurated the Festival of Hanukkah (1 Macc 4:36-59). Subsequently, Jonathan and Simon (other sons of Mattathias) continued the struggle until independence was gained in 142 BC<\/span>; this was possible in large part because they saw how to take advantage of the increasing weakness of Syrian rulers and the competition for the royal office.<\/p>\nSimon ruled the Jewish state until his assassination in 134 BC<\/span>, when his son John Hyrcanus (134–104 BC<\/span>) took over. John Hyrcanus fought successfully in the east, north, and south, gaining land in Transjordan, capturing Shechem and the Samaritan temple on Mt Gerizim, and subjugating the Idumeans in the south, forcing them to adopt Judaism. His son Aristobulus ruled for only about a year (104–103 BC<\/span>), but he added a portion of Galilee to the kingdom. When he died, his widow married his brother Alexander Janneus (103–76 BC<\/span>). Janneus carried on almost incessant military action during his reign, and by the time of his death had almost recovered the kingdom of Solomon.<\/p>\nWhen Janneus died, Alexandra, widow of two kings, took the throne (76–67 BC<\/span>) and her eldest son, Hyrcanus II, became high priest. Her reign was peaceful and prosperous, but when she died, her sons fell to squabbling. Their appeals to Pompey, who was campaigning in the eastern Mediterranean area, were responsible for Roman interference in the region and conquest of Palestine in 63 BC<\/span>.<\/p>\nThe Roman Period<\/p>\nAfter the Romans took over Palestine, Hyrcanus II was confirmed as high priest and was also appointed as ethnarch or political ruler (63–40 BC<\/span>). But Antipater, father of Herod the Great, was the real power behind the throne, and during many of those years Hyrcanus was virtually unable to function because of the confusion of the Roman civil wars. Antipater was loyal to Rome and saw that Roman policies were carried out; he won Julius Caesar’s favor toward Jews of both Palestine and in the Dispersion.<\/p>\nWith the support of Mark Antony, Herod managed to get himself appointed king of Judea by the Roman senate in 40 BC<\/span>. But a Parthian invasion of Syria and Jewish hatred for the Romans made it possible for Antigonus II, last king of the Maccabean family, to rule for three years (40–37 BC<\/span>). Finally, Herod ascended his throne in 37 and ruled until 4 BC<\/span>. As an allied king, Herod proved to be an excellent ruler from the Roman point of view and earned the title of “Great.” He brought some order to regions east of the Jordan and made possible organization of the Roman province of Arabia. He also furthered the cultural plans of Augustus for development of a Greco-Roman civilization throughout the whole empire.<\/p>\nHerod admired Greek culture and contributed to building projects in Rhodes, Antioch, Damascus, Athens, and elsewhere outside Palestine. Within Palestine he rebuilt Samaria and named it Sebaste in honor of Augustus (Sebastos<\/span> is Greek for “Augustus”) and also constructed the great port of Caesarea. Probably about as large as Manhattan Island, it became the capital of Roman Palestine. Among his many other building projects, remodeling the temple in Jerusalem was the most famous. Begun in 20 BC<\/span>, it was not completed until just a few years before its destruction in AD<\/span> 70.<\/p>\nThe material splendor of Herod’s reign did not win the affection or support of the Jews, however. Nor did he achieve peace and harmony in his family, among whom there were periodic eruptions of treason, unfaithfulness, and murder. He worried about any threat to his rule and cracked down hard to destroy such threats, as is evident from his slaughter of the infants in Bethlehem after the birth of Christ.<\/p>\nUltimately, Herod controlled Idumea, Judea, Samaria, Galilee, Perea, and the area northeast of the Sea of Galilee. By his last will, his son Archelaus was to rule Idumea, Judea, and Samaria; Antipas, Galilee and Perea; and Philip, the region northeast of the Sea of Galilee. Archelaus was deposed in AD<\/span> 6, and his territory became a Roman province (AD<\/span> 6–41) to be ruled by direct appointees of Rome. The best-known of these was Pontius Pilate (AD<\/span> 26–36), who ordered the crucifixion of Jesus. Antipas was more successful and built a new capital at Tiberias, but he ran afoul of the emperor’s good pleasure in AD<\/span> 39 and was deposed. Philip was the most effective of the three and ruled until his death in AD<\/span> 34. Philip’s lands were later given to Herod Agrippa I in AD<\/span> 37; the holdings of Antipas were then added in AD<\/span> 39; and in 41 Agrippa also received Samaria, Judea, and Idumea.<\/p>\nHerod Agrippa I (AD<\/span> 37–44) was the heir of the Maccabees (through his grandmother Mariamne, first wife of Herod the Great), and for this reason had the support of patriotic Jews and of the Pharisees for his observance of divine ordinances. But when he built a new north wall for Jerusalem and dabbled in foreign affairs, he aroused the suspicions of the Romans; when he died in AD<\/span> 44, they turned the kingdom into a Roman province.<\/p>\nAs is clear from the Gospels, several sects had arisen in Palestine by Roman times and were active during the first century. The Zealots opposed Roman rule and advocated armed rebellion. Herodians supported the Herodian family and Roman power. The Pharisees were fanatically devoted to the law and were supernaturalists in theological orientation. They were somewhat content to support Rome if given religious freedom, and they dominated the synagogues of the land. The Sadducees were antisupernaturalists, tended to collaborate with the ruling regime, and were dominant in the temple. Generally speaking, the literature of the intertestamental period and the popular mentality of the time tended to view the Messiah as a political deliverer who would free his people from foreign domination and set up a new independent kingdom.<\/p>\nRoman prefects ruled Palestine from AD<\/span> 44–66. They had a knack for offending the religious scruples of the Jews and alienating them in other ways. With Felix (AD<\/span> 52–60) there began a constant tension between Jews and Romans that led to the first Jewish revolt (AD<\/span> 66–70). While Paul was imprisoned in Caesarea (Acts 23:23–24:27) about AD<\/span> 58–60, riots broke out there between Jews and Gentiles. Festus (AD<\/span> 60–62; Acts 25) was an able administrator, but the situation was almost out of hand. After he died in office, there was virtual anarchy until his successor, Albinus, arrived (AD<\/span> 62–64). Totally incompetent and dishonest, Albinus was recalled in 64 and replaced by Florus (AD<\/span> 64–66). Florus was even worse, resorting to open robbery and bribery until there was no safety or justice in the land. Finally, the Jews could take no more.<\/p>\nThe spark that ignited the fires of rebellion was an anti-Semitic act by the Hellenistic population of Caesarea in AD<\/span> 66. Soon riots spread to numerous cities, and Roman garrisons were massacred in several places. But the Jews were not united, and in Jerusalem armed bands of Jews fought with each other for mastery. Vespasian was chosen to command the Roman army of some 60,000 to deal with the insurrection. He had subjugated most of Palestine by the time he was elevated to the imperial chair in AD<\/span> 69 (after the death of Nero), and he left his son Titus in charge of completing the operations. In August of AD<\/span> 70 the walls of Jerusalem were breached, many of the people butchered, and the city and the temple leveled. Masada held out until AD<\/span> 73. Palestine had been flattened by Roman might. Loss of life and property had been incalculable and indescribable.<\/p>\nOn two more occasions the Jews were destined to fight disastrously against the Romans. Under Trajan’s rule a rebellion of Jews broke out in Cyrenaica in AD<\/span> 115 and spread rapidly to Cyprus, Egypt, Palestine, and Mesopotamia. In the beginning it was an outgrowth of agitation between the Jews and their Hellenistic neighbors, but it developed into a challenge to Roman authority. This was particularly true after the successes of Parthia on Rome’s eastern frontier when there seemed to be some hope of success in throwing off the Roman yoke. Wherever Jews got the upper hand, they perpetrated massacres, and the non-Semitic population retaliated in kind. Trajan ruthlessly suppressed the rebels and restored order everywhere except Egypt; his successor, Hadrian, was left to accomplish that.<\/p>\nBut Hadrian faced a new rebellion of his own, brought on by his law forbidding circumcision (which he considered to be inhumane) and his decision in AD<\/span> 130 to rebuild Jerusalem as Aelia Capitolina and erect a temple to Jupiter on the site of the temple of Yahweh. The latter would not only profane the temple site but also would preclude any rebuilding of the Jewish temple.<\/p>\nLeader of this second Jewish revolt was Simeon, prince of Israel, called Bar-Kochba (“Son of the Star”). Both sides fought with such great ferocity for over three years (AD<\/span> 132–135) that the population of Judea was almost exterminated. Jerusalem was rebuilt as a Roman colony, and Jews were forbidden to enter on pain of death. Even as late as the fourth century they were permitted to enter only once a year, on the anniversary of the destruction of the temple by Nebuchadnezzar. After the Bar-Kochba revolt, Judaism retreated increasingly within the citadel of the written and oral law, thus separating itself from the Gentiles.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Abraham; Chronology of the Bible (Old Testament); Conquest and Allotment of the Land; David; Diaspora of the Jews; Exodus, The; First Jewish Revolt; Jew; Judaism; Moses; Patriarchs, Period of the; Saul #2; Solomon; Postexilic Period; Wilderness Wanderings.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>ISRAEL, History of<\/h3>\nAn account of God’s sovereign purpose in calling a people out of paganism and establishing them as witnesses for the true faith among the nations, of God’s sovereign power in protecting them from extinction, of his sovereign justice in dealing with their departure from his ways of holiness, of God’s sovereign grace in forgiving their sins and restoring them to fellowship with himself by providing through them a Savior for the entire world.<\/p>\nPreview<\/p>\n• Patriarchal Age<\/p>\n• Sojourn in Egypt<\/p>\n• The Exodus<\/p>\n• Wilderness Wanderings<\/p>\n• The Conquest<\/p>\n• The Judges<\/p>\n• The United Monarchy<\/p>\n• The Divided Kingdom<\/p>\n• The Restoration<\/p>\n• The Intertestamental Period<\/p>\n• The Roman Period<\/p>\nPatriarchal Age<\/p>\nThe story of Israel begins with Abraham, whom God called first at Ur, and perhaps later at Haran (Acts 7:2-4), to leave Mesopotamia and go into a land to which God would direct the way. In calling Abraham, God made with him a covenant (Gn 12:1-3) that promised him a land, special divine favor (“I will bless those who bless you, and the one who curses you I will curse,” nasb<\/span>), and the privilege of being a channel of blessing to the entire world (“In you all the families of the earth shall be blessed,” nasb<\/span>). In Genesis 12:4-8 God confirmed this unconditional covenant, promising Abraham this new land forever, along with innumerable descendants. Subsequently, in Genesis 15:1-21, God again confirmed the covenant but added the significant prediction that the guarantee of holding Canaan in perpetuity did not mean occupation of the land in every generation. God also spelled out the limits of the Promised Land (from the river of Egypt to the Euphrates, some 500 to 600 miles or 804 to 965 kilometers in extent). A final confirmation of the covenant to Abraham appears in Genesis 17:6-8. It guaranteed the land of Canaan to Abraham’s posterity and added that kings (an anticipation of the Davidic dynasty) would arise in his line. The covenant was confirmed to Abraham’s son Isaac (Gn 26:3-5) and his grandson Jacob (ch 28).<\/p>\nThis period is known as the patriarchal age in Hebrew history. The patriarchs were Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. They were called patriarchs because they were fathers, not only to their immediate families, but also to the extended family of Hebrews, over which they exercised a fatherly control. They served as political, legal, and spiritual heads of their migratory community, looking after their interests and leading them in worship. Periodically they built altars on which they offered sacrifices. That the patriarchal community was very large can be seen from Genesis 14:14, which says that Abraham had 318 armed men in his camp. If one assumes that most of the men were married and had one or more children each, the total extended family may have numbered in excess of 1,000.<\/p>\nAdditional developments in the life of Abraham and Jacob were particularly important for world history. Abraham, frustrated at not having an heir, accepted Sarah’s suggestion to obtain an heir by the slave girl Hagar. (This was also the custom of the land.) The son born was named Ishmael, progenitor of the Arabs. Thus Abraham is revered by Arabs and Muslims as well as by Jews and Christians. He is the father of the Jews through his son Isaac, child of promise. He holds a special place in Christianity as an example of Christ, through whom all Christians obtain their salvation.<\/p>\nJacob, a scheming scoundrel in his earlier years, wound up in exile in northern Mesopotamia for 20 years in the home of his uncle Laban. There he married Leah and Rachel and fathered the sons who became the progenitors of the 12 tribes of Israel. On his return to Palestine he met God along the banks of the Jabbok River (Gn 32), and God changed his name to Israel (“a prince of God,” kjv<\/span> mg).<\/p>\nThe patriarchal period in Canaan lasted for 215 years. One estimate places Abraham’s entry into Canaan at about 2085 BC<\/span>, when he was 75 years of age. Jacob and his sons migrated to Egypt to escape a severe famine in Canaan in about 1870 BC<\/span>. During much of the patriarchal period, Palestine experienced a decline in population and was occupied largely by nomadic or seminomadic tribes. It was relatively easy for the Hebrews to enter such a situation. After 1900 Palestine began to enjoy more settled conditions. Shortly thereafter, the Hebrews made the trek into Egypt.<\/p>\nSojourn in Egypt<\/p>\nIf Jacob and his sons entered Egypt about 1870 BC<\/span>, it was the period of the Middle Kingdom. And by that time other migrants from Asia were coming in increasing numbers. The Hebrews settled in Goshen, in the eastern delta region, under the protecting care of Joseph, who held a position at the Egyptian court roughly equivalent to that of prime minister. As more and more Asiatic Hyksos came into Egypt, they began to take over the country—northern Egypt at least. During this same time the Hebrews became increasingly numerous. Some who hold to a different chronology believe the Hebrews were welcomed into Egypt during the days of Hyksos domination (after 1750 BC<\/span>). At any rate, by about 1580 BC<\/span> native Egyptian princes regained control of the country and expelled many of the Asiatics.<\/p>\nIn process of time there arose a king over Egypt who “knew not Joseph” (Ex 1:8, kjv<\/span>). Very possibly this meant that a native Egyptian dynasty had arisen in Egypt and they were apprehensive over the fact that the growing numbers and wealth of the Hebrews might jeopardize their own supremacy. But Egyptian measures to subjugate the Hebrews and reduce their birthrate had a reverse effect (Ex 1:12). Finally, the Egyptians ordered the killing of all male Hebrew infants at birth. Among those who disobeyed were the parents of Moses, who set him afloat in a waterproof basket made of reeds. Found by a daughter of Pharaoh, he was brought up in the Egyptian court, was given a first-class education, and became a high official of the realm.<\/p>\nAt the age of 40, Moses identified himself with his own people. He killed an Egyptian in defense of a fellow Hebrew, and immediately fled to the land of Midian in the northeastern part of the Sinai Peninsula. He married and lived there for 40 years, becoming thoroughly familiar with the geography and the ways of the wilderness through which he would later lead the Hebrews. The Egyptians continued to oppress the Hebrew people severely until they cried urgently to God for deliverance. In response, God confronted Moses in the famous burning bush experience and called on him to return to Egypt and lead the people back into the land of Canaan (Ex 3–4). He was to have the help of his brother, Aaron.<\/p>\nThe Exodus<\/p>\nUnderstandably the pharaoh of Egypt was reluctant to permit the Hebrews to leave permanently. The value of this great labor force was incalculable. But finally, after suffering a series of ten plagues, lasting perhaps a year, the Egyptians were persuaded to let the Hebrews go (Ex 7–12).<\/p>\nThe plagues had a theological as well as a practical purpose. They discredited the gods of Egypt and exalted the most high God of heaven (Ex 12:12). The plagues clearly discredited specific gods of Egypt (e.g., the Nile was worshiped as Hapi, plague one; the frog, worshiped as Heqt, plague two; the bull, worshiped as Ptah, plague five; the sun, worshiped as Amon-Re\/Aton, plague nine). Taken together, they struck a direct blow at the Egyptian pantheon.<\/p>\nJust before the last plague, which was the night in which the death angel invaded the homes of the Egyptians, the Israelites made the Passover sacrifice according to divine instructions. This involved killing a lamb for each household (unless the household was too small; in that event, households could combine). Anyone who was careless about applying the blood to the doorpost or who rejected this divine provision came under the judgment of God. After the death of the firstborn throughout the land, the Egyptians begged the Hebrews to leave. Their company numbered 600,000 men over 20 years of age, plus women and children, for a total of over 2,500,000. In addition they took their flocks and herds and personal belongings.<\/p>\nThe date they left Egypt is a matter of continuing debate. Traditionally a date of about 1446 BC<\/span> is given for the exodus (cf. 1 Kgs 6:1, which places the exodus 480 years before construction of the temple started in 966 BC<\/span>) and 1406 BC<\/span> for the Conquest under Joshua, and there do not seem to be any compelling arguments for rejecting that position. But a great many scholars prefer 1275 BC<\/span> for a variety of reasons.<\/p>\nThe early date of the exodus would place the later years of the wilderness wanderings and the subsequent conquest of Palestine during the reigns of Amenhotep III and IV (1412–1366), a time when the pharaohs allowed Egyptian control of Palestine to disintegrate. When the Egyptians did reassert their power, about 1300, they restricted their movements largely to the coastal area, and thus did not come in contact with the Hebrews who were living in the hill country of Judea, Samaria, and Galilee.<\/p>\nWilderness Wanderings<\/p>\nThe wilderness wanderings were an important interlude in the history of Israel. During those years, significant and basic institutions came into existence at God’s command. At Sinai, Moses delivered to Israel the law, the pattern of the tabernacle (which later became the model for the temple) and orders for its operation, as well as detailed instructions for the priesthood and sacrificial system of worship.<\/p>\nThe period of the wanderings was truly a remarkable time. The presence of God was evidenced by a pillar of cloud that hovered over the people by day and a pillar of fire by night. God provided food in the form of manna, periodically provided water by miraculous means, and made sure that clothes did not wear out. In spite of all that, the people murmured and complained continually.<\/p>\nAt Sinai, God gave the law (Ex 19:2–24:18), and the people promptly made a commitment to keep it (24:3). Then God gave the pattern for the tabernacle and its furniture (chs 25–27, 30–31, 35–40) and established the priesthood (chs 28–29). While Moses was on the mountain receiving God’s revelation, the people grew restless and clamored for gods they could see. Even Aaron was carried away with the idolatrous wave and supervised the casting of a golden calf and building of an altar before it. The fact that they turned to Egyptian cattle worship so readily indicates that paganism must have made deep inroads among them while in captivity (chs 32–34). Moses’ intercessory response to God’s announcement that he would destroy Israel because of her idolatry led to a divine determination to execute judgment on only the worst offenders (32:9-14).<\/p>\nSubsequently, God revealed the legal and priestly order (Lv 1:1–27:34). Among the divinely appointed institutions described or alluded to in Leviticus are several special days or feasts, including the Sabbath, Passover, Feast of Unleavened Bread, Firstfruits, Pentecost or Feast of Weeks, Feast of Trumpets, Day of Atonement, Feast of Tabernacles, the Year of Sabbath, and the Year of Jubilee.<\/p>\nAfter camping at Sinai for about a year, the Israelites got their orders to go forward (Nm 10:11-12). Miriam (Moses’ sister) and Aaron criticized Moses’ leadership and suffered divine punishment as a consequence (ch 12). When the people arrived at Kadesh-barnea, the gate to southern Palestine, they were frightened by the report of most of the spies who had been reconnoitering in Canaan and decided that they should not advance into Canaan. They called for a new leader to bring them back to Egypt. God declared that the entire generation would wander in the wilderness until the adults had died. Only Joshua and Caleb (the two spies in favor of invading immediately) would enter the Promised Land (14:26-30). Near the end of the period of wandering, Moses also lost the privilege of entering the land by an act of disobedience.<\/p>\nThe Conquest<\/p>\nThe latter part of the book of Numbers describes how Moses led the Israelites to victory over the peoples living east of the Jordan River. Reuben, Gad, and the half-tribe of Manasseh requested permission to settle there and reluctantly were allowed to do so on the condition that they would join the rest of the Israelites in conquering Canaan before settling down. Prior to victories in Transjordan, a new census of adult males was taken in order to determine the military capabilities of Israel and to provide a basis for equitable division of the land they were about to enter. The number of males above 20 years of age was 601,730 (Nm 26:51). The book of Deuteronomy consists primarily of a series of speeches delivered by Moses in a covenant renewal ceremony on the plains of Moab just before his death and the appointment of Joshua as leader.<\/p>\nJoshua lost no time in moving forward. Spies sent across the Jordan to Jericho to reconnoiter reported a situation quite different from what the Hebrews had experienced at Kadesh-barnea a generation earlier. Now the people of Canaan were terrified because they had heard of the numerical strength and victories of the Hebrews. Apparently the day after the spies returned, Joshua moved the people to the edge of the Jordan and prepared to cross over. The waters parted for them here as the Red Sea had parted earlier.<\/p>\nThe narrative of conquest that appears in the book of Joshua is not a detailed battle account. It describes a thrust into the middle of Palestine around Jericho and Ai, a southerly drive to defeat the Amorite league, and a northern campaign against Hazor and other towns. The history of Joshua is extremely telescoped, for Joshua’s major military action must have required about six years. Joshua’s friend Caleb was 79 when the Conquest began and 85 after the last great battle with Jabin, king of Hazor (Jos 14:7-10).<\/p>\nWhen the war was over, major strongholds (e.g., Jerusalem) still remained in enemy hands, but the land west of the Jordan was allocated to the nine and a half Hebrew tribes. The task of reducing enemy towns was left to the individual tribes in whose land they were located. The Joshua account was not so much a narrative of Israelite battle prowess as of God’s faithfulness and intervention on behalf of his people. For example, at Jericho they did not attack but merely followed divine orders and watched the defenses collapse; at Gibeon hailstones killed more Amorites than Israelite soldiers did (Jos 10:7-11).<\/p>\nThe Judges<\/p>\nJoshua died some 30 years after he had led the Hebrews into Canaan, and he was followed by a series of divinely appointed leaders who ruled sometimes over the whole of Israel as a loose confederacy and sometimes over one or more tribes. They were judges, civil functionaries, and military leaders all at the same time.<\/p>\nThe book of Judges pictures a series of recurring cycles: apostasy from God, punishment in the form of oppression by neighboring tribes, cries to God for relief, release from bondage under the leadership of a judge, and a period of rest from oppression.<\/p>\nEstablishment of the chronology of the judges is one of the thorniest problems of Scripture. Adding up all years of oppression and rest mentioned in the book gives a total of 410. The book of Acts gives a total of 450 years from the days of Joshua to Samuel (Acts 13:19). The difference in Acts may be accounted for by the addition of 40 years of Eli’s ministry (1 Sm 4:18). Allowing 410 years for the period of the judges, about 30 for the Conquest to the judges, and 40 for the wilderness wanderings, means 480 years from 1050 BC<\/span>, the date for Saul’s kingship, and would give a date of about 1530 for the exodus. This is about 100 years more than even the early date for the exodus. The most probable explanation is that there is some overlap in oppressions and judgeships. For instance, the activities of Jephthah were centered on the eastern frontier, those of Samson in the Philistine plain to the southwest, and those of Deborah and Barak in the north.<\/p>\nThe United Monarchy<\/p>\nBecause of the weakness of Israel resulting from political disunity and the ineptness and corruption of both Eli’s and Samuel’s sons, the people of Israel called for a king to rule over them. This demand was in reality a rejection of the divine plan of theocracy—the rule of God. God granted the Hebrews’ wish but warned them of the disadvantages of monarchy (1 Sm 8:9-21). The concept of kingship was not new to Israel. It had been hinted at in Genesis 49:10 and Numbers 24:17, and Moses had made some very clear statements about it in Deuteronomy 17:14-20.<\/p>\nThe first stage of Hebrew monarchy is commonly called the united monarchy because all Israel was ruled by a single king. This period lasted for 120 years—encompassing the 40-year reigns of Saul (Acts 13:21), David (2 Sm 5:5), and Solomon (1 Kgs 11:42).<\/p>\nThe people asked for a king, and God granted them one, but not one like those of the surrounding nations. The Hebrew king was to be a man who followed God’s dictates in his public and private life, who did not intrude into the affairs of the priesthood, and who did not fall into idolatry, but exerted all his influence to keep the people faithful to God. If he failed in any of these respects, he ran the risk of being deposed by God, of having his line brought to an end, or even of having the people fall into captivity to a foreign power. All this must be kept in mind when evaluating the reigns of Saul, David, Solomon, and the kings of the divided monarchy.<\/p>\nSaul began well. He won a great victory over the Ammonites at Jabesh-gilead and showed considerable wisdom in administrative matters. But after about two years he intruded into the priest’s office to offer sacrifice, bringing the divine prediction that his kingdom would be taken from him (1 Sm 13:8-14). He would go on to enjoy great military victory and ability as a ruler until about the middle of his reign.<\/p>\nAfter Saul’s disobedience to God’s command to totally destroy the Amalekites, the Lord repudiated Saul and instructed Samuel to anoint David privately as future king of Israel. David’s rise to prominence was spurred by his victory over Goliath and the accompanying defeat of the Philistines. Saul later made David commander of the army, and the young man soon earned a reputation greater than that of the king himself. Saul, who had become increasingly mentally disturbed after his relationship with God was broken, began to make attempts on David’s life, and for the last years of Saul’s reign David lived as a fugitive. Meanwhile, the Philistines got completely out of control and finally killed Saul and most of his sons in the great battle of Mt Gilboa, which gave the Philistines control over much of Palestine west of the Jordan (1 Sm 31:1-7).<\/p>\nSoon David became king in Judah with his capital in Hebron. A son of Saul, Ishbosheth, established himself at Mahanaim, east of the Jordan. For seven years the two tiny kingdoms existed side by side (2 Sm 2:2-11). But after the Israelite king and his army commander were assassinated, David became ruler of a united Hebrew kingdom.<\/p>\nNot long after the beginning of his reign (1010–970 BC<\/span>) David completely defeated and subjugated the Philistines. Soon thereafter he captured Jerusalem, making it the capital of the united kingdom. During succeeding years, David built up an empire (2 Sm 8:10; 1 Chr 18–19), conquering Moab, Edom, Damascus, Zobah, and Ammon, so he controlled territory from the Gulf of Aqaba (a branch of the Red Sea) and the Sinai in the south almost to the Euphrates in the north. Moreover, he established good relations, if not an alliance, with Tyre. The establishment of David’s empire was possible because of a power vacuum in the Middle East. The Egyptians, Mycenaeans, Hittites, and Assyrians were either decadent or removed from the stage of history. The Phoenicians, a peaceful commercial people, were also free to expand their trade, and they were happy to sell cedar to David for his palace and the temple.<\/p>\nWithout doubt, David was Israel’s greatest king. Jerusalem came to be known as the city of David. When the king wanted to build the temple as God’s house, God replied that his son should do it instead. But God would in a very real sense build David’s house; he made a covenant with David, promising him that his house (dynasty, kingdom, throne) would be established forever (2 Sm 7). Christ, the infinite One who came from the line of David, alone was capable of fulfilling this divine promise (see Lk 1:31-33; Acts 2:29-36; 13:32-39; 15:14-17).<\/p>\nLike other Oriental monarchs, David fell into the practice of keeping a harem. Scripture names 8 wives and 21 children and refers to other wives and concubines. Such a situation opened the door to family rivalries and questions about succession to the throne. Two sons, Absalom and Adonijah, made a try for the throne, but both efforts were squelched. Solomon, son of David’s favorite wife, Bathsheba, became the next king.<\/p>\nSolomon (970–930 BC<\/span>) was a man of peace and a builder of palaces, cities, fortifications, and the temple. He fortified cities all over his realm and outfitted cities for his chariot corps and cavalry units. With the help of the Phoenicians, he built a seaport and kept a fleet at Ezion-geber, near modern Eilat on the Gulf of Aqaba. He greatly enlarged Jerusalem by enclosing the temple area to the north of David’s city and the southwestern hill now known as Zion. His best-known project was the temple, which took seven years to build. Twice the size of the tabernacle, it was built on the same basic plan; it measured 90 feet (27.4 meters) long and 30 feet (9.1 meters) wide and had magnificent appointments. But he also constructed a palace complex that took 13 years to complete. This included an armory, a throne room, the king’s private residence, and a house for the daughter of pharaoh.<\/p>\nApparently much influenced by the spiritual testimony of David and desiring God’s blessing on his rule, Solomon made a great sacrifice to God at Gibeon near the beginning of his reign. God met him there and offered to grant whatever he might request. Solomon asked for understanding and wisdom to govern God’s people (1 Kgs 3:9). His God-given wisdom is apparent in many administrative decisions and official policies and building plans.<\/p>\nUnfortunately, Solomon did not show such wisdom in maintaining a harem of 700 wives and 300 concubines or in excessive expenditures that left the state in serious financial straits. He even erected places of worship for his foreign wives, thus subsidizing their idolatries and incurring the wrath of God. In fact, foreign wives and their idolatry proved to be his downfall; before Solomon died, God informed him that for this reason he would divide the kingdom at his death and give most of it to someone other than Solomon’s son. But for David’s sake, God would keep Judah and Jerusalem in the hands of the Davidic line (1 Kgs 11:9-13).<\/p>\nThe Divided Kingdom<\/p>\nAfter the death of Solomon, the Near East was destined to become a very different place. Israel was no longer in a power vacuum. The Assyrian Empire rose in Mesopotamia, to be followed by the Neo-Babylonian and the Medo-Persian Empires in turn. Egypt was temporarily powerful in the south, but it would later come under control of Assyria and Medo-Persia. These empires exerted great pressure on Israel and dominated one or both of the two Hebrew kingdoms.<\/p>\n\nWhen Solomon died, his son Rehoboam took the throne and was forced to deal with a rising tide of resentment over the high taxes and economic stagnation of Solomon’s last years. When Rehoboam refused to give relief, all the northern tribes broke away and formed the northern kingdom, Israel, under the leadership of Jeroboam. The southern kingdom, Judah, was left with only the territory of Judah and Benjamin. A total of 20 kings ruled in each of the separate kingdoms. While the north had several dynasties and the reigns of kings were generally short, in the south the dynasty of David continued to rule and the reigns were longer.<\/p>\n<h5>The Northern Kingdom<\/h5>\nThe northern kingdom lasted from the division in 930 BC<\/span> until its conquest by Assyria in 722. Jeroboam, fearing that he would lose the loyalty of the people if they continued to go to Jerusalem to worship, set up a new religion of his own. Instituting calf worship, he built shrines at Dan in the north and Bethel in the south. This idolatry drew the condemnation of God and fulfilled the prediction that Jeroboam’s line would be wiped out. All his successors are said to have followed in his idolatrous steps. Israel found itself at war during much of its history—with Judah, Syria, or Assyria. Jeroboam established his capital first at Shechem and later at Tirzah.<\/p>\nFour other kings of the north require special comment: Omri, Ahab, Jehu, and Jeroboam II. Omri (885–874 BC<\/span>) must have been an impressive ruler. Generations later, Assyrians still spoke of Israel as the land of Omri. After he had established himself on the throne, he located the permanent capital of the kingdom at Samaria and began the palace complex there. Early in his reign he was successful in conquering Moab, and later he reestablished the good relations with Tyre that existed in the days of David and Solomon. Apparently he established a full alliance and cemented it with the marriage of his son Ahab to Jezebel, a princess of Tyre.<\/p>\nAhab (874–853 BC<\/span>) was one of the most significant of Israel’s kings. He and his wife, Jezebel, promoted the vile idolatry of Baal worship with its religious prostitution, arousing the powerful opposition of the prophet Elijah. Ahab was a formidable military man, defeating the Syrians in major campaigns and participating in a coalition that fought the Assyrians to a virtual standstill. He also built extensively at Samaria, Hazor, Megiddo, and other towns, as excavations show.<\/p>\nJehu (841–814 BC<\/span>) was God’s agent for punishing the house of Omri and destroying Baal worship in Israel. He did eradicate Baal worship and liquidated literally scores of relatives and court officials of Ahab. But he was so ruthless that he killed off the people who knew how to run the government; subsequently, it did not work well. Jehu also was forced to become a vassal to Assyria.<\/p>\nJeroboam II ruled during most of the first half of the eighth century (793–753 BC<\/span>) and brought the kingdom to its greatest extent and prosperity. He, with his contemporary Uzziah in the south, ruled most of the land David had once controlled. This was possible because the Assyrians were in a period of decline during most of the first half of the century.<\/p>\nProphets who were active during the history of the northern kingdom include the nonwriting prophets Elijah and Elisha and the writing prophets Jonah, Amos, and Hosea.<\/p>\n<h5>The Southern Kingdom<\/h5>\nThe history of the southern kingdom of Judah was quite different from that of the northern kingdom. The temple was there and so were large numbers of Levites, many of whom came south after the division of the kingdom to protest the idolatry of the north. In addition to this spiritual strength, there was greater political stability and unity, promoted by the fact that only two tribes—Judah and Benjamin—shared power, and all the kings were of the Davidic dynasty. Moreover, eight of the kings were good monarchs. There were also periodic religious revivals. God granted the southern kingdom about 100 more years of existence than the north. But Judah, too, fell into idolatry and went into captivity for her sins.<\/p>\nRehoboam, the first king in the south, is especially remembered because he refused to listen to wise counsel about fiscal matters and perpetrated the division of the kingdom. He is also remembered for his religious policies. After a good beginning, he allowed apostasy to get out of control and brought the judgment of God in the form of an invasion in his fifth year (926 BC<\/span>) by Shishak I of Egypt, resulting in extensive plunder and payment of tribute. Thereafter, he launched an extensive program to fortify the realm. Shishak’s invasion did have the effect of producing a partial and temporary spiritual reform, but the general trend of Rehoboam’s reign was downward.<\/p>\nConditions during the reign of his son, Abijam, were worse, but Asa (910–869 BC<\/span>) initiated a religious reform that was effective for most of his reign. When threatened by the northern kingdom during his latter years, however, Asa turned to Syria for help instead of to God, and he seems to have defied the prophets of God to his dying day.<\/p>\nAsa’s son Jehoshaphat (872–848 BC<\/span>) was apparently influenced by his father’s early religious devotion, and his reign was characterized by faithfulness, winning the favor of God. However, he seems to have made a full alliance with Ahab of Israel, which resulted in the marriage of his son Jehoram to Ahab’s daughter Athaliah. This alliance involved Jehoshaphat in almost ruinous joint ventures with Ahab, and later with two of his sons when they became kings of Israel. It also opened the door for the introduction of Baal worship into Judah when Jehoram came to the throne in the southern kingdom. For his sin Jehoram (853–841 BC<\/span>) suffered internal revolt, invasion, and death from a horrible disease.<\/p>\nAfter his death, his last remaining son, Ahaziah, ruled less than a year, following the wicked ways of his father. When Ahaziah died in battle, the queen mother, Athaliah, decided to seize the throne for herself and to secure her power by killing off all those in line to the throne. But she missed Ahaziah’s infant son Joash, who was kept hidden in the temple for six years.<\/p>\nWhen Joash was seven, Jehoiada the high priest arranged his coronation and also the execution of the murderous and idolatrous Athaliah. During his early years when Joash was influenced by good counsel, he did well. But after the middle of his reign (835–796 BC<\/span>), he began to listen to the princes who wanted to restore idolatry, and conditions deteriorated. Military reversals brought on economic decline and ultimately the king’s assassination.<\/p>\nHis son Amaziah (796–767 BC<\/span>) started well with victory over Edom and faithfulness to God. But he, too, fell into idolatry and was totally defeated by the northern kingdom, being held prisoner there. At that point his son Uzziah took over (c. 792 BC<\/span>) and began a long and generally successful reign. During the several decades that followed, Assyria was in decline, and Uzziah and his contemporary in the north, Jeroboam II, were able to expand Hebrew holdings so that between them they controlled most of the territory Solomon had ruled.<\/p>\nUzziah (792–740 BC<\/span>) was able to restore the power of Judah rather quickly after his father’s defeat by Israel. Then he subjugated the Philistines in the southwest and the Ammonites across the Jordan; he strengthened his hold on the Edomites. All during his reign economic conditions improved. But at the height of his power Uzziah foolishly violated the high priest’s prerogatives and offered sacrifice in the temple. For this he was smitten with leprosy; his son Jotham was co-regent during the years 750–740 BC<\/span>, going on to rule alone for about five more years. Meanwhile, Assyrian power became resurgent.<\/p>\nBy and large, Jotham merely carried on the policies of Uzziah. But the administration of his son Ahaz (735–715 BC<\/span>) was very much affected by the Assyrian threat. Israel and Syria wanted him to join in war against Assyria, but he refused, being pro-Assyrian in sympathy. When Israel and Syria invaded Judah, King Ahaz sent tribute to Assyria and became her vassal in return for protection. This rash course of action was vainly opposed by Isaiah, who was prophet at court (c. 740–700 BC<\/span>). Contemporaneously, the prophet Micah ministered to the common people of Judah. The pro-Assyrian policy of Ahaz was accompanied by a renewed sympathy for idolatry, and this brought the judgment of God in the form of invasion by Edomites and Philistines and trouble with Assyria. In fact, during this period, Assyria had annexed the northern kingdom (722 BC<\/span>) and removed many of her people into captivity.<\/p>\nThe next king of Judah, Hezekiah (715–686 BC<\/span>), was greatly sobered by the fall of Israel because of her sins, and he determined to launch a reform in his realm. He was anti-Assyrian too, but he did not dare to discontinue tribute payments and strike for independence until after Sennacherib came to the throne in Nineveh in 705 BC<\/span>. At first Sennacherib was too preoccupied to attend to Judah, but finally in 701 he invaded. Despite tremendous initial success, he was stopped by a divinely sent plague (Is 36–39). Isaiah stood by the king to reassure and sustain him during this emergency.<\/p>\nHezekiah’s son Manasseh (697–642 BC<\/span>) ruled longer than any other king of Israel or Judah. Unfortunately, he turned his back on his father’s example and caused the people to fall into gross idolatry (2 Kgs 21:9). Carried away captive by the Assyrians late in his reign, he repented of his evil and God restored him to his throne; thereafter, he led some reforms. But the land was too steeped in iniquity to be rescued. His son Amon (642–640 BC<\/span>) reverted to the idolatry he knew in his youth.<\/p>\nThe situation was different with Josiah (640–609 BC<\/span>), however. Throughout his reign he dedicated himself to reform. He sought to root out idolatry and to restore the temple and its worship. In 622 BC<\/span> the Book of the Law was found during repair of the temple, and its demands—which had been forgotten—made a great impression on king and people alike. It is certain that Jeremiah and Zephaniah ministered during Josiah’s reign, as did Nahum and Habakkuk (in all probability).<\/p>\nInternational conditions were now changing rapidly. Assyria was declining, and Nineveh fell to Babylon and the Medes in 612 BC<\/span>. Three years later Pharaoh Neco of Egypt marched north to aid his Assyrian ally. When Josiah tried to stop him, he was killed in battle.<\/p>\nFrom this point everything was downhill for Judah. None of the rest of the kings was devout, and political power and economic health rapidly declined. The people put one of Josiah’s sons, Jehoahaz, on the throne. He lasted three months. Pharaoh Neco replaced him with Jehoiakim (609–598 BC<\/span>), another son of Josiah. In 605 Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon defeated Neco, invaded Judah, and took tribute and hostages from Jehoiakim, including Daniel and his friends (Dn 1:1). Jehoiakim revolted in 600 BC<\/span>, but Nebuchadnezzar did not come to deal with him personally until 597 BC<\/span>. He died before the Babylonians arrived, and his son Jehoiachin came to the throne in 598 BC<\/span> to rule for only three months before the Babylonians carried him away into exile. Ezekiel was among the many captives taken on that occasion.<\/p>\nThe Babylonians then put Zedekiah, youngest son of Josiah, on the throne in 597 BC<\/span>. When he rebelled, Nebuchadnezzar laid siege to Jerusalem and took the city (587 BC<\/span>), destroying it and the temple and carrying off large numbers of people. The judgment of God had finally fallen on the Jews for their idolatrous ways.<\/p>\nThe Restoration<\/p>\nIn judgment God remembered mercy. This is evident in individual lives, when faithful ones like Daniel, Esther, or Nehemiah rose to a position of importance in political life, or as numerous other persons became prosperous in the foreign environment. It is evident on the community level as God moved to protect Hebrew enclaves scattered abroad and to restore an organized society in Palestine.<\/p>\nAmong the exiles, Judaism as a way of life separated from its own political system or cultic center and began to emerge. Jews finally turned their backs on idolatry. And without a temple, priesthood, king, or land, they turned to the divine Scriptures as their rallying point and the foundation of their community. During this period they developed the synagogue as a place for fellowship, prayer, and study.<\/p>\nGod’s restoration of an organized community to Palestine involved particularly the fortunes of his “anointed” Cyrus (Is 44:28; 45:1). Cyrus was a Persian prince who in 559 BC<\/span> revolted against the dominant dynasty controlling the Median Empire. After consolidating his hold on the throne, he proceeded to conquer Asia Minor and the Chaldean or Neo-Babylonian Empire. As a humane man and a wise administrator, he permitted the captive peoples to return to their homes and rebuild their communities. Cyrus’s decree to the Jews appears in Ezra 1 and dates probably to 538 BC<\/span>. A total of almost 50,000 went back to Judah as a result of this edict (Ezr 2:64-65).<\/p>\nUnder the stresses and strains of reestablishment, the people built their houses but got no further than laying the foundation of a new temple. Finally, the prophets Haggai and Zechariah stirred the people to build the house of God (Ezr 5:1). They began in the second year of Darius I, the Great (520 BC<\/span>; Hg 1:1; Zec 1:1), and completed the work in his sixth year (515 BC<\/span>; Ezr 6:15).<\/p>\nDuring the reign of Darius’s son Xerxes (486–465 BC<\/span>), a plot was hatched to exterminate all the Jews in the Persian Empire, which at that time controlled the lands where Jews lived. Fortunately, Xerxes (Ahasuerus in the book of Esther), in his third year (483 BC<\/span>; Est 1:3), went searching for a new queen and chose Esther, who managed to preserve her people.<\/p>\nXerxes’ son Artaxerxes I (465–424 BC<\/span>) also figured significantly in Jewish history. In his seventh year (458 BC<\/span>; Ezr 7:7), under the leadership of Ezra, a second contingent of Jews returned to Jerusalem. And in Artaxerxes’ 20th year (445 BC<\/span>; Neh 2:1), Nehemiah went to Jerusalem to supervise the rebuilding of the walls of the city. Malachi probably wrote his prophecy to the Jews in Jerusalem during the latter part of Artaxerxes’ reign.<\/p>\nAfter the fall of Samaria and the captivity of Judah, the Hebrews remaining in the land intermarried with various pagan groups in the area. Their offspring became the Samaritans, a religious and racial admixture. These people had moved into the vacuum left by the destruction of Judah, and naturally they looked with disfavor on an intrusion of Babylonian Jews into an area they had come to call their own. They did all they could to frustrate the efforts of Nehemiah to rebuild the walls. It took all the courage, tact, energy, and persuasiveness Ezra and Nehemiah could muster to prevent the returning Jews from intermarrying with racially mixed people of the land. Such intermarriage would have meant the ultimate absorption and destruction of the Jewish people.<\/p>\nA Samaritan temple was later built on Mt Gerizim (probably during the fifth century BC<\/span>), and it became the center of the Samaritan worship. The hostility between Samaritans and Jews continued on into the NT period (Jn 4) and exists to the present.<\/p>\nThe Intertestamental Period<\/p>\nAlexander the Great conquered the Persian Empire with lightning speed. When the people of Jerusalem threw open their gates in 332 BC<\/span> and capitulated without a fight, Alexander treated them well. After his death in 323 BC<\/span>, Palestine passed back and forth among his successors until Ptolemy I of Egypt managed to establish control in 301 BC<\/span>. Thereafter the area remained in Egyptian hands until 198 BC<\/span>. The Ptolemies were tolerant and granted the Jews considerable autonomy, allowing them to develop their unique culture undisturbed as long as they paid their taxes and remained submissive. Many Jews settled in Alexandria and gradually forgot their Hebrew in the Hellenistic environment. As a result, a translation of the OT into Greek (the Septuagint) was produced there. While the Ptolemies did not force Hellenism on the Jews of either Alexandria or Palestine, many were influenced by Hellenistic ideas.<\/p>\nWhen Ptolemy V came to the throne as a minor in 203 BC<\/span>, Antiochus III of Syria took advantage of the weakened Egypt and conquered Palestine (198 BC<\/span>). Apparently the Jews hoped to gain something from the change and welcomed the Syrians. But their hope was ill-founded. Antiochus III suffered disastrous defeat at the hands of Rome at Magnesia in 190 BC<\/span>. Syria not only lost much territory but also was forced to pay a huge indemnity. Thereafter, the Jews suffered under great financial burdens, along with other peoples of the empire. The next Syrian king, Antiochus IV Epiphanes (175–164 BC<\/span>), decided to launch an effort to achieve greater internal strength and unity within the empire by forcing, among other things, a greater acceptance of Greek culture and the cult of the divine ruler. Naturally this idolatrous requirement weighed heavily on the monotheistic Jews and incited revolution.<\/p>\nBut this does not completely explain the Maccabean revolt against Syria. In 168 BC<\/span> armed conflict broke out between Jewish factions in Jerusalem. Antiochus IV chose to interpret this as open rebellion and sent an army against the city. His forces demolished part of the city wall and many houses. After this Antiochus decided to suppress Judaism completely, and he dedicated the temple to Zeus and sacrificed swine on the altar. Circumcision, Sabbath observance, and other religious festivals were no longer permitted, and public worship of heathen gods became compulsory.<\/p>\nSome Jews capitulated to Antiochus’s orders or only resisted passively, but a few decided to resist openly. Chief among them were Mattathias and his five sons. After the early death of Mattathias, his son Judas Maccabeus led his forces to victory over the Syrians, regaining the right to restore Jewish worship. The rededication of the temple on December 25, 164 BC<\/span>, inaugurated the Festival of Hanukkah (1 Macc 4:36-59). Subsequently, Jonathan and Simon (other sons of Mattathias) continued the struggle until independence was gained in 142 BC<\/span>; this was possible in large part because they saw how to take advantage of the increasing weakness of Syrian rulers and the competition for the royal office.<\/p>\nSimon ruled the Jewish state until his assassination in 134 BC<\/span>, when his son John Hyrcanus (134–104 BC<\/span>) took over. John Hyrcanus fought successfully in the east, north, and south, gaining land in Transjordan, capturing Shechem and the Samaritan temple on Mt Gerizim, and subjugating the Idumeans in the south, forcing them to adopt Judaism. His son Aristobulus ruled for only about a year (104–103 BC<\/span>), but he added a portion of Galilee to the kingdom. When he died, his widow married his brother Alexander Janneus (103–76 BC<\/span>). Janneus carried on almost incessant military action during his reign, and by the time of his death had almost recovered the kingdom of Solomon.<\/p>\nWhen Janneus died, Alexandra, widow of two kings, took the throne (76–67 BC<\/span>) and her eldest son, Hyrcanus II, became high priest. Her reign was peaceful and prosperous, but when she died, her sons fell to squabbling. Their appeals to Pompey, who was campaigning in the eastern Mediterranean area, were responsible for Roman interference in the region and conquest of Palestine in 63 BC<\/span>.<\/p>\nThe Roman Period<\/p>\nAfter the Romans took over Palestine, Hyrcanus II was confirmed as high priest and was also appointed as ethnarch or political ruler (63–40 BC<\/span>). But Antipater, father of Herod the Great, was the real power behind the throne, and during many of those years Hyrcanus was virtually unable to function because of the confusion of the Roman civil wars. Antipater was loyal to Rome and saw that Roman policies were carried out; he won Julius Caesar’s favor toward Jews of both Palestine and in the Dispersion.<\/p>\nWith the support of Mark Antony, Herod managed to get himself appointed king of Judea by the Roman senate in 40 BC<\/span>. But a Parthian invasion of Syria and Jewish hatred for the Romans made it possible for Antigonus II, last king of the Maccabean family, to rule for three years (40–37 BC<\/span>). Finally, Herod ascended his throne in 37 and ruled until 4 BC<\/span>. As an allied king, Herod proved to be an excellent ruler from the Roman point of view and earned the title of “Great.” He brought some order to regions east of the Jordan and made possible organization of the Roman province of Arabia. He also furthered the cultural plans of Augustus for development of a Greco-Roman civilization throughout the whole empire.<\/p>\nHerod admired Greek culture and contributed to building projects in Rhodes, Antioch, Damascus, Athens, and elsewhere outside Palestine. Within Palestine he rebuilt Samaria and named it Sebaste in honor of Augustus (Sebastos<\/span> is Greek for “Augustus”) and also constructed the great port of Caesarea. Probably about as large as Manhattan Island, it became the capital of Roman Palestine. Among his many other building projects, remodeling the temple in Jerusalem was the most famous. Begun in 20 BC<\/span>, it was not completed until just a few years before its destruction in AD<\/span> 70.<\/p>\nThe material splendor of Herod’s reign did not win the affection or support of the Jews, however. Nor did he achieve peace and harmony in his family, among whom there were periodic eruptions of treason, unfaithfulness, and murder. He worried about any threat to his rule and cracked down hard to destroy such threats, as is evident from his slaughter of the infants in Bethlehem after the birth of Christ.<\/p>\nUltimately, Herod controlled Idumea, Judea, Samaria, Galilee, Perea, and the area northeast of the Sea of Galilee. By his last will, his son Archelaus was to rule Idumea, Judea, and Samaria; Antipas, Galilee and Perea; and Philip, the region northeast of the Sea of Galilee. Archelaus was deposed in AD<\/span> 6, and his territory became a Roman province (AD<\/span> 6–41) to be ruled by direct appointees of Rome. The best-known of these was Pontius Pilate (AD<\/span> 26–36), who ordered the crucifixion of Jesus. Antipas was more successful and built a new capital at Tiberias, but he ran afoul of the emperor’s good pleasure in AD<\/span> 39 and was deposed. Philip was the most effective of the three and ruled until his death in AD<\/span> 34. Philip’s lands were later given to Herod Agrippa I in AD<\/span> 37; the holdings of Antipas were then added in AD<\/span> 39; and in 41 Agrippa also received Samaria, Judea, and Idumea.<\/p>\nHerod Agrippa I (AD<\/span> 37–44) was the heir of the Maccabees (through his grandmother Mariamne, first wife of Herod the Great), and for this reason had the support of patriotic Jews and of the Pharisees for his observance of divine ordinances. But when he built a new north wall for Jerusalem and dabbled in foreign affairs, he aroused the suspicions of the Romans; when he died in AD<\/span> 44, they turned the kingdom into a Roman province.<\/p>\nAs is clear from the Gospels, several sects had arisen in Palestine by Roman times and were active during the first century. The Zealots opposed Roman rule and advocated armed rebellion. Herodians supported the Herodian family and Roman power. The Pharisees were fanatically devoted to the law and were supernaturalists in theological orientation. They were somewhat content to support Rome if given religious freedom, and they dominated the synagogues of the land. The Sadducees were antisupernaturalists, tended to collaborate with the ruling regime, and were dominant in the temple. Generally speaking, the literature of the intertestamental period and the popular mentality of the time tended to view the Messiah as a political deliverer who would free his people from foreign domination and set up a new independent kingdom.<\/p>\nRoman prefects ruled Palestine from AD<\/span> 44–66. They had a knack for offending the religious scruples of the Jews and alienating them in other ways. With Felix (AD<\/span> 52–60) there began a constant tension between Jews and Romans that led to the first Jewish revolt (AD<\/span> 66–70). While Paul was imprisoned in Caesarea (Acts 23:23–24:27) about AD<\/span> 58–60, riots broke out there between Jews and Gentiles. Festus (AD<\/span> 60–62; Acts 25) was an able administrator, but the situation was almost out of hand. After he died in office, there was virtual anarchy until his successor, Albinus, arrived (AD<\/span> 62–64). Totally incompetent and dishonest, Albinus was recalled in 64 and replaced by Florus (AD<\/span> 64–66). Florus was even worse, resorting to open robbery and bribery until there was no safety or justice in the land. Finally, the Jews could take no more.<\/p>\nThe spark that ignited the fires of rebellion was an anti-Semitic act by the Hellenistic population of Caesarea in AD<\/span> 66. Soon riots spread to numerous cities, and Roman garrisons were massacred in several places. But the Jews were not united, and in Jerusalem armed bands of Jews fought with each other for mastery. Vespasian was chosen to command the Roman army of some 60,000 to deal with the insurrection. He had subjugated most of Palestine by the time he was elevated to the imperial chair in AD<\/span> 69 (after the death of Nero), and he left his son Titus in charge of completing the operations. In August of AD<\/span> 70 the walls of Jerusalem were breached, many of the people butchered, and the city and the temple leveled. Masada held out until AD<\/span> 73. Palestine had been flattened by Roman might. Loss of life and property had been incalculable and indescribable.<\/p>\nOn two more occasions the Jews were destined to fight disastrously against the Romans. Under Trajan’s rule a rebellion of Jews broke out in Cyrenaica in AD<\/span> 115 and spread rapidly to Cyprus, Egypt, Palestine, and Mesopotamia. In the beginning it was an outgrowth of agitation between the Jews and their Hellenistic neighbors, but it developed into a challenge to Roman authority. This was particularly true after the successes of Parthia on Rome’s eastern frontier when there seemed to be some hope of success in throwing off the Roman yoke. Wherever Jews got the upper hand, they perpetrated massacres, and the non-Semitic population retaliated in kind. Trajan ruthlessly suppressed the rebels and restored order everywhere except Egypt; his successor, Hadrian, was left to accomplish that.<\/p>\nBut Hadrian faced a new rebellion of his own, brought on by his law forbidding circumcision (which he considered to be inhumane) and his decision in AD<\/span> 130 to rebuild Jerusalem as Aelia Capitolina and erect a temple to Jupiter on the site of the temple of Yahweh. The latter would not only profane the temple site but also would preclude any rebuilding of the Jewish temple.<\/p>\nLeader of this second Jewish revolt was Simeon, prince of Israel, called Bar-Kochba (“Son of the Star”). Both sides fought with such great ferocity for over three years (AD<\/span> 132–135) that the population of Judea was almost exterminated. Jerusalem was rebuilt as a Roman colony, and Jews were forbidden to enter on pain of death. Even as late as the fourth century they were permitted to enter only once a year, on the anniversary of the destruction of the temple by Nebuchadnezzar. After the Bar-Kochba revolt, Judaism retreated increasingly within the citadel of the written and oral law, thus separating itself from the Gentiles.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Abraham; Chronology of the Bible (Old Testament); Conquest and Allotment of the Land; David; Diaspora of the Jews; Exodus, The; First Jewish Revolt; Jew; Judaism; Moses; Patriarchs, Period of the; Saul #2; Solomon; Postexilic Period; Wilderness Wanderings.<\/p>","summary_ro":"ISRAEL, History of An account of God’s sovereign purpose in calling a people out of paganism and establishing them as witnesses for the true faith among the nations, of God’s sovereign power in protecting them from extinction, of his sovereign justice in dealing with their departure from his ways of holiness, of God’s sovereign grace in forgiving their sins and restoring them to fellowship with himself by providing through them a Savior for the entire world. Preview • Patriarchal Age • Sojour...","summary_en":"ISRAEL, History of An account of God’s sovereign purpose in calling a people out of paganism and establishing them as witnesses for the true faith among the nations, of God’s sovereign power in protecting them from extinction, of his sovereign justice in dealing with their departure from his ways of holiness, of God’s sovereign grace in forgiving their sins and restoring them to fellowship with himself by providing through them a Savior for the entire world. Preview • Patriarchal Age • Sojour...","source":"Articles\/I.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":30927,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Period*, Postexilic","title_en":"Period*, Postexilic","content_ro":"<h3>POSTEXILIC PERIOD*<\/h3>\nA period in the Jews’ history after their exile to Babylon. This period extends from 539–c. 331 BC<\/span>.<\/p>\nPreview<\/p>\n• The Biblical Perspective<\/p>\n• The Collapse of the Babylonian Empire<\/p>\n• The Policy of Persia<\/p>\n• The Return from Exile<\/p>\n• The Return of Ezra<\/p>\n• Nehemiah’s Return and Ministry<\/p>\n• The Remainder of the Persian Period<\/p>\n• Religious Features of the Postexilic Period<\/p>\nThe Biblical Perspective<\/p>\nThe books that specifically cover the history of the postexilic or Persian period are Ezra, Nehemiah, Haggai, and Zechariah. These cover a period of over a century, only a portion of which is dealt with in detail, as the following table shows:<\/p>\n\nThe Collapse of the Babylonian Empire<\/p>\nThis occurred with dramatic suddenness, largely because of internal resistance to the policies of the last Babylonian king, Nabonidus (555–539 BC<\/span>). His neglect of the traditional Babylonian deity, Marduk, in favor of the moon god, Sin, was particularly resented. Nabonidus lived in Taima during the last decade of his reign, refusing to enter Babylon, where his son Belshazzar ruled as virtual king, as noted in Daniel 5. Babylon fell to the Persians in October 538 BC<\/span> and the entire empire passed into their control.<\/p>\nThe Policy of Persia<\/p>\nThis is well documented through contemporary inscriptions, notably the record of Cyrus, the first king of the Persian Empire (559–530 BC<\/span>), in the “Cyrus Cylinder.” A new phase in the relationship of conqueror to conquered peoples opened up, which contrasted with the policy of the Assyrian and Babylonian empires of crushing any opposition by massive force. Cyrus and his successors followed a conciliatory line, allowing exiled groups to return home, encouraging local faiths, posing as the champions of the territorial deities, and allowing local autonomy except where Persian interests were affected adversely. The cost of this operation, although considerable, must have been infinitesimal compared with that of keeping rebellious subjects under constant subjection.<\/p>\nThe new enlightened policy is reflected in the decree of Cyrus, dated 538 BC<\/span> (Ezr 1:1) and preserved in two versions. The first (vv 1-4) is clearly the official proclamation, while the second (6:3-5) is a more prosaic memorandum dealing with building specifications, a record of Cyrus’s commitment stored in the official archives (vv 1-2). The critical tendency to question the narrative in Ezra 1, especially on the score of the favorable references to the God of Israel and the vast financial support promised, has been nullified by the archaeological evidence, which shows an identical policy elsewhere. The Cyrus Cylinder, for example, notes, “The gods who live within them [i.e., the cities] I returned to their places. . . . All of their inhabitants I collected and restored to their dwelling places.”<\/p>\nIn Judah itself there is no evidence for any warfare in this period, which suggests that the Persian takeover of the area was nonviolent. Judah was incorporated into the fifth Persian province, which included the entire area west of the Euphrates River (Ezr 7:21). It was no more than a minor subdistrict, governed through Samaria.<\/p>\nThe Return from Exile<\/p>\nThe continuance of a large Jewish community in Babylonia shows that not all the Jews responded to the invitation to return to their homeland, probably because of the prosperity acquired in exile. But 42,360 dedicated Jews (Ezr 2:64) braved the challenge of a four-month 900-mile (1,448-kilometer) journey under Sheshbazzar (1:8), the officially appointed leader, and Zerubbabel his nephew (3:2), who was probably the one to whom the Jews looked as leader. With great enthusiasm the Jews rebuilt the altar of sacrifice and resumed the observance of the traditional feasts (vv 1-6), revealing both a sense of stewardship (2:68-69) and careful attention to the requirements of the Law (3:2-4). Soon after, work on the second temple commenced—the materials and master craftsmen being imported from Tyre and Sidon (Ezr 3:7-9; cf. 1 Kgs 5). When the foundations were laid, the worshipers were doubtless aware that they were fulfilling God’s promise through Jeremiah (Ezr 3:10-11; cf. Jer 33:10-11). But their high hopes were thwarted when there was opposition from neighboring areas (Ezr 4:4-5), selfishness in giving their own accommodations a higher priority than the Lord’s house (Hg 1:2-4, 9), and a series of crop failures that further reduced morale (1:6, 10-11; 2:17).<\/p>\nWork on the temple was not resumed until Haggai and Zechariah appeared in 520 BC<\/span>. They encouraged Zerubbabel and Joshua (Jeshua) the high priest, rebuked the people for their apathy and selfishness, and promised God’s presence and blessing upon the temple project (Hg 1:12–2:9). Zechariah’s preaching went beyond the building of the temple, including the rebuilding of Jerusalem itself (Zec 2:1-5) and its world reputation (2:1-5, 11-12; 8:22). The two leaders were addressed in ways that anticipated the Messiah (Hg 2:21-23; Zec 6:10-14). But the Persian king Darius (521–486 BC<\/span>) was not alarmed when the rebuilding operation was reported to him (Ezr 5:1–6:13) and allowed the work to continue. In February 515 BC<\/span> it was dedicated (6:14-16). The Jewish community again had a focal point for its religion, but the political situation remained difficult, with no real security in a still-shattered city.<\/p>\nThe Return of Ezra<\/p>\nThe traditional date of Ezra’s return is 458 BC<\/span> (preceding that of Nehemiah in 445 BC<\/span>). This is based on the premise that the King Artaxerxes noted in Ezra 7:7 was Artaxerxes I Longimanus (464–424 BC<\/span>) and not Artaxerxes II Mnemon (404–359 BC<\/span>). However, some scholars, allowing that the king was Artaxerxes I, but believing that Nehemiah preceded Ezra, suggest that a tens unit has dropped out of “seventh” in Ezra 7:7, and that the date of Ezra’s return should be the 27th (438 BC<\/span>) or 37th year (428 BC<\/span>) of Artaxerxes I, making Ezra’s return a few years after Nehemiah’s. While this is plausible, there remains strong support for the traditional view. It accords with the order of the two books in the OT and requires no textual emendation. It also accounts for the section in Ezra 4:7-23, where, in the reign of Artaxerxes, an abortive effort was made by a recently returned group to rebuild the wall of Jerusalem. Nehemiah 1:1-4 suggests that this was regarded as important and its abrupt termination, by a decree of the king, caused Nehemiah great distress. The probability is that Ezra, recently returned, realized that little could be done in the way of major religious reformation until Jerusalem was secure, but in attempting to rebuild the wall he exceeded his mandate and was not able to function adequately until Nehemiah arrived, when the new security of Jerusalem allowed the great Law-reading ceremony of Nehemiah 8:1-12 to take place.<\/p>\nEzra’s ministry concerned the teaching of the Law of Moses, the Pentateuch, which had long been extant in its final form by this time. Ezra 7 shows that Artaxerxes was following the traditional Persian policy of encouraging good relationships with his subject peoples. Ezra’s appointment (Ezr 7:12) was to a state office; it has frequently been paraphrased as “Secretary of State for Jewish Religious Affairs.”<\/p>\n\nNehemiah’s Return and Ministry<\/p>\nHanani and others (Neh 1:1-3) informed Nehemiah of the complete failure of a recent attempt to rebuild the wall, probably that recorded in Ezra 4:7-23, and sought his mediation before the very king who had authorized the decree that compelled work on the wall to cease. A friend in high places was vital, and Nehemiah, a trusted and influential member of the court (Neh 1:11), was approached for this delicate and dangerous task. Nehemiah 1:4–2:8 shows how well he prepared for and seized his opportunity. His appointment as the governor of Judah (5:14) involved the removal of this area from the control of the governor of Samaria, which accounts for the unrelenting hostility of Sanballat (2:19; 4:1). The evidence of Nehemiah 3 suggests that the extent of Judah at this time was limited, probably not reaching as far north as Bethel or as far south as Hebron. Nehemiah was faced with opposition that included ridicule (2:19; 4:1-3), armed force (4:8, 11), discouragement (v 10), internal economic problems (5:1-18), intrigue (6:1-2), intimidation, and blackmail (vv 5-14). In spite of these obstacles, the wall was completed in the incredibly brief period of 52 days (v 15).<\/p>\nIn addition to this monumental achievement, Nehemiah completely reorganized the social and economic life of Jerusalem, dealing with alienated mortgages, excessive interest rates (Neh 5:1-13), mixed marriages (10:30; 13:23-30), Sabbath observance (10:31; 13:15-21), and temple supplies (10:32-40; 13:10-13). Almost certainly, it was this political and economic security that allowed Ezra, who probably arrived 13 years earlier, to proceed with his great religious reformation based on the Law. Nehemiah’s book, usually called the “Nehemiah Memoirs,” was probably presented by him in the temple as a “votive offering” (as indicated by the form of 5:19; 13:14, 22, 31).<\/p>\nThe Remainder of the Persian Period<\/p>\nPersian control, which probably centered on Lachish, was traditionally mild, except where her interests were directly threatened. There is no evidence of any major discontent in Judah, which enjoyed a considerable degree of autonomy. The Phoenician revolt of 351 BC<\/span>, which took Artaxerxes III (359–338 BC<\/span>) three years to subdue, was the only serious disturbance in the area. While Artaxerxes deported some Jews to Hyrcania, southeast of the Caspian Sea, that was probably a precautionary measure, and Judah does not appear to have been greatly involved in the revolt. The Jerusalem priests were allowed to mint their own coinage and levy a temple tax. Under the wider influence of the Persian Empire, Hebrew gradually fell out of popular usage as a spoken language, being replaced by Aramaic. As the international stature of Greece increased, so the influence of Hellenism began to be felt, even in Judah.<\/p>\nReligious Features of the Postexilic Period<\/p>\n<h5>The Decline of Prophecy<\/h5>\nThere were three main reasons for this:<\/p>\n1. The prophetic movement as a whole became discredited after Jerusalem fell in 586 BC<\/span>. The large number of popular cult prophets who had foretold a sudden end to the Babylonian oppression (e.g., Jer 28:1-4) were proved decisively wrong. The suspicion that henceforth became attached to prophecy was increased further in the Persian period, when large numbers of itinerant “prophets” of various religions traveled widely. Zechariah 13:2-6 shows the stern measures advocated against such false prophets and fortune-tellers.<\/p>\n<li>2. There was a markedly different historical situation. The chastened remnant that survived had turned away from the blatant apostasy that characterized the preexilic period, so that the prophetic condemnation was not required with the same urgency. The temple and the Law had acquired a new prominence, and postexilic prophecy generally was concerned either with the rebuilding of the temple (e.g., Haggai and Zechariah) or the purification of its cult (e.g., Malachi). Once this goal had been realized, the role of the prophet was diminished. Another historical factor was the relatively large number of priests who returned from captivity, doubtless encouraged by the prospect of serving in the rebuilt temple. The main need at this time was for the priest, who revealed God’s will on the basis of the Law.<\/li>\n<li>3. There was an increasing stress on the transcendence of God, caused partly by an emphasis upon priestly mediation and partly by a fear of God that resulted from the recent judgment. The apocalyptic movement, with its emphasis on angelic intermediaries between humans and a transcendent God, encouraged this tendency. Correspondingly, the prophetic appeal for a personal, moral walk with God weakened.<\/li>\n<h5>The Rise of the Synagogue<\/h5>\nSome type of local worship, independent of the temple and its sacrifices, must have developed in the Captivity, with the Law increasingly occupying a dominant position. Later on, the prophetic books were read and expounded, but the primary stress was always on the Law. This mode of worship later took root in the homeland, and the synagogue gradually developed into the focal point of the community for social relationships, education, and worship. It facilitated the worldwide continuance and expansion of the Jewish faith, independent of Jerusalem.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Chronology of the Bible (Old Testament); Diaspora of the Jews; Ezra, Book of; Haggai, Book of; Israel, History of; Nehemiah, Book of; Zechariah, Book of.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>POSTEXILIC PERIOD*<\/h3>\nA period in the Jews’ history after their exile to Babylon. This period extends from 539–c. 331 BC<\/span>.<\/p>\nPreview<\/p>\n• The Biblical Perspective<\/p>\n• The Collapse of the Babylonian Empire<\/p>\n• The Policy of Persia<\/p>\n• The Return from Exile<\/p>\n• The Return of Ezra<\/p>\n• Nehemiah’s Return and Ministry<\/p>\n• The Remainder of the Persian Period<\/p>\n• Religious Features of the Postexilic Period<\/p>\nThe Biblical Perspective<\/p>\nThe books that specifically cover the history of the postexilic or Persian period are Ezra, Nehemiah, Haggai, and Zechariah. These cover a period of over a century, only a portion of which is dealt with in detail, as the following table shows:<\/p>\n\nThe Collapse of the Babylonian Empire<\/p>\nThis occurred with dramatic suddenness, largely because of internal resistance to the policies of the last Babylonian king, Nabonidus (555–539 BC<\/span>). His neglect of the traditional Babylonian deity, Marduk, in favor of the moon god, Sin, was particularly resented. Nabonidus lived in Taima during the last decade of his reign, refusing to enter Babylon, where his son Belshazzar ruled as virtual king, as noted in Daniel 5. Babylon fell to the Persians in October 538 BC<\/span> and the entire empire passed into their control.<\/p>\nThe Policy of Persia<\/p>\nThis is well documented through contemporary inscriptions, notably the record of Cyrus, the first king of the Persian Empire (559–530 BC<\/span>), in the “Cyrus Cylinder.” A new phase in the relationship of conqueror to conquered peoples opened up, which contrasted with the policy of the Assyrian and Babylonian empires of crushing any opposition by massive force. Cyrus and his successors followed a conciliatory line, allowing exiled groups to return home, encouraging local faiths, posing as the champions of the territorial deities, and allowing local autonomy except where Persian interests were affected adversely. The cost of this operation, although considerable, must have been infinitesimal compared with that of keeping rebellious subjects under constant subjection.<\/p>\nThe new enlightened policy is reflected in the decree of Cyrus, dated 538 BC<\/span> (Ezr 1:1) and preserved in two versions. The first (vv 1-4) is clearly the official proclamation, while the second (6:3-5) is a more prosaic memorandum dealing with building specifications, a record of Cyrus’s commitment stored in the official archives (vv 1-2). The critical tendency to question the narrative in Ezra 1, especially on the score of the favorable references to the God of Israel and the vast financial support promised, has been nullified by the archaeological evidence, which shows an identical policy elsewhere. The Cyrus Cylinder, for example, notes, “The gods who live within them [i.e., the cities] I returned to their places. . . . All of their inhabitants I collected and restored to their dwelling places.”<\/p>\nIn Judah itself there is no evidence for any warfare in this period, which suggests that the Persian takeover of the area was nonviolent. Judah was incorporated into the fifth Persian province, which included the entire area west of the Euphrates River (Ezr 7:21). It was no more than a minor subdistrict, governed through Samaria.<\/p>\nThe Return from Exile<\/p>\nThe continuance of a large Jewish community in Babylonia shows that not all the Jews responded to the invitation to return to their homeland, probably because of the prosperity acquired in exile. But 42,360 dedicated Jews (Ezr 2:64) braved the challenge of a four-month 900-mile (1,448-kilometer) journey under Sheshbazzar (1:8), the officially appointed leader, and Zerubbabel his nephew (3:2), who was probably the one to whom the Jews looked as leader. With great enthusiasm the Jews rebuilt the altar of sacrifice and resumed the observance of the traditional feasts (vv 1-6), revealing both a sense of stewardship (2:68-69) and careful attention to the requirements of the Law (3:2-4). Soon after, work on the second temple commenced—the materials and master craftsmen being imported from Tyre and Sidon (Ezr 3:7-9; cf. 1 Kgs 5). When the foundations were laid, the worshipers were doubtless aware that they were fulfilling God’s promise through Jeremiah (Ezr 3:10-11; cf. Jer 33:10-11). But their high hopes were thwarted when there was opposition from neighboring areas (Ezr 4:4-5), selfishness in giving their own accommodations a higher priority than the Lord’s house (Hg 1:2-4, 9), and a series of crop failures that further reduced morale (1:6, 10-11; 2:17).<\/p>\nWork on the temple was not resumed until Haggai and Zechariah appeared in 520 BC<\/span>. They encouraged Zerubbabel and Joshua (Jeshua) the high priest, rebuked the people for their apathy and selfishness, and promised God’s presence and blessing upon the temple project (Hg 1:12–2:9). Zechariah’s preaching went beyond the building of the temple, including the rebuilding of Jerusalem itself (Zec 2:1-5) and its world reputation (2:1-5, 11-12; 8:22). The two leaders were addressed in ways that anticipated the Messiah (Hg 2:21-23; Zec 6:10-14). But the Persian king Darius (521–486 BC<\/span>) was not alarmed when the rebuilding operation was reported to him (Ezr 5:1–6:13) and allowed the work to continue. In February 515 BC<\/span> it was dedicated (6:14-16). The Jewish community again had a focal point for its religion, but the political situation remained difficult, with no real security in a still-shattered city.<\/p>\nThe Return of Ezra<\/p>\nThe traditional date of Ezra’s return is 458 BC<\/span> (preceding that of Nehemiah in 445 BC<\/span>). This is based on the premise that the King Artaxerxes noted in Ezra 7:7 was Artaxerxes I Longimanus (464–424 BC<\/span>) and not Artaxerxes II Mnemon (404–359 BC<\/span>). However, some scholars, allowing that the king was Artaxerxes I, but believing that Nehemiah preceded Ezra, suggest that a tens unit has dropped out of “seventh” in Ezra 7:7, and that the date of Ezra’s return should be the 27th (438 BC<\/span>) or 37th year (428 BC<\/span>) of Artaxerxes I, making Ezra’s return a few years after Nehemiah’s. While this is plausible, there remains strong support for the traditional view. It accords with the order of the two books in the OT and requires no textual emendation. It also accounts for the section in Ezra 4:7-23, where, in the reign of Artaxerxes, an abortive effort was made by a recently returned group to rebuild the wall of Jerusalem. Nehemiah 1:1-4 suggests that this was regarded as important and its abrupt termination, by a decree of the king, caused Nehemiah great distress. The probability is that Ezra, recently returned, realized that little could be done in the way of major religious reformation until Jerusalem was secure, but in attempting to rebuild the wall he exceeded his mandate and was not able to function adequately until Nehemiah arrived, when the new security of Jerusalem allowed the great Law-reading ceremony of Nehemiah 8:1-12 to take place.<\/p>\nEzra’s ministry concerned the teaching of the Law of Moses, the Pentateuch, which had long been extant in its final form by this time. Ezra 7 shows that Artaxerxes was following the traditional Persian policy of encouraging good relationships with his subject peoples. Ezra’s appointment (Ezr 7:12) was to a state office; it has frequently been paraphrased as “Secretary of State for Jewish Religious Affairs.”<\/p>\n\nNehemiah’s Return and Ministry<\/p>\nHanani and others (Neh 1:1-3) informed Nehemiah of the complete failure of a recent attempt to rebuild the wall, probably that recorded in Ezra 4:7-23, and sought his mediation before the very king who had authorized the decree that compelled work on the wall to cease. A friend in high places was vital, and Nehemiah, a trusted and influential member of the court (Neh 1:11), was approached for this delicate and dangerous task. Nehemiah 1:4–2:8 shows how well he prepared for and seized his opportunity. His appointment as the governor of Judah (5:14) involved the removal of this area from the control of the governor of Samaria, which accounts for the unrelenting hostility of Sanballat (2:19; 4:1). The evidence of Nehemiah 3 suggests that the extent of Judah at this time was limited, probably not reaching as far north as Bethel or as far south as Hebron. Nehemiah was faced with opposition that included ridicule (2:19; 4:1-3), armed force (4:8, 11), discouragement (v 10), internal economic problems (5:1-18), intrigue (6:1-2), intimidation, and blackmail (vv 5-14). In spite of these obstacles, the wall was completed in the incredibly brief period of 52 days (v 15).<\/p>\nIn addition to this monumental achievement, Nehemiah completely reorganized the social and economic life of Jerusalem, dealing with alienated mortgages, excessive interest rates (Neh 5:1-13), mixed marriages (10:30; 13:23-30), Sabbath observance (10:31; 13:15-21), and temple supplies (10:32-40; 13:10-13). Almost certainly, it was this political and economic security that allowed Ezra, who probably arrived 13 years earlier, to proceed with his great religious reformation based on the Law. Nehemiah’s book, usually called the “Nehemiah Memoirs,” was probably presented by him in the temple as a “votive offering” (as indicated by the form of 5:19; 13:14, 22, 31).<\/p>\nThe Remainder of the Persian Period<\/p>\nPersian control, which probably centered on Lachish, was traditionally mild, except where her interests were directly threatened. There is no evidence of any major discontent in Judah, which enjoyed a considerable degree of autonomy. The Phoenician revolt of 351 BC<\/span>, which took Artaxerxes III (359–338 BC<\/span>) three years to subdue, was the only serious disturbance in the area. While Artaxerxes deported some Jews to Hyrcania, southeast of the Caspian Sea, that was probably a precautionary measure, and Judah does not appear to have been greatly involved in the revolt. The Jerusalem priests were allowed to mint their own coinage and levy a temple tax. Under the wider influence of the Persian Empire, Hebrew gradually fell out of popular usage as a spoken language, being replaced by Aramaic. As the international stature of Greece increased, so the influence of Hellenism began to be felt, even in Judah.<\/p>\nReligious Features of the Postexilic Period<\/p>\n<h5>The Decline of Prophecy<\/h5>\nThere were three main reasons for this:<\/p>\n1. The prophetic movement as a whole became discredited after Jerusalem fell in 586 BC<\/span>. The large number of popular cult prophets who had foretold a sudden end to the Babylonian oppression (e.g., Jer 28:1-4) were proved decisively wrong. The suspicion that henceforth became attached to prophecy was increased further in the Persian period, when large numbers of itinerant “prophets” of various religions traveled widely. Zechariah 13:2-6 shows the stern measures advocated against such false prophets and fortune-tellers.<\/p>\n<li>2. There was a markedly different historical situation. The chastened remnant that survived had turned away from the blatant apostasy that characterized the preexilic period, so that the prophetic condemnation was not required with the same urgency. The temple and the Law had acquired a new prominence, and postexilic prophecy generally was concerned either with the rebuilding of the temple (e.g., Haggai and Zechariah) or the purification of its cult (e.g., Malachi). Once this goal had been realized, the role of the prophet was diminished. Another historical factor was the relatively large number of priests who returned from captivity, doubtless encouraged by the prospect of serving in the rebuilt temple. The main need at this time was for the priest, who revealed God’s will on the basis of the Law.<\/li>\n<li>3. There was an increasing stress on the transcendence of God, caused partly by an emphasis upon priestly mediation and partly by a fear of God that resulted from the recent judgment. The apocalyptic movement, with its emphasis on angelic intermediaries between humans and a transcendent God, encouraged this tendency. Correspondingly, the prophetic appeal for a personal, moral walk with God weakened.<\/li>\n<h5>The Rise of the Synagogue<\/h5>\nSome type of local worship, independent of the temple and its sacrifices, must have developed in the Captivity, with the Law increasingly occupying a dominant position. Later on, the prophetic books were read and expounded, but the primary stress was always on the Law. This mode of worship later took root in the homeland, and the synagogue gradually developed into the focal point of the community for social relationships, education, and worship. It facilitated the worldwide continuance and expansion of the Jewish faith, independent of Jerusalem.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Chronology of the Bible (Old Testament); Diaspora of the Jews; Ezra, Book of; Haggai, Book of; Israel, History of; Nehemiah, Book of; Zechariah, Book of.<\/p>","summary_ro":"POSTEXILIC PERIOD* A period in the Jews’ history after their exile to Babylon. This period extends from 539–c. 331 BC. Preview • The Biblical Perspective • The Collapse of the Babylonian Empire • The Policy of Persia • The Return from Exile • The Return of Ezra • Nehemiah’s Return and Ministry • The Remainder of the Persian Period • Religious Features of the Postexilic Period The Biblical Perspective The books that specifically cover the history of the postexilic or Persian period are Ezra, N...","summary_en":"POSTEXILIC PERIOD* A period in the Jews’ history after their exile to Babylon. This period extends from 539–c. 331 BC. Preview • The Biblical Perspective • The Collapse of the Babylonian Empire • The Policy of Persia • The Return from Exile • The Return of Ezra • Nehemiah’s Return and Ministry • The Remainder of the Persian Period • Religious Features of the Postexilic Period The Biblical Perspective The books that specifically cover the history of the postexilic or Persian period are Ezra, N...","source":"Articles\/P.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":35035,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Sheshbazzar","title_en":"Sheshbazzar","content_ro":"<h3>SHESHBAZZAR<\/h3>\nJewish leader who found favor with Cyrus the Great, king of Persia. In the first year of his reign, Cyrus issued a decree that the temple in Jerusalem should be rebuilt (Ezr 1:1-4; cf. 6:1-5). He appointed Sheshbazzar governor of Judah (Ezr 5:14) and handed over to him the gold and silver vessels that Nebuchadnezzar had carried off when he took Jerusalem (1:7-9). Sheshbazzar fulfilled this commission by taking the vessels to Jerusalem with the returning exiles (v 9) and beginning the restoration of the temple (5:16).<\/p>\nSheshbazzar is mentioned in the Bible only four times, all in the book of Ezra (1:8-9; 5:14-16). For many years it was commonly held that Sheshbazzar was another name for Zerubbabel. Both were of the royal line; Sheshbazzar is called “the prince of Judah,” which may mean that he was heir apparent to the throne. Since his genealogy is not given, he may be represented in that listing by some other name, either Zerubbabel or Shenazzar (1 Chr 3:18-19). In the record of people who returned to Jerusalem, Sheshbazzar’s name does not appear. The name of Zerubbabel is at the head of this list, where one would expect Sheshbazzar’s to be; both were governors of the province of Judah. Zerubbabel is associated with the laying of the foundation of the temple (Ezr 3:8-11), but that work is attributed to Sheshbazzar in 5:16, in accordance with chapter 1. It is evident that the name Sheshbazzar is found only in connection with the Persians, for chapter 1 relates his dealings with Cyrus, and in chapter 5 the two occurrences of his name are in a letter written by the Persian official, Tattenai. One may conclude that the Persians knew him as Sheshbazzar, but the Jews called him Zerubbabel. Both names are Akkadian, so there is no parallel here to the renaming of Jewish captives in Babylon (Dn 1:7).<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>SHESHBAZZAR<\/h3>\nJewish leader who found favor with Cyrus the Great, king of Persia. In the first year of his reign, Cyrus issued a decree that the temple in Jerusalem should be rebuilt (Ezr 1:1-4; cf. 6:1-5). He appointed Sheshbazzar governor of Judah (Ezr 5:14) and handed over to him the gold and silver vessels that Nebuchadnezzar had carried off when he took Jerusalem (1:7-9). Sheshbazzar fulfilled this commission by taking the vessels to Jerusalem with the returning exiles (v 9) and beginning the restoration of the temple (5:16).<\/p>\nSheshbazzar is mentioned in the Bible only four times, all in the book of Ezra (1:8-9; 5:14-16). For many years it was commonly held that Sheshbazzar was another name for Zerubbabel. Both were of the royal line; Sheshbazzar is called “the prince of Judah,” which may mean that he was heir apparent to the throne. Since his genealogy is not given, he may be represented in that listing by some other name, either Zerubbabel or Shenazzar (1 Chr 3:18-19). In the record of people who returned to Jerusalem, Sheshbazzar’s name does not appear. The name of Zerubbabel is at the head of this list, where one would expect Sheshbazzar’s to be; both were governors of the province of Judah. Zerubbabel is associated with the laying of the foundation of the temple (Ezr 3:8-11), but that work is attributed to Sheshbazzar in 5:16, in accordance with chapter 1. It is evident that the name Sheshbazzar is found only in connection with the Persians, for chapter 1 relates his dealings with Cyrus, and in chapter 5 the two occurrences of his name are in a letter written by the Persian official, Tattenai. One may conclude that the Persians knew him as Sheshbazzar, but the Jews called him Zerubbabel. Both names are Akkadian, so there is no parallel here to the renaming of Jewish captives in Babylon (Dn 1:7).<\/p>","summary_ro":"SHESHBAZZAR Jewish leader who found favor with Cyrus the Great, king of Persia. In the first year of his reign, Cyrus issued a decree that the temple in Jerusalem should be rebuilt (Ezr 1:1-4; cf. 6:1-5). He appointed Sheshbazzar governor of Judah (Ezr 5:14) and handed over to him the gold and silver vessels that Nebuchadnezzar had carried off when he took Jerusalem (1:7-9). Sheshbazzar fulfilled this commission by taking the vessels to Jerusalem with the returning exiles (v 9) and beginning ...","summary_en":"SHESHBAZZAR Jewish leader who found favor with Cyrus the Great, king of Persia. In the first year of his reign, Cyrus issued a decree that the temple in Jerusalem should be rebuilt (Ezr 1:1-4; cf. 6:1-5). He appointed Sheshbazzar governor of Judah (Ezr 5:14) and handed over to him the gold and silver vessels that Nebuchadnezzar had carried off when he took Jerusalem (1:7-9). Sheshbazzar fulfilled this commission by taking the vessels to Jerusalem with the returning exiles (v 9) and beginning ...","source":"Articles\/S.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":37027,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Temple","title_en":"Temple","content_ro":"<h3>TEMPLE<\/h3>\nPreview<\/p>\n• Background<\/p>\n• Solomon’s Temple<\/p>\n• Zerubbabel’s Temple<\/p>\n• Herod’s Temple<\/p>\n• Significance of the Temple in the Old Testament<\/p>\n• Significance of the Temple in the New Testament<\/p>\nBackground<\/p>\nDavid’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>\nDavid’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>\nSolomon’s Temple<\/p>\n\n<h5>Date<\/h5>\nConstruction commenced in Solomon’s fourth year, about 966 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>\nThe 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>\nThe 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>\nThe 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>\nThe 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>\nThe 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>\nBetween 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>\nIn 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>\nImmediately 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>\nThe 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>\nProbably 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>\nHiram 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>\nEleven 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>\nThe 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>\nLike 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 BC<\/span>) depleted its gold and silver treasures to buy Syrian help against his oppressor, Baasha (908–886 BC<\/span>), king of Israel (15:16-19). Joash, the king of Judah (835–796 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 BC<\/span>), having shattered the arrogant pride of Amaziah of Judah (796–767 BC<\/span>), again stripped the temple (14:8-14). Later, King Ahaz (735-715 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 Then Hezekiah (715–686 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 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>\nManasseh’s grandson Josiah (640–609 BC<\/span>), was the second great reforming king. He organized the repair of the temple in 622 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 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 BC<\/span> (2 Kgs 24:1-4), Jerusalem was captured (596 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 BC<\/span>), the temple was demolished (2 Kgs 25:8-10). The remaining temple treasures were taken away.<\/p>\nZerubbabel’s Temple<\/p>\n<h5>Construction<\/h5>\nAlthough the temple was devastated, the site still remained as a place of pilgrimage during the exile (Jer 41:4-5). In 538 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>\nIn 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 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 BC<\/span> (Ezr 5:1–6:22).<\/p>\nLittle 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>\nSeveral 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 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 BC<\/span>) financially supported the temple when the Seleucids displaced the Ptolemies as masters of Jerusalem.<\/p>\nBen Sirach, early in the second century 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 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 BC<\/span>, he entered the temple to assert his authority but took no plunder, thus showing respect for it.<\/p>\nThe 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 BC<\/span>, began to dismantle it about 21 BC<\/span> in preparation for the construction of his own grand temple.<\/p>\nHerod’s Temple<\/p>\nApart 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 AD<\/span> 37 and died early in the second century), he is probably more reliable than the Middoth, which, dating from about AD<\/span> 150, appears to exaggerate occasionally. Archaeological research has been helpful in determining the positions of the outer walls and gates.<\/p>\nHerod’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 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 AD<\/span> 64, only six years before it was destroyed by the Romans.<\/p>\nHerod 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>\nThe 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>\nAccess 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>\nSignificance of the Temple in the Old Testament<\/p>\nThe 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>\nThe 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>\nEzekiel’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 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>\nSignificance of the Temple in the New Testament<\/p>\n<h5>Christ and the Temple<\/h5>\nChrist 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>\nThe NT writers used two different Greek words to describe the temple: naos<\/span> and hieron<\/span>.<\/em> Naos<\/span> refers to the actual sanctuary of the temple, the place of God’s dwelling. Hieron<\/span> refers to the temple precincts as well as to the sanctuary. Generally speaking, naos<\/span> was used to designate the inner section of the temple known as the Holy Place and the Holy of Holies, whereas hieron<\/span> included the outer court and the temple proper.<\/p>\nIn Paul’s epistles the word naos<\/span> appears six times (1 Cor 3:16-17; 6:19; 2 Cor 6:16; Eph 2:21; 2 Thes 2:4) and 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 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 naos<\/span>—the word that designates the place of deity’s presence (2 Thes 2:4).<\/p>\nIn all the other Pauline passages, 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>\nWhen 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>\nIn 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>\nIn 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>\nSee 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>\nPreview<\/p>\n• Background<\/p>\n• Solomon’s Temple<\/p>\n• Zerubbabel’s Temple<\/p>\n• Herod’s Temple<\/p>\n• Significance of the Temple in the Old Testament<\/p>\n• Significance of the Temple in the New Testament<\/p>\nBackground<\/p>\nDavid’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>\nDavid’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>\nSolomon’s Temple<\/p>\n\n<h5>Date<\/h5>\nConstruction commenced in Solomon’s fourth year, about 966 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>\nThe 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>\nThe 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>\nThe 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>\nThe 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>\nThe 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>\nBetween 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>\nIn 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>\nImmediately 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>\nThe 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>\nProbably 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>\nHiram 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>\nEleven 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>\nThe 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>\nLike 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 BC<\/span>) depleted its gold and silver treasures to buy Syrian help against his oppressor, Baasha (908–886 BC<\/span>), king of Israel (15:16-19). Joash, the king of Judah (835–796 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 BC<\/span>), having shattered the arrogant pride of Amaziah of Judah (796–767 BC<\/span>), again stripped the temple (14:8-14). Later, King Ahaz (735-715 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 Then Hezekiah (715–686 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 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>\nManasseh’s grandson Josiah (640–609 BC<\/span>), was the second great reforming king. He organized the repair of the temple in 622 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 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 BC<\/span> (2 Kgs 24:1-4), Jerusalem was captured (596 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 BC<\/span>), the temple was demolished (2 Kgs 25:8-10). The remaining temple treasures were taken away.<\/p>\nZerubbabel’s Temple<\/p>\n<h5>Construction<\/h5>\nAlthough the temple was devastated, the site still remained as a place of pilgrimage during the exile (Jer 41:4-5). In 538 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>\nIn 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 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 BC<\/span> (Ezr 5:1–6:22).<\/p>\nLittle 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>\nSeveral 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 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 BC<\/span>) financially supported the temple when the Seleucids displaced the Ptolemies as masters of Jerusalem.<\/p>\nBen Sirach, early in the second century 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 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 BC<\/span>, he entered the temple to assert his authority but took no plunder, thus showing respect for it.<\/p>\nThe 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 BC<\/span>, began to dismantle it about 21 BC<\/span> in preparation for the construction of his own grand temple.<\/p>\nHerod’s Temple<\/p>\nApart 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 AD<\/span> 37 and died early in the second century), he is probably more reliable than the Middoth, which, dating from about AD<\/span> 150, appears to exaggerate occasionally. Archaeological research has been helpful in determining the positions of the outer walls and gates.<\/p>\nHerod’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 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 AD<\/span> 64, only six years before it was destroyed by the Romans.<\/p>\nHerod 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>\nThe 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>\nAccess 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>\nSignificance of the Temple in the Old Testament<\/p>\nThe 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>\nThe 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>\nEzekiel’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 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>\nSignificance of the Temple in the New Testament<\/p>\n<h5>Christ and the Temple<\/h5>\nChrist 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>\nThe NT writers used two different Greek words to describe the temple: naos<\/span> and hieron<\/span>.<\/em> Naos<\/span> refers to the actual sanctuary of the temple, the place of God’s dwelling. Hieron<\/span> refers to the temple precincts as well as to the sanctuary. Generally speaking, naos<\/span> was used to designate the inner section of the temple known as the Holy Place and the Holy of Holies, whereas hieron<\/span> included the outer court and the temple proper.<\/p>\nIn Paul’s epistles the word naos<\/span> appears six times (1 Cor 3:16-17; 6:19; 2 Cor 6:16; Eph 2:21; 2 Thes 2:4) and 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 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 naos<\/span>—the word that designates the place of deity’s presence (2 Thes 2:4).<\/p>\nIn all the other Pauline passages, 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>\nWhen 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>\nIn 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>\nIn 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>\nSee 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":39042,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Zechariah (Person)","title_en":"Zechariah (Person)","content_ro":"<h3>ZECHARIAH (Person<\/span>)<\/h3>\nExtremely popular name in the Bible; it means “the Lord remembers.”<\/p>\n 1. Son of King Jeroboam II; the 15th king of Israel and the last of Jehu’s dynasty. Beginning his rule in 753 BC<\/span>, the 38th year of Azariah’s reign in Judah (792–740 BC<\/span>), Zechariah ruled in Samaria for only six months before he was murdered at Ibleam in a conspiracy masterminded by Shallum, his successor (2 Kgs 14:29; 15:8-11). The Lord’s promise to Jehu, that his descendants would rule to the fourth generation (10:30), was fulfilled with Zechariah’s reign.<\/p>\n<li> 2. Father of Abi (or Abijah, 2 Chr 29:1). Abi was the mother of Hezekiah, who later ruled Judah for 29 years (2 Kgs 18:2).<\/li>\n<li> 3. Reubenite and leader of his tribe (1 Chr 5:7).<\/li>\n<li> 4. Korahite Levite, firstborn of Meshelemiah’s seven sons and a wise counselor, selected by lot to oversee the gatekeepers of the sanctuary’s northern entrance during David’s reign (1 Chr 9:21; 26:2, 14).<\/li>\n<li> 5. Benjaminite and descendant of Jeiel (1 Chr 9:37). He is alternately called Zeker, perhaps an abbreviation of Zechariah, in 1 Chronicles 8:31.<\/li>\n<li> 6. One of the eight Levites assigned to play a harp before the ark of God in the procession led by David when the ark was brought from Obed-edom’s house to Jerusalem (1 Chr 15:18, 20; 16:5).<\/li>\n<li> 7. One of the priests assigned to blow a trumpet in the procession led by David when the ark was brought to Jerusalem (1 Chr 15:24).<\/li>\n<li> 8. Levite and a descendant of Isshiah, who served in the sanctuary during David’s reign (1 Chr 24:25).<\/li>\n<li> 9. Merarite Levite and Hosah’s son, who served as one of the gatekeepers of the sanctuary’s western entrance, at the gate of Halleketh, during David’s reign (1 Chr 26:11-12, 16).<\/li>\n<li>10. Father of Iddo. Iddo was the chief officer of the half-tribe of Manasseh in Gilead during David’s reign (1 Chr 27:21).<\/li>\n<li>11. One of the officials sent by King Jehoshaphat (872–848 BC<\/span>) to teach the law in the cities of Judah (2 Chr 17:7).<\/li>\n<li>12. Gershonite Levite and Jahaziel’s father (2 Chr 20:14).<\/li>\n<li>13. One of King Jehoshaphat’s seven sons and the brother of Jehoram. Jehoram became sole regent of Judah (848–841 BC<\/span>) at his father’s death (2 Chr 21:2).<\/li>\n<li>14. Son of Jehoiada the priest, who rebuked the princes of Judah for turning against the Lord and worshiping false gods. Enraged by Zechariah’s rebuff, they conspired against him, and at King Joash’s command, stoned him to death in the court of the sanctuary (2 Chr 24:20-22). The Lord, however, avenged Zechariah’s death by allowing the Syrians to defeat Judah, kill the princes, and severely wound Joash, who was subsequently killed by two of his own servants.<\/li>\nIn his castigation of his own generation of Jewish leaders, Jesus alluded to Zechariah’s shameful murder in the temple’s sacred precincts: “You will become guilty of murdering all the godly people from righteous Abel to Zechariah son of Barachiah, whom you murdered in the Temple between the altar and the sanctuary” (Mt 23:35, nlt<\/span>). Abel was the first and Zechariah the last of the recorded prophets of God who were unjustly slain, according to the OT.<\/p>\n<li>15. Man who counseled King Uzziah of Judah to walk in the fear of God (2 Chr 26:5).<\/li>\n<li>16. Abijah’s father. Abijah was the mother of King Hezekiah of Judah (2 Chr 29:1).<\/li>\n<li>17. Gershonite Levite descended from Asaph, who along with Mattaniah his kinsman was chosen by King Hezekiah to help cleanse the house of the Lord (2 Chr 29:13).<\/li>\n<li>18. Kohathite Levite who was appointed to oversee the repair of the temple during King Josiah’s reign (2 Chr 34:12).<\/li>\n<li>19. One of the chief officers of the house of God who generously gave animals to the priests for the celebration of the Passover feast during King Josiah’s reign (2 Chr 35:8).<\/li>\n<li>20. Prophet, Berechiah’s son and the grandson of Iddo, who began prophesying as a young man in 520 BC<\/span> during the reign of King Darius I of Persia (Zec 1:1; cf. 2:4). Little is known about the prophet. He ministered with Haggai, his contemporary, in postexilic Jerusalem during the days of Zerubbabel, the governor, and Jeshua, the high priest (Ezr 5:1). He exhorted the Jews to finish building the second temple (6:14) and headed Iddo’s priestly family during Joiakim’s term as high priest (Neh 12:16). Like Jeremiah and Ezekiel, Zechariah served as both priest and prophet (Zec 1:1, 7; 7:1, 8).<\/li>\nNumerous suggestions have been offered to resolve the discrepancy of Zechariah’s pedigree. In the Ezra and Nehemiah passages, Iddo is listed as his father, whereas in Zechariah, Berechiah is the father. Some conclude that Berechiah and Iddo were different names for the same person, or that Berechiah’s name (Zec 1:1, 7) was a later scribal emendation that confused Jeberechiah’s son with Iddo’s son (cf. Is 8:2). A more plausible theory identifies Iddo as Zechariah’s grandfather, the renowned head of his family, who returned to Jerusalem from exile in 538 BC<\/span>. Either by Berechiah’s early death or by the precedence of his grandfather’s name, Zechariah was considered Iddo’s successor.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Prophet, Prophetess; Zechariah, Book of.<\/p>\n<li>21. Parosh’s descendant and the head of his father’s household. He returned with Ezra to Judah following the exile during the reign of King Artaxerxes I of Persia (Ezr 8:3).<\/li>\n<li>22. Bebai’s son and the head of a household. He returned with Ezra to Judah following the exile during the reign of King Artaxerxes I of Persia (Ezr 8:11).<\/li>\n<li>23. One of the Jewish leaders whom Ezra sent to Iddo, the man in charge at Casiphia, to gather Levites and temple servants for the caravan of Jews returning to Palestine from Babylon (Ezr 8:15-17).<\/li>\n<li>24. One of the six descendants of Elam who was encouraged by Ezra to divorce his foreign wife during the postexilic period (Ezr 10:26).<\/li>\n<li>25. One of the men who stood to Ezra’s left when Ezra read the law to the people (Neh 8:4).<\/li>\n<li>26. Descendant of Perez and an ancestor of a Judahite family headed by Athaiah living in Jerusalem during the postexilic period (Neh 11:4).<\/li>\n<li>27. Descendant of Shelah and an ancestor of a Judahite family headed by Maaseiah living in Jerusalem during the postexilic era (Neh 11:5).<\/li>\n<li>28. Priest, descendant of Malkijah and an ancestor of a family of priests headed by Adaiah living in Jerusalem during the postexilic period (Neh 11:12).<\/li>\n<li>29. Jonathan’s son, a descendant of Asaph. He led a group of the priestly musicians who played trumpets at the dedication of the Jerusalem wall in Nehemiah’s day (Neh 12:35).<\/li>\n<li>30. Priest who played a trumpet at the Jerusalem wall’s dedication (Neh 12:41).<\/li>\n<li>31. Jeberechiah’s son and undoubtedly a man of distinction who, along with Uriah the priest, publicly witnessed Isaiah’s writing of the puzzling expression “Maher-shalal-hash-baz,” which later prophetically revealed God’s intended judgment on Damascus and Samaria (Is 8:2).<\/li>\n<li>32. John the Baptist’s father, priest of Abijah’s division, and the husband of Elizabeth, a woman of priestly descent. His story is recounted in Luke 1. They lived in the Judean hill country during King Herod the Great’s reign (37–4 BC<\/span>; Lk 1:5). Zechariah and Elizabeth both lived righteous and pious lives; however, they were advanced in years and still had no children.<\/li>\nAs priest, Zechariah was one of the men chosen to represent his division in its yearly appointed session of service in the Jerusalem temple (the priests of Israel were divided into 24 orders, each being assigned an annual two-week period of service in the temple). One day while serving in Jerusalem, Zechariah was selected by lot to burn incense in the temple’s Holy Place, a privilege granted to a priest only once in his lifetime. While performing this temple duty, the angel Gabriel appeared to him, telling him that Elizabeth his wife, though barren, would bear him a son, whose name would be called John and who would prepare the way for the Messiah. As a sign confirming the angel’s report, Zechariah was made mute for his disbelief that, in their old age, he and Elizabeth would produce a child. When Zechariah returned to the temple court, the gathered multitude perceived that the gesturing priest had seen a vision.<\/p>\nElizabeth became pregnant as promised and in her sixth month was visited by her relative Mary, who was also with child. Later, shortly after the baby’s birth, Zechariah affirmed that his son’s name would be John, at which time his speech was restored and he was filled with the Holy Spirit, prophesying and praising God for the work that he was about to do in Israel.<\/p>\n<li>33. Original name proposed for John the Baptist after his father’s name (Lk 1:59). See<\/em> John the Baptist.<\/li>","content_en":"<h3>ZECHARIAH (Person<\/span>)<\/h3>\nExtremely popular name in the Bible; it means “the Lord remembers.”<\/p>\n 1. Son of King Jeroboam II; the 15th king of Israel and the last of Jehu’s dynasty. Beginning his rule in 753 BC<\/span>, the 38th year of Azariah’s reign in Judah (792–740 BC<\/span>), Zechariah ruled in Samaria for only six months before he was murdered at Ibleam in a conspiracy masterminded by Shallum, his successor (2 Kgs 14:29; 15:8-11). The Lord’s promise to Jehu, that his descendants would rule to the fourth generation (10:30), was fulfilled with Zechariah’s reign.<\/p>\n<li> 2. Father of Abi (or Abijah, 2 Chr 29:1). Abi was the mother of Hezekiah, who later ruled Judah for 29 years (2 Kgs 18:2).<\/li>\n<li> 3. Reubenite and leader of his tribe (1 Chr 5:7).<\/li>\n<li> 4. Korahite Levite, firstborn of Meshelemiah’s seven sons and a wise counselor, selected by lot to oversee the gatekeepers of the sanctuary’s northern entrance during David’s reign (1 Chr 9:21; 26:2, 14).<\/li>\n<li> 5. Benjaminite and descendant of Jeiel (1 Chr 9:37). He is alternately called Zeker, perhaps an abbreviation of Zechariah, in 1 Chronicles 8:31.<\/li>\n<li> 6. One of the eight Levites assigned to play a harp before the ark of God in the procession led by David when the ark was brought from Obed-edom’s house to Jerusalem (1 Chr 15:18, 20; 16:5).<\/li>\n<li> 7. One of the priests assigned to blow a trumpet in the procession led by David when the ark was brought to Jerusalem (1 Chr 15:24).<\/li>\n<li> 8. Levite and a descendant of Isshiah, who served in the sanctuary during David’s reign (1 Chr 24:25).<\/li>\n<li> 9. Merarite Levite and Hosah’s son, who served as one of the gatekeepers of the sanctuary’s western entrance, at the gate of Halleketh, during David’s reign (1 Chr 26:11-12, 16).<\/li>\n<li>10. Father of Iddo. Iddo was the chief officer of the half-tribe of Manasseh in Gilead during David’s reign (1 Chr 27:21).<\/li>\n<li>11. One of the officials sent by King Jehoshaphat (872–848 BC<\/span>) to teach the law in the cities of Judah (2 Chr 17:7).<\/li>\n<li>12. Gershonite Levite and Jahaziel’s father (2 Chr 20:14).<\/li>\n<li>13. One of King Jehoshaphat’s seven sons and the brother of Jehoram. Jehoram became sole regent of Judah (848–841 BC<\/span>) at his father’s death (2 Chr 21:2).<\/li>\n<li>14. Son of Jehoiada the priest, who rebuked the princes of Judah for turning against the Lord and worshiping false gods. Enraged by Zechariah’s rebuff, they conspired against him, and at King Joash’s command, stoned him to death in the court of the sanctuary (2 Chr 24:20-22). The Lord, however, avenged Zechariah’s death by allowing the Syrians to defeat Judah, kill the princes, and severely wound Joash, who was subsequently killed by two of his own servants.<\/li>\nIn his castigation of his own generation of Jewish leaders, Jesus alluded to Zechariah’s shameful murder in the temple’s sacred precincts: “You will become guilty of murdering all the godly people from righteous Abel to Zechariah son of Barachiah, whom you murdered in the Temple between the altar and the sanctuary” (Mt 23:35, nlt<\/span>). Abel was the first and Zechariah the last of the recorded prophets of God who were unjustly slain, according to the OT.<\/p>\n<li>15. Man who counseled King Uzziah of Judah to walk in the fear of God (2 Chr 26:5).<\/li>\n<li>16. Abijah’s father. Abijah was the mother of King Hezekiah of Judah (2 Chr 29:1).<\/li>\n<li>17. Gershonite Levite descended from Asaph, who along with Mattaniah his kinsman was chosen by King Hezekiah to help cleanse the house of the Lord (2 Chr 29:13).<\/li>\n<li>18. Kohathite Levite who was appointed to oversee the repair of the temple during King Josiah’s reign (2 Chr 34:12).<\/li>\n<li>19. One of the chief officers of the house of God who generously gave animals to the priests for the celebration of the Passover feast during King Josiah’s reign (2 Chr 35:8).<\/li>\n<li>20. Prophet, Berechiah’s son and the grandson of Iddo, who began prophesying as a young man in 520 BC<\/span> during the reign of King Darius I of Persia (Zec 1:1; cf. 2:4). Little is known about the prophet. He ministered with Haggai, his contemporary, in postexilic Jerusalem during the days of Zerubbabel, the governor, and Jeshua, the high priest (Ezr 5:1). He exhorted the Jews to finish building the second temple (6:14) and headed Iddo’s priestly family during Joiakim’s term as high priest (Neh 12:16). Like Jeremiah and Ezekiel, Zechariah served as both priest and prophet (Zec 1:1, 7; 7:1, 8).<\/li>\nNumerous suggestions have been offered to resolve the discrepancy of Zechariah’s pedigree. In the Ezra and Nehemiah passages, Iddo is listed as his father, whereas in Zechariah, Berechiah is the father. Some conclude that Berechiah and Iddo were different names for the same person, or that Berechiah’s name (Zec 1:1, 7) was a later scribal emendation that confused Jeberechiah’s son with Iddo’s son (cf. Is 8:2). A more plausible theory identifies Iddo as Zechariah’s grandfather, the renowned head of his family, who returned to Jerusalem from exile in 538 BC<\/span>. Either by Berechiah’s early death or by the precedence of his grandfather’s name, Zechariah was considered Iddo’s successor.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Prophet, Prophetess; Zechariah, Book of.<\/p>\n<li>21. Parosh’s descendant and the head of his father’s household. He returned with Ezra to Judah following the exile during the reign of King Artaxerxes I of Persia (Ezr 8:3).<\/li>\n<li>22. Bebai’s son and the head of a household. He returned with Ezra to Judah following the exile during the reign of King Artaxerxes I of Persia (Ezr 8:11).<\/li>\n<li>23. One of the Jewish leaders whom Ezra sent to Iddo, the man in charge at Casiphia, to gather Levites and temple servants for the caravan of Jews returning to Palestine from Babylon (Ezr 8:15-17).<\/li>\n<li>24. One of the six descendants of Elam who was encouraged by Ezra to divorce his foreign wife during the postexilic period (Ezr 10:26).<\/li>\n<li>25. One of the men who stood to Ezra’s left when Ezra read the law to the people (Neh 8:4).<\/li>\n<li>26. Descendant of Perez and an ancestor of a Judahite family headed by Athaiah living in Jerusalem during the postexilic period (Neh 11:4).<\/li>\n<li>27. Descendant of Shelah and an ancestor of a Judahite family headed by Maaseiah living in Jerusalem during the postexilic era (Neh 11:5).<\/li>\n<li>28. Priest, descendant of Malkijah and an ancestor of a family of priests headed by Adaiah living in Jerusalem during the postexilic period (Neh 11:12).<\/li>\n<li>29. Jonathan’s son, a descendant of Asaph. He led a group of the priestly musicians who played trumpets at the dedication of the Jerusalem wall in Nehemiah’s day (Neh 12:35).<\/li>\n<li>30. Priest who played a trumpet at the Jerusalem wall’s dedication (Neh 12:41).<\/li>\n<li>31. Jeberechiah’s son and undoubtedly a man of distinction who, along with Uriah the priest, publicly witnessed Isaiah’s writing of the puzzling expression “Maher-shalal-hash-baz,” which later prophetically revealed God’s intended judgment on Damascus and Samaria (Is 8:2).<\/li>\n<li>32. John the Baptist’s father, priest of Abijah’s division, and the husband of Elizabeth, a woman of priestly descent. His story is recounted in Luke 1. They lived in the Judean hill country during King Herod the Great’s reign (37–4 BC<\/span>; Lk 1:5). Zechariah and Elizabeth both lived righteous and pious lives; however, they were advanced in years and still had no children.<\/li>\nAs priest, Zechariah was one of the men chosen to represent his division in its yearly appointed session of service in the Jerusalem temple (the priests of Israel were divided into 24 orders, each being assigned an annual two-week period of service in the temple). One day while serving in Jerusalem, Zechariah was selected by lot to burn incense in the temple’s Holy Place, a privilege granted to a priest only once in his lifetime. While performing this temple duty, the angel Gabriel appeared to him, telling him that Elizabeth his wife, though barren, would bear him a son, whose name would be called John and who would prepare the way for the Messiah. As a sign confirming the angel’s report, Zechariah was made mute for his disbelief that, in their old age, he and Elizabeth would produce a child. When Zechariah returned to the temple court, the gathered multitude perceived that the gesturing priest had seen a vision.<\/p>\nElizabeth became pregnant as promised and in her sixth month was visited by her relative Mary, who was also with child. Later, shortly after the baby’s birth, Zechariah affirmed that his son’s name would be John, at which time his speech was restored and he was filled with the Holy Spirit, prophesying and praising God for the work that he was about to do in Israel.<\/p>\n<li>33. Original name proposed for John the Baptist after his father’s name (Lk 1:59). See<\/em> John the Baptist.<\/li>","summary_ro":"ZECHARIAH (Person) Extremely popular name in the Bible; it means “the Lord remembers.” 1. Son of King Jeroboam II; the 15th king of Israel and the last of Jehu’s dynasty. Beginning his rule in 753 BC, the 38th year of Azariah’s reign in Judah (792–740 BC), Zechariah ruled in Samaria for only six months before he was murdered at Ibleam in a conspiracy masterminded by Shallum, his successor (2 Kgs 14:29; 15:8-11). The Lord’s promise to Jehu, that his descendants would rule to the fourth generat...","summary_en":"ZECHARIAH (Person) Extremely popular name in the Bible; it means “the Lord remembers.” 1. Son of King Jeroboam II; the 15th king of Israel and the last of Jehu’s dynasty. Beginning his rule in 753 BC, the 38th year of Azariah’s reign in Judah (792–740 BC), Zechariah ruled in Samaria for only six months before he was murdered at Ibleam in a conspiracy masterminded by Shallum, his successor (2 Kgs 14:29; 15:8-11). The Lord’s promise to Jehu, that his descendants would rule to the fourth generat...","source":"Articles\/Z.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":39066,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Book of Zechariah","title_en":"Book of Zechariah","content_ro":"<h3>ZECHARIAH, Book of<\/h3>\nLongest book of the Minor Prophets and the most difficult to understand. One reason for this difficulty is the numerous visions that call for an interpreter. At times an interpreting angel is present to tell what the vision means (Zec 1:9-10, 19-20; 4:1-6; 5:5-6), but at other times, when an interpretation is really needed, there is no angel to give one. The obscure meaning of many passages has spawned numerous theories concerning the date, authorship, unity, and interpretation of this book. One thing that makes the book of Zechariah significant for the Christian is its use in the NT. The last part of Zechariah (chs 9–11) is the most quoted section of the Prophets in the Gospel Passion narratives, and, other than Ezekiel, Zechariah influenced the book of Revelation more than any other OT book.<\/p>\nPreview<\/p>\n• Author<\/p>\n• Date<\/p>\n• Background<\/p>\n• Purpose and Message<\/p>\n• Content<\/p>\nAuthor<\/p>\nThe name Zechariah probably means “the Lord remembers” or “the Lord is renowned.” Zechariah is a common name in the OT and NT. At least 30 different people in the OT are named Zechariah. There is a problem in identifying the prophet’s father. In Zechariah 1:1 and 1:7, the prophet is called “the son of Berechiah, the son of Iddo,” but in Ezra 5:1 and 6:14 he is called simply “the son of Iddo.” There was another Zechariah in Isaiah’s time whose father was named Jeberechiah (Is 8:2). Another prophet by the name of Zechariah, the son of Jehoiada the priest, lived much earlier during the reign of Joash, king of Judah (835–796 BC<\/span>). This prophet was stoned to death because he proclaimed that the Lord had forsaken his people because of their sins (2 Chr 24:20-22). Jesus seemed to refer to this or a similar unrecorded incident, but he calls the prophet the son of Berechiah, the last of the martyrs among the prophets (Mt 23:35). However, Luke’s account of what Jesus said about Zechariah (Lk 11:51) does not include the words “the son of Berechiah.” Since Jesus was quoting 2 Chronicles, which was the last book in the Hebrew Bible, he was simply indicating the sweep of time from the first murder (Abel) to the last (Zechariah, the son of Jehoiada). There is no evidence that the prophet of the book of Zechariah was martyred; therefore, the best solution to the problem is to consider Berechiah the father, and Iddo the grandfather, of this prophet.<\/p>\nDate<\/p>\nThe first part of the book of Zechariah (chs 1–8) is easy to date. The first date is in the first verse, “the eighth month of the second year of Darius.” This was Darius, king of Persia (521–486 BC<\/span>). The eighth month of Darius’s second year would be October 520 BC<\/span>. This date seems to be the first time the “word of the Lord” came to Zechariah. The second date in Zechariah is in 1:7: “On the twenty-fourth day of the eleventh month which is the month of Shebat, in the second year of Darius . . .” (rsv<\/span>). This date would be February 15, 519 BC<\/span>. The word of the Lord that came to Zechariah on this date seems to include the account of eight night visions, along with some oracles, from an angel who talked with him. The third date in Zechariah is in 7:1: “In the fourth year of King Darius . . . on the fourth day of the ninth month, which is Chislev . . .” (rsv<\/span>). This date would be the equivalent of December 7, 518 BC<\/span>.<\/p>\nThere are no dates in Zechariah 9–14. Zechariah’s name is never mentioned, and neither is Darius or any king. A period of relative peace and stability gives place to war. The temple is standing (11:13; 14:20), and evidently Greek soldiers are present (9:13). Any attempt to assign specific dates to Zechariah 9–14 would be speculation.<\/p>\nBackground<\/p>\nThe temple in Jerusalem was destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, in 586 BC<\/span>. Nebuchadnezzar made several raids against Jerusalem before and after it fell, taking many captives to Babylon (cf. 2 Kgs 24:1-17; Dn 1:1). On two occasions, Jeremiah had predicted that captivity would last 70 years (Jer 25:11; 29:10; cf. Dn 9:2). In the time of Zechariah, the period of 70 years since the fall of Jerusalem was coming to an end (Zec 1:12; 7:5). It had been 66 years since Jerusalem fell, when the first “word of the Lord” came to Zechariah in the second year of Darius (520 BC<\/span>). The Babylonian Empire had fallen to the Persians in 538 BC<\/span>, and Cyrus the first king of Persia signed a decree permitting all captives to return to their homes (2 Chr 36:23; Ezr 1:1-4). Evidently, the first contingent of Jewish captives returned to Jerusalem with Zerubbabel and Joshua the priest about 536 BC<\/span>. One of the first objectives of the returnees was to rebuild the temple (Ezr 1:3), but internal strife and external opposition from the Samaritans prohibited the immediate rebuilding of the temple. After Darius I became king of Persia in 521 BC<\/span>, a wave of expectation and enthusiasm swept over the Jewish communities in Jerusalem and Babylon. Two prophets, possibly from the Babylonian exiles, Haggai and Zechariah, began preaching so powerfully that work on the second temple began in 520 BC<\/span> and was finished in 516 BC<\/span> (Ezr 5:1, 14-15; Hg 1–2; Zec 1–8).<\/p>\nThe book of Zechariah opens in the second year of Darius (520 BC<\/span>). Some of the captives had been back in Jerusalem for 16 years, but nothing was being done about rebuilding the temple. Zechariah’s first message called for the people to repent and not repeat the mistake of their fathers, whose sins and refusal to repent led to the exile and destruction of the temple (Zec 1:1-6). Then a series of eight night visions follows (1:7–6:8), assuring the people that the temple would be rebuilt by Zerubbabel (1:16; 4:9; 6:15). Two verses in Zechariah speak volumes concerning the hardships and difficulties in Jerusalem before the temple was rebuilt: “This is what the Lord<\/span> Almighty says: Take heart and finish the task! You have heard what the prophets have been saying about building the Temple of the Lord<\/span> Almighty ever since the foundation was laid. Before the work on the Temple began, there were no jobs and no wages for either people or animals. No traveler was safe from the enemy, for there were enemies on all sides. I had turned everyone against each other” (8:9-10, nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\nThe first eight chapters of Zechariah are set against the social, political, and religious situations in Jerusalem from 520 to 518 BC<\/span>. But beginning with chapter 9, historical moorings are lost. Chapter 9 opens with an oracle against Syria, including Damascus, Tyre, and Sidon, and against Philistia. Each of these places will be conquered and cleansed and will become like a clan in Judah. There is the promise of a new king coming triumphantly to Jerusalem, yet humbly riding on a donkey. His reign will be peaceful and universal. The next oracle speaks of setting the captives free, but this may not refer to the Babylonian captives, because of a reference to the Greeks. Zechariah 9–12 is almost wholly concerned with the future. Some scholars call this part apocalyptic literature. The nations attack Jerusalem and are defeated (chs 12, 14). The temple is standing (11:13), but it does not seem to have a place of great prominence in the new Jerusalem and in the kingdom of God (14:6-9).<\/p>\nPurpose and Message<\/p>\nThe purpose of the book is to reassure and encourage. The restored Jewish community of 520 BC<\/span> needed the assurance that the temple would be rebuilt, and later groups of God’s people needed to know that ultimately the kingdom of God would come in its fullness. There are three messages in the book of Zechariah: the need for repentance (1:1–5:11); the eight night visions (1:7–6:8) signifying that the temple would be rebuilt and God’s glory would return to Jerusalem; and the coming kingdom of God (chs 9–14).<\/p>\nContent<\/p>\nThe book of Zechariah may be divided into two main parts: chapters 1–8 and 9–14. The first part is dated between 520 BC<\/span> and 518 BC<\/span>. It consists of oracles and visions of Zechariah the son of Berechiah. Mainly prose, its primary concern is to assure the restored Jewish community that the temple will be rebuilt. The second part (chs 9–14) is undated. There are no references to Zechariah. The temple is standing, and much of the language is eschatological and apocalyptic. The second part itself has two parts: chapters 9–11 and 12–14. Chapters 9 and 12 begin essentially the same way: “The oracle of the word of the Lord.”<\/p>\nThe first part of Zechariah (chs 1–8) has four main sections: superscription and first oracle (1:1-6); eight night visions and related oracles (1:7–6:8); the symbolic crowning of Joshua (6:9-15); and the question about fasting and morality (7:1–8:23).<\/p>\n<h5>The Superscription (1:1)<\/h5>\nThis section is dated specifically “in the eighth month” of the Babylonian calendar, which was from mid-October to mid-November. The second year of Darius, king of Persia, was 520 BC<\/span>. The date is important in relating the work of Zechariah to that of Haggai (cf. Hg 1:1, 15; 2:1, 10, 18-20) and to the reconstruction of the temple under Zerubbabel. The first oracle concerns the need for repentance. The first message of Zechariah came between Haggai’s second and third message. He, like Haggai, probably attributed the failure of the crops and other hardships to a failure to rebuild the temple (cf. Hg 1:6-11). Zechariah calls for the people to repent so that they can persevere with work on the temple.<\/p>\n<h5>The Eight Night Visions and Related Oracles (1:7–6:8)<\/h5>\nThese visions that Zechariah saw in Jerusalem all seem to have been given on the night of the 24th day of the 11th month (Shebat) in the second year of Darius (mid-January to mid-February 519 BC<\/span>). Seven of the eight visions have essentially the same form. Four of the visions begin with the words “Then I looked up and saw” (1:18; 2:1; 5:1; 6:1). One begins, “In a vision during the night” (1:8). Another begins, “Then the angel who had been talking with me returned and woke me, as though I had been asleep. ‘What do you see now?’ he asked” (4:1-2, nlt<\/span>). Still another (the seventh) vision begins, “Then the angel who was talking with me came forward and said . . .” (5:5). However, the fourth vision is different from the other seven. It begins, “Then he showed me” (3:1, cf. Am 7:1, 4, 7). This message in the third person contains no interpreting angel nor any direct message to Zechariah, as if he were merely an observer. This fourth vision is so different from the other seven that it was not a part of the original series of eight.<\/p>\nAn overall pattern to the eight visions is not evident. Some scholars have seen some significance in the fact that the visions move from the evening or night in the first vision to the sunrise in the last vision. Others have detected some relationships in pairs of visions. The first and last visions involve horses and riders or chariots. The second and third visions involve the restoration of Judah and Jerusalem (1:18-21; 2:1-5). The fourth and fifth deal with the place of the two leaders in the restored community: Joshua will be cleansed and restored as the high priest (3:1-5) and Zerubbabel the governor will complete the temple (4:1-14). The sixth and seventh visions involve the cleansing of the land. A flying scroll enters the house of every thief and false witness and consumes it (5:1-4). Wickedness personified as a woman will be carried in an ephah (basket) to the land of Shinar (vv 5-11). Interspersed in the vision accounts are four oracles (1:14-17; 2:8-13; 3:6-10; 4:8-14). Each of these passages begins with the messenger formula, “Thus says the Lord,” or the expression “Cry out” (1:14, 17). The first oracle assures the people that the temple, the cities, and the choice of Jerusalem will be renewed. The second oracle exhorts any exiles remaining in Babylon to return to Judah and Jerusalem (2:7-12). Zechariah 2:12-13 are interesting. Verse 12 is the only OT reference to Palestine as “the Holy Land,” and verse 13 is similar to the call to worship in Habakkuk 2:20: “Be silent before the Lord<\/span>, all humanity, for he is springing into action from his holy dwelling” (Zec 2:13, nlt<\/span>). The third oracle in the visionary accounts concerns Joshua the high priest as a sign of the coming of God’s servant, the Branch who removes the guilt of the land in a single day (3:6-10).<\/p>\n<h5>The Symbolic Crowning of Joshua (6:9-15)<\/h5>\nZechariah is told to go into the house of Josiah son of Zephaniah, take silver and gold from some returnees from Babylon, make a crown, and put it on the head of Joshua the priest as a symbol of the royal and priestly king, the Branch, the builder of the temple. After the ceremony the crown is to be hung in the temple as a memorial of those who gave the silver and the gold. The last verse (6:15) seems to say that just as gold and silver from exiles was used to symbolize the crowning of the coming king of the kingdom, so exiles, “those who are far off,” will also participate in the completion of the temple. Then Zechariah’s hearers will know God sent him to prophesy. This will all take place when and if they will diligently obey the voice of the Lord.<\/p>\n<h5>The Question about Fasting and Morality (7:1–8:23)<\/h5>\nA delegation from Bethel (10 miles or 16.1 kilometers north of Jerusalem) came to Jerusalem in the fourth year of Darius (518 BC<\/span>). Work on the temple had been going on for two years. The purpose of this visit was to entreat the favor of the Lord (7:2) and to ask the priests and the prophets if they should continue to fast as they had done since the temple was destroyed 70 years earlier (v 3). The Lord told Zechariah to ask why they were fasting—for the Lord or for selfish motives? The answer to the question of fasting seems to be that God desires truth, justice, and covenant-love more than fasting. Zechariah reiterates the message the Lord had already given his people by the former prophets. The last section in the first part of Zechariah is a decalogue of promises (8:1-23). The ten promises begin with the words “Thus says the Lord” or “The word of the Lord came to me.” The last word of God is not judgment but promise, hope, forgiveness, and restoration.<\/p>\n<h5>The Oracles of the Lord (chs 9–12)<\/h5>\nThe last half of the book of Zechariah (chs 9–14) falls into two nearly equal parts: chapters 9–11 (46 verses) and chapters 12–14 (44 verses). Each part begins with the words “An oracle” (9:1; 12:1). Both “oracles” are primarily eschatological. The first part (chs 9–11) is concerned with the restoration of the tribes to Palestine (9:11-17; 10:6-12). In order to accomplish this, the Lord will rid Palestine and Syria of opponents to his rule (9:1-8; 11:1-3), remove the evil shepherds (rulers; 10:2b-5; 11:4-17), and the Prince of Peace will come (9:9-10). The last “oracle” of Zechariah (12:1–14:21) is also eschatological. This time the concern is primarily that of Jerusalem and Judah. Twice Jerusalem is attacked by the nations (12:1-8; 14:1-5). Each time the Lord fights for Jerusalem, Judah, and the house of David. Jerusalem weeps and mourns for an unidentified martyr (12:10-14). The martyr could be called the “good” shepherd who is killed and his sheep scattered (13:7-9). Jesus referred to this passage in connection with his arrest (Mt 26:31; Mk 14:27). A fountain will be opened for the house of David, and the inhabitants of Jerusalem will be cleansed from sin, idolatry, and false prophets (Zec 13:1-6). The new Jerusalem will remain aloft on its site and the land around it will be turned into a plain (14:10-11). There will be no night nor extreme temperatures in the new Jerusalem. Living waters will flow from Jerusalem, and the Lord will become King of all the earth. Those who fight against Jerusalem will be destroyed, but those who survive will worship the Lord year by year by keeping the Feast of Booths.<\/p>\nThe last scene in the book of Zechariah is a picture of the world after Armageddon, a new world cleansed of sin. It will be a time of peace and security. When God comes to reign, everything will become holy. The warhorses will become as holy as the priest’s turban, and the ordinary cooking vessel will be as temple vessels. The Canaanite or trader will be eliminated. There will be no difference between Jew and Gentile, as long as one worships the Lord of Hosts as King.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Israel, History of; Postexilic Period; Prophecy; Prophet, Prophetess; Zechariah (Person) #20.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>ZECHARIAH, Book of<\/h3>\nLongest book of the Minor Prophets and the most difficult to understand. One reason for this difficulty is the numerous visions that call for an interpreter. At times an interpreting angel is present to tell what the vision means (Zec 1:9-10, 19-20; 4:1-6; 5:5-6), but at other times, when an interpretation is really needed, there is no angel to give one. The obscure meaning of many passages has spawned numerous theories concerning the date, authorship, unity, and interpretation of this book. One thing that makes the book of Zechariah significant for the Christian is its use in the NT. The last part of Zechariah (chs 9–11) is the most quoted section of the Prophets in the Gospel Passion narratives, and, other than Ezekiel, Zechariah influenced the book of Revelation more than any other OT book.<\/p>\nPreview<\/p>\n• Author<\/p>\n• Date<\/p>\n• Background<\/p>\n• Purpose and Message<\/p>\n• Content<\/p>\nAuthor<\/p>\nThe name Zechariah probably means “the Lord remembers” or “the Lord is renowned.” Zechariah is a common name in the OT and NT. At least 30 different people in the OT are named Zechariah. There is a problem in identifying the prophet’s father. In Zechariah 1:1 and 1:7, the prophet is called “the son of Berechiah, the son of Iddo,” but in Ezra 5:1 and 6:14 he is called simply “the son of Iddo.” There was another Zechariah in Isaiah’s time whose father was named Jeberechiah (Is 8:2). Another prophet by the name of Zechariah, the son of Jehoiada the priest, lived much earlier during the reign of Joash, king of Judah (835–796 BC<\/span>). This prophet was stoned to death because he proclaimed that the Lord had forsaken his people because of their sins (2 Chr 24:20-22). Jesus seemed to refer to this or a similar unrecorded incident, but he calls the prophet the son of Berechiah, the last of the martyrs among the prophets (Mt 23:35). However, Luke’s account of what Jesus said about Zechariah (Lk 11:51) does not include the words “the son of Berechiah.” Since Jesus was quoting 2 Chronicles, which was the last book in the Hebrew Bible, he was simply indicating the sweep of time from the first murder (Abel) to the last (Zechariah, the son of Jehoiada). There is no evidence that the prophet of the book of Zechariah was martyred; therefore, the best solution to the problem is to consider Berechiah the father, and Iddo the grandfather, of this prophet.<\/p>\nDate<\/p>\nThe first part of the book of Zechariah (chs 1–8) is easy to date. The first date is in the first verse, “the eighth month of the second year of Darius.” This was Darius, king of Persia (521–486 BC<\/span>). The eighth month of Darius’s second year would be October 520 BC<\/span>. This date seems to be the first time the “word of the Lord” came to Zechariah. The second date in Zechariah is in 1:7: “On the twenty-fourth day of the eleventh month which is the month of Shebat, in the second year of Darius . . .” (rsv<\/span>). This date would be February 15, 519 BC<\/span>. The word of the Lord that came to Zechariah on this date seems to include the account of eight night visions, along with some oracles, from an angel who talked with him. The third date in Zechariah is in 7:1: “In the fourth year of King Darius . . . on the fourth day of the ninth month, which is Chislev . . .” (rsv<\/span>). This date would be the equivalent of December 7, 518 BC<\/span>.<\/p>\nThere are no dates in Zechariah 9–14. Zechariah’s name is never mentioned, and neither is Darius or any king. A period of relative peace and stability gives place to war. The temple is standing (11:13; 14:20), and evidently Greek soldiers are present (9:13). Any attempt to assign specific dates to Zechariah 9–14 would be speculation.<\/p>\nBackground<\/p>\nThe temple in Jerusalem was destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, in 586 BC<\/span>. Nebuchadnezzar made several raids against Jerusalem before and after it fell, taking many captives to Babylon (cf. 2 Kgs 24:1-17; Dn 1:1). On two occasions, Jeremiah had predicted that captivity would last 70 years (Jer 25:11; 29:10; cf. Dn 9:2). In the time of Zechariah, the period of 70 years since the fall of Jerusalem was coming to an end (Zec 1:12; 7:5). It had been 66 years since Jerusalem fell, when the first “word of the Lord” came to Zechariah in the second year of Darius (520 BC<\/span>). The Babylonian Empire had fallen to the Persians in 538 BC<\/span>, and Cyrus the first king of Persia signed a decree permitting all captives to return to their homes (2 Chr 36:23; Ezr 1:1-4). Evidently, the first contingent of Jewish captives returned to Jerusalem with Zerubbabel and Joshua the priest about 536 BC<\/span>. One of the first objectives of the returnees was to rebuild the temple (Ezr 1:3), but internal strife and external opposition from the Samaritans prohibited the immediate rebuilding of the temple. After Darius I became king of Persia in 521 BC<\/span>, a wave of expectation and enthusiasm swept over the Jewish communities in Jerusalem and Babylon. Two prophets, possibly from the Babylonian exiles, Haggai and Zechariah, began preaching so powerfully that work on the second temple began in 520 BC<\/span> and was finished in 516 BC<\/span> (Ezr 5:1, 14-15; Hg 1–2; Zec 1–8).<\/p>\nThe book of Zechariah opens in the second year of Darius (520 BC<\/span>). Some of the captives had been back in Jerusalem for 16 years, but nothing was being done about rebuilding the temple. Zechariah’s first message called for the people to repent and not repeat the mistake of their fathers, whose sins and refusal to repent led to the exile and destruction of the temple (Zec 1:1-6). Then a series of eight night visions follows (1:7–6:8), assuring the people that the temple would be rebuilt by Zerubbabel (1:16; 4:9; 6:15). Two verses in Zechariah speak volumes concerning the hardships and difficulties in Jerusalem before the temple was rebuilt: “This is what the Lord<\/span> Almighty says: Take heart and finish the task! You have heard what the prophets have been saying about building the Temple of the Lord<\/span> Almighty ever since the foundation was laid. Before the work on the Temple began, there were no jobs and no wages for either people or animals. No traveler was safe from the enemy, for there were enemies on all sides. I had turned everyone against each other” (8:9-10, nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\nThe first eight chapters of Zechariah are set against the social, political, and religious situations in Jerusalem from 520 to 518 BC<\/span>. But beginning with chapter 9, historical moorings are lost. Chapter 9 opens with an oracle against Syria, including Damascus, Tyre, and Sidon, and against Philistia. Each of these places will be conquered and cleansed and will become like a clan in Judah. There is the promise of a new king coming triumphantly to Jerusalem, yet humbly riding on a donkey. His reign will be peaceful and universal. The next oracle speaks of setting the captives free, but this may not refer to the Babylonian captives, because of a reference to the Greeks. Zechariah 9–12 is almost wholly concerned with the future. Some scholars call this part apocalyptic literature. The nations attack Jerusalem and are defeated (chs 12, 14). The temple is standing (11:13), but it does not seem to have a place of great prominence in the new Jerusalem and in the kingdom of God (14:6-9).<\/p>\nPurpose and Message<\/p>\nThe purpose of the book is to reassure and encourage. The restored Jewish community of 520 BC<\/span> needed the assurance that the temple would be rebuilt, and later groups of God’s people needed to know that ultimately the kingdom of God would come in its fullness. There are three messages in the book of Zechariah: the need for repentance (1:1–5:11); the eight night visions (1:7–6:8) signifying that the temple would be rebuilt and God’s glory would return to Jerusalem; and the coming kingdom of God (chs 9–14).<\/p>\nContent<\/p>\nThe book of Zechariah may be divided into two main parts: chapters 1–8 and 9–14. The first part is dated between 520 BC<\/span> and 518 BC<\/span>. It consists of oracles and visions of Zechariah the son of Berechiah. Mainly prose, its primary concern is to assure the restored Jewish community that the temple will be rebuilt. The second part (chs 9–14) is undated. There are no references to Zechariah. The temple is standing, and much of the language is eschatological and apocalyptic. The second part itself has two parts: chapters 9–11 and 12–14. Chapters 9 and 12 begin essentially the same way: “The oracle of the word of the Lord.”<\/p>\nThe first part of Zechariah (chs 1–8) has four main sections: superscription and first oracle (1:1-6); eight night visions and related oracles (1:7–6:8); the symbolic crowning of Joshua (6:9-15); and the question about fasting and morality (7:1–8:23).<\/p>\n<h5>The Superscription (1:1)<\/h5>\nThis section is dated specifically “in the eighth month” of the Babylonian calendar, which was from mid-October to mid-November. The second year of Darius, king of Persia, was 520 BC<\/span>. The date is important in relating the work of Zechariah to that of Haggai (cf. Hg 1:1, 15; 2:1, 10, 18-20) and to the reconstruction of the temple under Zerubbabel. The first oracle concerns the need for repentance. The first message of Zechariah came between Haggai’s second and third message. He, like Haggai, probably attributed the failure of the crops and other hardships to a failure to rebuild the temple (cf. Hg 1:6-11). Zechariah calls for the people to repent so that they can persevere with work on the temple.<\/p>\n<h5>The Eight Night Visions and Related Oracles (1:7–6:8)<\/h5>\nThese visions that Zechariah saw in Jerusalem all seem to have been given on the night of the 24th day of the 11th month (Shebat) in the second year of Darius (mid-January to mid-February 519 BC<\/span>). Seven of the eight visions have essentially the same form. Four of the visions begin with the words “Then I looked up and saw” (1:18; 2:1; 5:1; 6:1). One begins, “In a vision during the night” (1:8). Another begins, “Then the angel who had been talking with me returned and woke me, as though I had been asleep. ‘What do you see now?’ he asked” (4:1-2, nlt<\/span>). Still another (the seventh) vision begins, “Then the angel who was talking with me came forward and said . . .” (5:5). However, the fourth vision is different from the other seven. It begins, “Then he showed me” (3:1, cf. Am 7:1, 4, 7). This message in the third person contains no interpreting angel nor any direct message to Zechariah, as if he were merely an observer. This fourth vision is so different from the other seven that it was not a part of the original series of eight.<\/p>\nAn overall pattern to the eight visions is not evident. Some scholars have seen some significance in the fact that the visions move from the evening or night in the first vision to the sunrise in the last vision. Others have detected some relationships in pairs of visions. The first and last visions involve horses and riders or chariots. The second and third visions involve the restoration of Judah and Jerusalem (1:18-21; 2:1-5). The fourth and fifth deal with the place of the two leaders in the restored community: Joshua will be cleansed and restored as the high priest (3:1-5) and Zerubbabel the governor will complete the temple (4:1-14). The sixth and seventh visions involve the cleansing of the land. A flying scroll enters the house of every thief and false witness and consumes it (5:1-4). Wickedness personified as a woman will be carried in an ephah (basket) to the land of Shinar (vv 5-11). Interspersed in the vision accounts are four oracles (1:14-17; 2:8-13; 3:6-10; 4:8-14). Each of these passages begins with the messenger formula, “Thus says the Lord,” or the expression “Cry out” (1:14, 17). The first oracle assures the people that the temple, the cities, and the choice of Jerusalem will be renewed. The second oracle exhorts any exiles remaining in Babylon to return to Judah and Jerusalem (2:7-12). Zechariah 2:12-13 are interesting. Verse 12 is the only OT reference to Palestine as “the Holy Land,” and verse 13 is similar to the call to worship in Habakkuk 2:20: “Be silent before the Lord<\/span>, all humanity, for he is springing into action from his holy dwelling” (Zec 2:13, nlt<\/span>). The third oracle in the visionary accounts concerns Joshua the high priest as a sign of the coming of God’s servant, the Branch who removes the guilt of the land in a single day (3:6-10).<\/p>\n<h5>The Symbolic Crowning of Joshua (6:9-15)<\/h5>\nZechariah is told to go into the house of Josiah son of Zephaniah, take silver and gold from some returnees from Babylon, make a crown, and put it on the head of Joshua the priest as a symbol of the royal and priestly king, the Branch, the builder of the temple. After the ceremony the crown is to be hung in the temple as a memorial of those who gave the silver and the gold. The last verse (6:15) seems to say that just as gold and silver from exiles was used to symbolize the crowning of the coming king of the kingdom, so exiles, “those who are far off,” will also participate in the completion of the temple. Then Zechariah’s hearers will know God sent him to prophesy. This will all take place when and if they will diligently obey the voice of the Lord.<\/p>\n<h5>The Question about Fasting and Morality (7:1–8:23)<\/h5>\nA delegation from Bethel (10 miles or 16.1 kilometers north of Jerusalem) came to Jerusalem in the fourth year of Darius (518 BC<\/span>). Work on the temple had been going on for two years. The purpose of this visit was to entreat the favor of the Lord (7:2) and to ask the priests and the prophets if they should continue to fast as they had done since the temple was destroyed 70 years earlier (v 3). The Lord told Zechariah to ask why they were fasting—for the Lord or for selfish motives? The answer to the question of fasting seems to be that God desires truth, justice, and covenant-love more than fasting. Zechariah reiterates the message the Lord had already given his people by the former prophets. The last section in the first part of Zechariah is a decalogue of promises (8:1-23). The ten promises begin with the words “Thus says the Lord” or “The word of the Lord came to me.” The last word of God is not judgment but promise, hope, forgiveness, and restoration.<\/p>\n<h5>The Oracles of the Lord (chs 9–12)<\/h5>\nThe last half of the book of Zechariah (chs 9–14) falls into two nearly equal parts: chapters 9–11 (46 verses) and chapters 12–14 (44 verses). Each part begins with the words “An oracle” (9:1; 12:1). Both “oracles” are primarily eschatological. The first part (chs 9–11) is concerned with the restoration of the tribes to Palestine (9:11-17; 10:6-12). In order to accomplish this, the Lord will rid Palestine and Syria of opponents to his rule (9:1-8; 11:1-3), remove the evil shepherds (rulers; 10:2b-5; 11:4-17), and the Prince of Peace will come (9:9-10). The last “oracle” of Zechariah (12:1–14:21) is also eschatological. This time the concern is primarily that of Jerusalem and Judah. Twice Jerusalem is attacked by the nations (12:1-8; 14:1-5). Each time the Lord fights for Jerusalem, Judah, and the house of David. Jerusalem weeps and mourns for an unidentified martyr (12:10-14). The martyr could be called the “good” shepherd who is killed and his sheep scattered (13:7-9). Jesus referred to this passage in connection with his arrest (Mt 26:31; Mk 14:27). A fountain will be opened for the house of David, and the inhabitants of Jerusalem will be cleansed from sin, idolatry, and false prophets (Zec 13:1-6). The new Jerusalem will remain aloft on its site and the land around it will be turned into a plain (14:10-11). There will be no night nor extreme temperatures in the new Jerusalem. Living waters will flow from Jerusalem, and the Lord will become King of all the earth. Those who fight against Jerusalem will be destroyed, but those who survive will worship the Lord year by year by keeping the Feast of Booths.<\/p>\nThe last scene in the book of Zechariah is a picture of the world after Armageddon, a new world cleansed of sin. It will be a time of peace and security. When God comes to reign, everything will become holy. The warhorses will become as holy as the priest’s turban, and the ordinary cooking vessel will be as temple vessels. The Canaanite or trader will be eliminated. There will be no difference between Jew and Gentile, as long as one worships the Lord of Hosts as King.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Israel, History of; Postexilic Period; Prophecy; Prophet, Prophetess; Zechariah (Person) #20.<\/p>","summary_ro":"ZECHARIAH, Book of Longest book of the Minor Prophets and the most difficult to understand. One reason for this difficulty is the numerous visions that call for an interpreter. At times an interpreting angel is present to tell what the vision means (Zec 1:9-10, 19-20; 4:1-6; 5:5-6), but at other times, when an interpretation is really needed, there is no angel to give one. The obscure meaning of many passages has spawned numerous theories concerning the date, authorship, unity, and interpreta...","summary_en":"ZECHARIAH, Book of Longest book of the Minor Prophets and the most difficult to understand. One reason for this difficulty is the numerous visions that call for an interpreter. At times an interpreting angel is present to tell what the vision means (Zec 1:9-10, 19-20; 4:1-6; 5:5-6), but at other times, when an interpretation is really needed, there is no angel to give one. The obscure meaning of many passages has spawned numerous theories concerning the date, authorship, unity, and interpreta...","source":"Articles\/Z.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":39615,"type":"chart","type_label":"Diagramă","type_icon":"📊","type_color":"#3b82f6","title_ro":"Books of Postexilic Times","title_en":"Books of Postexilic Times","content_ro":"<h3>Books of Postexilic Times<\/h3>\n<table>\n <tr>\n <td>Reference<\/strong><\/p><\/td>\n <td>Dates<\/strong><\/p><\/td><\/tr>\n <tr>\n <td>Ezr 1:1–4:6, 24<\/p><\/td>\n <td>538–536 BC<\/span><\/p><\/td><\/tr>\n <tr>\n <td>Ezr 5:1–6:22; Hg; Zec<\/p><\/td>\n <td>520–515 BC<\/span><\/p><\/td><\/tr>\n <tr>\n <td>Ezr 7–10<\/p><\/td>\n <td>458 BC<\/span><\/p><\/td><\/tr>\n <tr>\n <td>Ezr 4:7-23<\/p><\/td>\n <td>c. 447 BC<\/span><\/p><\/td><\/tr>\n <tr>\n <td>Neh 1:1–13:3<\/p><\/td>\n <td>445–433 BC<\/span><\/p><\/td><\/tr>\n <tr>\n <td>Neh 13:4-31<\/p><\/td>\n <td>c. 431 BC<\/span><\/p><\/td><\/tr><\/table>","content_en":"<h3>Books of Postexilic Times<\/h3>\n<table>\n <tr>\n <td>Reference<\/strong><\/p><\/td>\n <td>Dates<\/strong><\/p><\/td><\/tr>\n <tr>\n <td>Ezr 1:1–4:6, 24<\/p><\/td>\n <td>538–536 BC<\/span><\/p><\/td><\/tr>\n <tr>\n <td>Ezr 5:1–6:22; Hg; Zec<\/p><\/td>\n <td>520–515 BC<\/span><\/p><\/td><\/tr>\n <tr>\n <td>Ezr 7–10<\/p><\/td>\n <td>458 BC<\/span><\/p><\/td><\/tr>\n <tr>\n <td>Ezr 4:7-23<\/p><\/td>\n <td>c. 447 BC<\/span><\/p><\/td><\/tr>\n <tr>\n <td>Neh 1:1–13:3<\/p><\/td>\n <td>445–433 BC<\/span><\/p><\/td><\/tr>\n <tr>\n <td>Neh 13:4-31<\/p><\/td>\n <td>c. 431 BC<\/span><\/p><\/td><\/tr><\/table>","summary_ro":"Books of Postexilic Times Reference Dates Ezr 1:1–4:6, 24 538–536 BC Ezr 5:1–6:22; Hg; Zec 520–515 BC Ezr 7–10 458 BC Ezr 4:7-23 c. 447 BC Neh 1:1–13:3 445–433 BC Neh 13:4-31 c. 431 BC","summary_en":"Books of Postexilic Times Reference Dates Ezr 1:1–4:6, 24 538–536 BC Ezr 5:1–6:22; Hg; Zec 520–515 BC Ezr 7–10 458 BC Ezr 4:7-23 c. 447 BC Neh 1:1–13:3 445–433 BC Neh 13:4-31 c. 431 BC","source":"Charts\/Charts.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":48033,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ezra 5:1","title_en":"Study Note: Ezra 5:1","content_ro":"5:1<\/strong> Haggai<\/em> first prophesied on August 29, 520 BC<\/span> (Hag 1:1). Zechariah<\/em> began prophesying about two months later (Zech 1:1). The books of Haggai and Zechariah record their messages (see also Ezra 6:14).<\/p>","content_en":"5:1<\/strong> Haggai<\/em> first prophesied on August 29, 520 BC<\/span> (Hag 1:1). Zechariah<\/em> began prophesying about two months later (Zech 1:1). The books of Haggai and Zechariah record their messages (see also Ezra 6:14).<\/p>","summary_ro":"5:1 Haggai first prophesied on August 29, 520 BC (Hag 1:1). Zechariah began prophesying about two months later (Zech 1:1). The books of Haggai and Zechariah record their messages (see also Ezra 6:14).","summary_en":"5:1 Haggai first prophesied on August 29, 520 BC (Hag 1:1). Zechariah began prophesying about two months later (Zech 1:1). The books of Haggai and Zechariah record their messages (see also Ezra 6:14).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":75659,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ezra 5:1","title_en":"Study Note: Ezra 5:1","content_ro":"5:1<\/strong> Haggai<\/em> first prophesied on August 29, 520 BC<\/span> (Hag 1:1). Zechariah<\/em> began prophesying about two months later (Zech 1:1). The books of Haggai and Zechariah record their messages (see also Ezra 6:14).<\/p>","content_en":"5:1<\/strong> Haggai<\/em> first prophesied on August 29, 520 BC<\/span> (Hag 1:1). Zechariah<\/em> began prophesying about two months later (Zech 1:1). The books of Haggai and Zechariah record their messages (see also Ezra 6:14).<\/p>","summary_ro":"5:1 Haggai first prophesied on August 29, 520 BC (Hag 1:1). Zechariah began prophesying about two months later (Zech 1:1). The books of Haggai and Zechariah record their messages (see also Ezra 6:14).","summary_en":"5:1 Haggai first prophesied on August 29, 520 BC (Hag 1:1). Zechariah began prophesying about two months later (Zech 1:1). The books of Haggai and Zechariah record their messages (see also Ezra 6:14).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":103285,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ezra 5:1","title_en":"Study Note: Ezra 5:1","content_ro":"5:1<\/strong> Haggai<\/em> first prophesied on August 29, 520 BC<\/span> (Hag 1:1). Zechariah<\/em> began prophesying about two months later (Zech 1:1). The books of Haggai and Zechariah record their messages (see also Ezra 6:14).<\/p>","content_en":"5:1<\/strong> Haggai<\/em> first prophesied on August 29, 520 BC<\/span> (Hag 1:1). Zechariah<\/em> began prophesying about two months later (Zech 1:1). The books of Haggai and Zechariah record their messages (see also Ezra 6:14).<\/p>","summary_ro":"5:1 Haggai first prophesied on August 29, 520 BC (Hag 1:1). Zechariah began prophesying about two months later (Zech 1:1). The books of Haggai and Zechariah record their messages (see also Ezra 6:14).","summary_en":"5:1 Haggai first prophesied on August 29, 520 BC (Hag 1:1). Zechariah began prophesying about two months later (Zech 1:1). The books of Haggai and Zechariah record their messages (see also Ezra 6:14).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":130911,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ezra 5:1","title_en":"Study Note: Ezra 5:1","content_ro":"5:1<\/strong> Haggai<\/em> first prophesied on August 29, 520 BC<\/span> (Hag 1:1). Zechariah<\/em> began prophesying about two months later (Zech 1:1). The books of Haggai and Zechariah record their messages (see also Ezra 6:14).<\/p>","content_en":"5:1<\/strong> Haggai<\/em> first prophesied on August 29, 520 BC<\/span> (Hag 1:1). Zechariah<\/em> began prophesying about two months later (Zech 1:1). The books of Haggai and Zechariah record their messages (see also Ezra 6:14).<\/p>","summary_ro":"5:1 Haggai first prophesied on August 29, 520 BC (Hag 1:1). Zechariah began prophesying about two months later (Zech 1:1). The books of Haggai and Zechariah record their messages (see also Ezra 6:14).","summary_en":"5:1 Haggai first prophesied on August 29, 520 BC (Hag 1:1). Zechariah began prophesying about two months later (Zech 1:1). The books of Haggai and Zechariah record their messages (see also Ezra 6:14).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":62108,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Completion of the Second Temple","title_en":"Completion of the Second Temple","content_ro":"<h3>Completion of the Second Temple<\/h3>\nThe dedication of Israel’s second Temple on March 12, 515 BC<\/span>, was the most significant event in the lives of those who returned from Babylonian exile. Now they could worship and praise God in the same way their ancestors had worshiped before the Exile, and God’s requirements for covenant relationship with him could be fulfilled. The high priest could go into God’s presence to sprinkle the blood once a year on the Day of Atonement for the nation’s sins. After seventy years of estrangement from God, the covenant community was now restored.<\/p>\nThis joyous event did not come without difficulty. With God’s help, the returned exiles overcame sixteen years of opposition from the people who had inhabited their land and from Persian officials. Although their enemies made every attempt to discourage them, the Israelites completed the job of rebuilding the Temple and reestablishing worship through patience, persistence, and strong prophetic encouragement (Ezra 5:1-5; 6:14).<\/p>\nThe dedication of the Temple demonstrates that God can accomplish his will through a small group of people who set their priorities on pleasing him and who trust him to provide the resources to fulfill his promises (see Hag 2:6-9). Instead of focusing on what little they had, the people of God trusted in what he could provide. They were dedicated to glorifying God and maintaining their relationship with him. God proved that he was sovereignly in control of nations and could change the hearts of the leaders of those nations to accomplish his will (Ezra 5:5; 6:6-12, 22).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nExod 40:1-38; 1 Kgs 7:51–9:9; Ezra 6:14-22; Hag 1:8; 2:7-8; Zech 4:1-10; Rev 21:1-27<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Completion of the Second Temple<\/h3>\nThe dedication of Israel’s second Temple on March 12, 515 BC<\/span>, was the most significant event in the lives of those who returned from Babylonian exile. Now they could worship and praise God in the same way their ancestors had worshiped before the Exile, and God’s requirements for covenant relationship with him could be fulfilled. The high priest could go into God’s presence to sprinkle the blood once a year on the Day of Atonement for the nation’s sins. After seventy years of estrangement from God, the covenant community was now restored.<\/p>\nThis joyous event did not come without difficulty. With God’s help, the returned exiles overcame sixteen years of opposition from the people who had inhabited their land and from Persian officials. Although their enemies made every attempt to discourage them, the Israelites completed the job of rebuilding the Temple and reestablishing worship through patience, persistence, and strong prophetic encouragement (Ezra 5:1-5; 6:14).<\/p>\nThe dedication of the Temple demonstrates that God can accomplish his will through a small group of people who set their priorities on pleasing him and who trust him to provide the resources to fulfill his promises (see Hag 2:6-9). Instead of focusing on what little they had, the people of God trusted in what he could provide. They were dedicated to glorifying God and maintaining their relationship with him. God proved that he was sovereignly in control of nations and could change the hearts of the leaders of those nations to accomplish his will (Ezra 5:5; 6:6-12, 22).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nExod 40:1-38; 1 Kgs 7:51–9:9; Ezra 6:14-22; Hag 1:8; 2:7-8; Zech 4:1-10; Rev 21:1-27<\/p>","summary_ro":"Completion of the Second Temple The dedication of Israel’s second Temple on March 12, 515 BC, was the most significant event in the lives of those who returned from Babylonian exile. Now they could worship and praise God in the same way their ancestors had worshiped before the Exile, and God’s requirements for covenant relationship with him could be fulfilled. The high priest could go into God’s presence to sprinkle the blood once a year on the Day of Atonement for the nation’s sins. After se...","summary_en":"Completion of the Second Temple The dedication of Israel’s second Temple on March 12, 515 BC, was the most significant event in the lives of those who returned from Babylonian exile. Now they could worship and praise God in the same way their ancestors had worshiped before the Exile, and God’s requirements for covenant relationship with him could be fulfilled. The high priest could go into God’s presence to sprinkle the blood once a year on the Day of Atonement for the nation’s sins. After se...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":89734,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Completion of the Second Temple","title_en":"Completion of the Second Temple","content_ro":"<h3>Completion of the Second Temple<\/h3>\nThe dedication of Israel’s second Temple on March 12, 515 BC<\/span>, was the most significant event in the lives of those who returned from Babylonian exile. Now they could worship and praise God in the same way their ancestors had worshiped before the Exile, and God’s requirements for covenant relationship with him could be fulfilled. The high priest could go into God’s presence to sprinkle the blood once a year on the Day of Atonement for the nation’s sins. After seventy years of estrangement from God, the covenant community was now restored.<\/p>\nThis joyous event did not come without difficulty. With God’s help, the returned exiles overcame sixteen years of opposition from the people who had inhabited their land and from Persian officials. Although their enemies made every attempt to discourage them, the Israelites completed the job of rebuilding the Temple and reestablishing worship through patience, persistence, and strong prophetic encouragement (Ezra 5:1-5; 6:14).<\/p>\nThe dedication of the Temple demonstrates that God can accomplish his will through a small group of people who set their priorities on pleasing him and who trust him to provide the resources to fulfill his promises (see Hag 2:6-9). Instead of focusing on what little they had, the people of God trusted in what he could provide. They were dedicated to glorifying God and maintaining their relationship with him. God proved that he was sovereignly in control of nations and could change the hearts of the leaders of those nations to accomplish his will (Ezra 5:5; 6:6-12, 22).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nExod 40:1-38; 1 Kgs 7:51–9:9; Ezra 6:14-22; Hag 1:8; 2:7-8; Zech 4:1-10; Rev 21:1-27<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Completion of the Second Temple<\/h3>\nThe dedication of Israel’s second Temple on March 12, 515 BC<\/span>, was the most significant event in the lives of those who returned from Babylonian exile. Now they could worship and praise God in the same way their ancestors had worshiped before the Exile, and God’s requirements for covenant relationship with him could be fulfilled. The high priest could go into God’s presence to sprinkle the blood once a year on the Day of Atonement for the nation’s sins. After seventy years of estrangement from God, the covenant community was now restored.<\/p>\nThis joyous event did not come without difficulty. With God’s help, the returned exiles overcame sixteen years of opposition from the people who had inhabited their land and from Persian officials. Although their enemies made every attempt to discourage them, the Israelites completed the job of rebuilding the Temple and reestablishing worship through patience, persistence, and strong prophetic encouragement (Ezra 5:1-5; 6:14).<\/p>\nThe dedication of the Temple demonstrates that God can accomplish his will through a small group of people who set their priorities on pleasing him and who trust him to provide the resources to fulfill his promises (see Hag 2:6-9). Instead of focusing on what little they had, the people of God trusted in what he could provide. They were dedicated to glorifying God and maintaining their relationship with him. God proved that he was sovereignly in control of nations and could change the hearts of the leaders of those nations to accomplish his will (Ezra 5:5; 6:6-12, 22).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nExod 40:1-38; 1 Kgs 7:51–9:9; Ezra 6:14-22; Hag 1:8; 2:7-8; Zech 4:1-10; Rev 21:1-27<\/p>","summary_ro":"Completion of the Second Temple The dedication of Israel’s second Temple on March 12, 515 BC, was the most significant event in the lives of those who returned from Babylonian exile. Now they could worship and praise God in the same way their ancestors had worshiped before the Exile, and God’s requirements for covenant relationship with him could be fulfilled. The high priest could go into God’s presence to sprinkle the blood once a year on the Day of Atonement for the nation’s sins. After se...","summary_en":"Completion of the Second Temple The dedication of Israel’s second Temple on March 12, 515 BC, was the most significant event in the lives of those who returned from Babylonian exile. Now they could worship and praise God in the same way their ancestors had worshiped before the Exile, and God’s requirements for covenant relationship with him could be fulfilled. The high priest could go into God’s presence to sprinkle the blood once a year on the Day of Atonement for the nation’s sins. After se...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":117360,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Completion of the Second Temple","title_en":"Completion of the Second Temple","content_ro":"<h3>Completion of the Second Temple<\/h3>\nThe dedication of Israel’s second Temple on March 12, 515 BC<\/span>, was the most significant event in the lives of those who returned from Babylonian exile. Now they could worship and praise God in the same way their ancestors had worshiped before the Exile, and God’s requirements for covenant relationship with him could be fulfilled. The high priest could go into God’s presence to sprinkle the blood once a year on the Day of Atonement for the nation’s sins. After seventy years of estrangement from God, the covenant community was now restored.<\/p>\nThis joyous event did not come without difficulty. With God’s help, the returned exiles overcame sixteen years of opposition from the people who had inhabited their land and from Persian officials. Although their enemies made every attempt to discourage them, the Israelites completed the job of rebuilding the Temple and reestablishing worship through patience, persistence, and strong prophetic encouragement (Ezra 5:1-5; 6:14).<\/p>\nThe dedication of the Temple demonstrates that God can accomplish his will through a small group of people who set their priorities on pleasing him and who trust him to provide the resources to fulfill his promises (see Hag 2:6-9). Instead of focusing on what little they had, the people of God trusted in what he could provide. They were dedicated to glorifying God and maintaining their relationship with him. God proved that he was sovereignly in control of nations and could change the hearts of the leaders of those nations to accomplish his will (Ezra 5:5; 6:6-12, 22).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nExod 40:1-38; 1 Kgs 7:51–9:9; Ezra 6:14-22; Hag 1:8; 2:7-8; Zech 4:1-10; Rev 21:1-27<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Completion of the Second Temple<\/h3>\nThe dedication of Israel’s second Temple on March 12, 515 BC<\/span>, was the most significant event in the lives of those who returned from Babylonian exile. Now they could worship and praise God in the same way their ancestors had worshiped before the Exile, and God’s requirements for covenant relationship with him could be fulfilled. The high priest could go into God’s presence to sprinkle the blood once a year on the Day of Atonement for the nation’s sins. After seventy years of estrangement from God, the covenant community was now restored.<\/p>\nThis joyous event did not come without difficulty. With God’s help, the returned exiles overcame sixteen years of opposition from the people who had inhabited their land and from Persian officials. Although their enemies made every attempt to discourage them, the Israelites completed the job of rebuilding the Temple and reestablishing worship through patience, persistence, and strong prophetic encouragement (Ezra 5:1-5; 6:14).<\/p>\nThe dedication of the Temple demonstrates that God can accomplish his will through a small group of people who set their priorities on pleasing him and who trust him to provide the resources to fulfill his promises (see Hag 2:6-9). Instead of focusing on what little they had, the people of God trusted in what he could provide. They were dedicated to glorifying God and maintaining their relationship with him. God proved that he was sovereignly in control of nations and could change the hearts of the leaders of those nations to accomplish his will (Ezra 5:5; 6:6-12, 22).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nExod 40:1-38; 1 Kgs 7:51–9:9; Ezra 6:14-22; Hag 1:8; 2:7-8; Zech 4:1-10; Rev 21:1-27<\/p>","summary_ro":"Completion of the Second Temple The dedication of Israel’s second Temple on March 12, 515 BC, was the most significant event in the lives of those who returned from Babylonian exile. Now they could worship and praise God in the same way their ancestors had worshiped before the Exile, and God’s requirements for covenant relationship with him could be fulfilled. The high priest could go into God’s presence to sprinkle the blood once a year on the Day of Atonement for the nation’s sins. After se...","summary_en":"Completion of the Second Temple The dedication of Israel’s second Temple on March 12, 515 BC, was the most significant event in the lives of those who returned from Babylonian exile. Now they could worship and praise God in the same way their ancestors had worshiped before the Exile, and God’s requirements for covenant relationship with him could be fulfilled. The high priest could go into God’s presence to sprinkle the blood once a year on the Day of Atonement for the nation’s sins. After se...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":144986,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Completion of the Second Temple","title_en":"Completion of the Second Temple","content_ro":"<h3>Completion of the Second Temple<\/h3>\nThe dedication of Israel’s second Temple on March 12, 515 BC<\/span>, was the most significant event in the lives of those who returned from Babylonian exile. Now they could worship and praise God in the same way their ancestors had worshiped before the Exile, and God’s requirements for covenant relationship with him could be fulfilled. The high priest could go into God’s presence to sprinkle the blood once a year on the Day of Atonement for the nation’s sins. After seventy years of estrangement from God, the covenant community was now restored.<\/p>\nThis joyous event did not come without difficulty. With God’s help, the returned exiles overcame sixteen years of opposition from the people who had inhabited their land and from Persian officials. Although their enemies made every attempt to discourage them, the Israelites completed the job of rebuilding the Temple and reestablishing worship through patience, persistence, and strong prophetic encouragement (Ezra 5:1-5; 6:14).<\/p>\nThe dedication of the Temple demonstrates that God can accomplish his will through a small group of people who set their priorities on pleasing him and who trust him to provide the resources to fulfill his promises (see Hag 2:6-9). Instead of focusing on what little they had, the people of God trusted in what he could provide. They were dedicated to glorifying God and maintaining their relationship with him. God proved that he was sovereignly in control of nations and could change the hearts of the leaders of those nations to accomplish his will (Ezra 5:5; 6:6-12, 22).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nExod 40:1-38; 1 Kgs 7:51–9:9; Ezra 6:14-22; Hag 1:8; 2:7-8; Zech 4:1-10; Rev 21:1-27<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Completion of the Second Temple<\/h3>\nThe dedication of Israel’s second Temple on March 12, 515 BC<\/span>, was the most significant event in the lives of those who returned from Babylonian exile. Now they could worship and praise God in the same way their ancestors had worshiped before the Exile, and God’s requirements for covenant relationship with him could be fulfilled. The high priest could go into God’s presence to sprinkle the blood once a year on the Day of Atonement for the nation’s sins. After seventy years of estrangement from God, the covenant community was now restored.<\/p>\nThis joyous event did not come without difficulty. With God’s help, the returned exiles overcame sixteen years of opposition from the people who had inhabited their land and from Persian officials. Although their enemies made every attempt to discourage them, the Israelites completed the job of rebuilding the Temple and reestablishing worship through patience, persistence, and strong prophetic encouragement (Ezra 5:1-5; 6:14).<\/p>\nThe dedication of the Temple demonstrates that God can accomplish his will through a small group of people who set their priorities on pleasing him and who trust him to provide the resources to fulfill his promises (see Hag 2:6-9). Instead of focusing on what little they had, the people of God trusted in what he could provide. They were dedicated to glorifying God and maintaining their relationship with him. God proved that he was sovereignly in control of nations and could change the hearts of the leaders of those nations to accomplish his will (Ezra 5:5; 6:6-12, 22).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nExod 40:1-38; 1 Kgs 7:51–9:9; Ezra 6:14-22; Hag 1:8; 2:7-8; Zech 4:1-10; Rev 21:1-27<\/p>","summary_ro":"Completion of the Second Temple The dedication of Israel’s second Temple on March 12, 515 BC, was the most significant event in the lives of those who returned from Babylonian exile. Now they could worship and praise God in the same way their ancestors had worshiped before the Exile, and God’s requirements for covenant relationship with him could be fulfilled. The high priest could go into God’s presence to sprinkle the blood once a year on the Day of Atonement for the nation’s sins. After se...","summary_en":"Completion of the Second Temple The dedication of Israel’s second Temple on March 12, 515 BC, was the most significant event in the lives of those who returned from Babylonian exile. Now they could worship and praise God in the same way their ancestors had worshiped before the Exile, and God’s requirements for covenant relationship with him could be fulfilled. The high priest could go into God’s presence to sprinkle the blood once a year on the Day of Atonement for the nation’s sins. After se...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"2":[{"id":19339,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Jeshua (Person)","title_en":"Jeshua (Person)","content_ro":"<h3>JESHUA (Person<\/span>)<\/h3>\n<li>1. Levite and head of the ninth of 24 divisions of priests formed during David’s reign (1 Chr 24:11). He was perhaps the forefather of 973 descendants who returned with Zerubbabel to Judah following the exile (Ezr 2:36; Neh 7:39).<\/li>\n<li>2. One of the Levites assisting Kore in the distribution of the offerings among his fellow priests living in the priestly cities of Judah during the days of King Hezekiah (2 Chr 31:15).<\/li>\n<li>3. Son of Jozadak (alternately “Jehozadak”) the high priest. Jozadak was deported by Nebuchadnezzar to Babylon (1 Chr 6:14-15). Jeshua, Jozadak’s successor as high priest, returned with Zerubbabel to Jerusalem after the exile (Ezr 2:2; Neh 7:7; 12:1). Upon arrival, he led his fellow priests in making the altar of God (Ezr 3:2; 5:2) and eventually headed up a construction program to rebuild the temple (3:8). Confirmed as God’s leader by Haggai and Zechariah (Hg 1:1-14; 2:2, 4; Zec 3:1-9; 6:11), Jeshua (alternately “Joshua” in these passages) resolutely resisted attempts by adversaries to infiltrate his people and hinder the work on the temple (Ezr 4:3). Joiakim was Jeshua’s son and successor as high priest, serving in the days of Nehemiah and Ezra (Neh 12:12, 26).<\/li>\n<li>4. Descendant of Pahath-moab and the forefather of a family of Jews who returned with Zerubbabel to Judah following the Babylonian captivity (Ezr 2:6; Neh 7:11).<\/li>\n<li>5. Father of a family of Levites who returned to Jerusalem with Zerubbabel (Ezr 2:40; Neh 7:43; 12:8). He and his sons were responsible for overseeing the workmen building the temple (Ezr 3:9; this Jeshua may be identical with #3 above).<\/li>\n<li>6. Levite and Jozabad’s father. Jozabad assisted Meremoth, Eleazar, and Noadiah with taking inventory of the temple’s precious metals and vessels during the days of Ezra (Ezr 8:33).<\/li>\n<li>7. Ezer’s father. Ezer was ruler of Mizpah, who repaired a section of the Jerusalem wall during the days of Nehemiah (Neh 3:19).<\/li>\n<li>8. Azaniah’s son and a leader of the Levites in the days of Ezra and Nehemiah. Jeshua assisted Ezra with teaching the people the law (Neh 8:7) and later set his seal on Ezra’s covenant (10:9).<\/li>\n<li>9. Alternate spelling of Joshua, the son of Nun, in Nehemiah 8:17. See<\/em> Joshua (Person) #1.<\/li>","content_en":"<h3>JESHUA (Person<\/span>)<\/h3>\n<li>1. Levite and head of the ninth of 24 divisions of priests formed during David’s reign (1 Chr 24:11). He was perhaps the forefather of 973 descendants who returned with Zerubbabel to Judah following the exile (Ezr 2:36; Neh 7:39).<\/li>\n<li>2. One of the Levites assisting Kore in the distribution of the offerings among his fellow priests living in the priestly cities of Judah during the days of King Hezekiah (2 Chr 31:15).<\/li>\n<li>3. Son of Jozadak (alternately “Jehozadak”) the high priest. Jozadak was deported by Nebuchadnezzar to Babylon (1 Chr 6:14-15). Jeshua, Jozadak’s successor as high priest, returned with Zerubbabel to Jerusalem after the exile (Ezr 2:2; Neh 7:7; 12:1). Upon arrival, he led his fellow priests in making the altar of God (Ezr 3:2; 5:2) and eventually headed up a construction program to rebuild the temple (3:8). Confirmed as God’s leader by Haggai and Zechariah (Hg 1:1-14; 2:2, 4; Zec 3:1-9; 6:11), Jeshua (alternately “Joshua” in these passages) resolutely resisted attempts by adversaries to infiltrate his people and hinder the work on the temple (Ezr 4:3). Joiakim was Jeshua’s son and successor as high priest, serving in the days of Nehemiah and Ezra (Neh 12:12, 26).<\/li>\n<li>4. Descendant of Pahath-moab and the forefather of a family of Jews who returned with Zerubbabel to Judah following the Babylonian captivity (Ezr 2:6; Neh 7:11).<\/li>\n<li>5. Father of a family of Levites who returned to Jerusalem with Zerubbabel (Ezr 2:40; Neh 7:43; 12:8). He and his sons were responsible for overseeing the workmen building the temple (Ezr 3:9; this Jeshua may be identical with #3 above).<\/li>\n<li>6. Levite and Jozabad’s father. Jozabad assisted Meremoth, Eleazar, and Noadiah with taking inventory of the temple’s precious metals and vessels during the days of Ezra (Ezr 8:33).<\/li>\n<li>7. Ezer’s father. Ezer was ruler of Mizpah, who repaired a section of the Jerusalem wall during the days of Nehemiah (Neh 3:19).<\/li>\n<li>8. Azaniah’s son and a leader of the Levites in the days of Ezra and Nehemiah. Jeshua assisted Ezra with teaching the people the law (Neh 8:7) and later set his seal on Ezra’s covenant (10:9).<\/li>\n<li>9. Alternate spelling of Joshua, the son of Nun, in Nehemiah 8:17. See<\/em> Joshua (Person) #1.<\/li>","summary_ro":"JESHUA (Person) 1. Levite and head of the ninth of 24 divisions of priests formed during David’s reign (1 Chr 24:11). He was perhaps the forefather of 973 descendants who returned with Zerubbabel to Judah following the exile (Ezr 2:36; Neh 7:39). 2. One of the Levites assisting Kore in the distribution of the offerings among his fellow priests living in the priestly cities of Judah during the days of King Hezekiah (2 Chr 31:15). 3. Son of Jozadak (alternately “Jehozadak”) the high priest. Joz...","summary_en":"JESHUA (Person) 1. Levite and head of the ninth of 24 divisions of priests formed during David’s reign (1 Chr 24:11). He was perhaps the forefather of 973 descendants who returned with Zerubbabel to Judah following the exile (Ezr 2:36; Neh 7:39). 2. One of the Levites assisting Kore in the distribution of the offerings among his fellow priests living in the priestly cities of Judah during the days of King Hezekiah (2 Chr 31:15). 3. Son of Jozadak (alternately “Jehozadak”) the high priest. Joz...","source":"Articles\/J.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":20955,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Jozadak*","title_en":"Jozadak*","content_ro":"<h3>JOZADAK*<\/h3>\nSeraiah’s son and one of the exiles transported by Nebuchadnezzar to Babylonia (1 Chr 6:14-15). He was the father of Jeshua (also called Joshua), the high priest in postexilic Jerusalem during the days of Zerubbabel (Ezr 3:2, 8; 5:2; 10:18; Neh 12:26; Hg 1:1-14; 2:2-4; Zec 6:11). Jozadak is alternately called Jehozadak.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>JOZADAK*<\/h3>\nSeraiah’s son and one of the exiles transported by Nebuchadnezzar to Babylonia (1 Chr 6:14-15). He was the father of Jeshua (also called Joshua), the high priest in postexilic Jerusalem during the days of Zerubbabel (Ezr 3:2, 8; 5:2; 10:18; Neh 12:26; Hg 1:1-14; 2:2-4; Zec 6:11). Jozadak is alternately called Jehozadak.<\/p>","summary_ro":"JOZADAK* Seraiah’s son and one of the exiles transported by Nebuchadnezzar to Babylonia (1 Chr 6:14-15). He was the father of Jeshua (also called Joshua), the high priest in postexilic Jerusalem during the days of Zerubbabel (Ezr 3:2, 8; 5:2; 10:18; Neh 12:26; Hg 1:1-14; 2:2-4; Zec 6:11). Jozadak is alternately called Jehozadak.","summary_en":"JOZADAK* Seraiah’s son and one of the exiles transported by Nebuchadnezzar to Babylonia (1 Chr 6:14-15). He was the father of Jeshua (also called Joshua), the high priest in postexilic Jerusalem during the days of Zerubbabel (Ezr 3:2, 8; 5:2; 10:18; Neh 12:26; Hg 1:1-14; 2:2-4; Zec 6:11). Jozadak is alternately called Jehozadak.","source":"Articles\/J.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":34698,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Shealtiel","title_en":"Shealtiel","content_ro":"<h3>SHEALTIEL<\/h3>\nSon of King Jeconiah (Jehoiachin) of Judah (598–597 BC<\/span>) and the father of Zerubbabel. Zerubbabel led the Jews back to Palestine and there ruled as governor of Judah during the postexilic period (Ezr 3:2; 5:2; Neh 12:1; Hg 1:1, 12-14). In the genealogies of Jesus Christ, Shealtiel is variously mentioned as the son of Jeconiah (Mt 1:12) and as the son of Neri (Lk 3:27). In 1 Chronicles 3:17-19, Shealtiel appears to be the grandfather or perhaps the uncle of Zerubbabel. One probable solution is that Shealtiel was the son of Neri and the heir apparent to the throne of Jeconiah and that, at Shealtiel’s death, Zerubbabel was next in succession.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>SHEALTIEL<\/h3>\nSon of King Jeconiah (Jehoiachin) of Judah (598–597 BC<\/span>) and the father of Zerubbabel. Zerubbabel led the Jews back to Palestine and there ruled as governor of Judah during the postexilic period (Ezr 3:2; 5:2; Neh 12:1; Hg 1:1, 12-14). In the genealogies of Jesus Christ, Shealtiel is variously mentioned as the son of Jeconiah (Mt 1:12) and as the son of Neri (Lk 3:27). In 1 Chronicles 3:17-19, Shealtiel appears to be the grandfather or perhaps the uncle of Zerubbabel. One probable solution is that Shealtiel was the son of Neri and the heir apparent to the throne of Jeconiah and that, at Shealtiel’s death, Zerubbabel was next in succession.<\/p>","summary_ro":"SHEALTIEL Son of King Jeconiah (Jehoiachin) of Judah (598–597 BC) and the father of Zerubbabel. Zerubbabel led the Jews back to Palestine and there ruled as governor of Judah during the postexilic period (Ezr 3:2; 5:2; Neh 12:1; Hg 1:1, 12-14). In the genealogies of Jesus Christ, Shealtiel is variously mentioned as the son of Jeconiah (Mt 1:12) and as the son of Neri (Lk 3:27). In 1 Chronicles 3:17-19, Shealtiel appears to be the grandfather or perhaps the uncle of Zerubbabel. One probable so...","summary_en":"SHEALTIEL Son of King Jeconiah (Jehoiachin) of Judah (598–597 BC) and the father of Zerubbabel. Zerubbabel led the Jews back to Palestine and there ruled as governor of Judah during the postexilic period (Ezr 3:2; 5:2; Neh 12:1; Hg 1:1, 12-14). In the genealogies of Jesus Christ, Shealtiel is variously mentioned as the son of Jeconiah (Mt 1:12) and as the son of Neri (Lk 3:27). In 1 Chronicles 3:17-19, Shealtiel appears to be the grandfather or perhaps the uncle of Zerubbabel. One probable so...","source":"Articles\/S.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":39270,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Zerubbabel","title_en":"Zerubbabel","content_ro":"<h3>ZERUBBABEL<\/h3>\nBabylonian-born Jew who returned to Palestine in 538 BC<\/span> to serve as governor of Jerusalem under Persian rule. The name presumably means “seed [offspring] of Babylon,” referring to someone born in Babylon.<\/p>\nThe exact identity of Zerubbabel’s biological father is uncertain. All biblical references except one mention Shealtiel as his father (Ezr 3:2, 8; 5:2; Neh 12:1; Hg 1:1, 12-14; 2:2, 23; Mt 1:12-13; Lk 3:27). This would make Zerubbabel the grandson of the Davidic king Jehoiachin. However, 1 Chronicles 3:19 identifies Pedaiah, the brother of Shealtiel, as Zerubbabel’s father.<\/p>\nTwo solutions have been proposed. Many scholars have assumed that Shealtiel died before fathering an heir. His brother, Pedaiah, would then have fathered Zerubbabel by Shealtiel’s widow. Hence, Zerubbabel would have retained the name of Shealtiel rather than Pedaiah in accordance with the law of levirate marriage (Dt 25:5-10). This solution is weakened by its lack of textual support; similarly, the Chronicler would hardly have failed to state such an important piece of information if he had been desirous of “correcting” an error pertaining to Zerubbabel’s parentage.<\/p>\nA simpler solution is obtained by reading the Septuagint text of 1 Chronicles 3:19, which lists Salathiel (Shealtiel) as the father of Zerubbabel. In this way, the single reference to 1 Chronicles may be harmonized with the other verses cited above.<\/p>\nIn either case, whether Shealtiel or Pedaiah was Zerubbabel’s biological father, it is clear that Zerubbabel was of Davidic lineage and was viewed by members of the Israelite community as a viable candidate for leading them back to a position of power.<\/p>\nFollowing the edict of Cyrus in 538 BC<\/span>, Jews were permitted to return to Palestine and reclaim their former homeland. Zerubbabel was appointed governor, and probably by the decade of 529–520 had started work on the reconstruction of the Jerusalem temple. However, because of several discouraging events, little was accomplished until the year 520 BC<\/span>.<\/p>\nThe writings of Haggai and Zechariah reveal much information about Zerubbabel’s standing in the community. These two prophets evidently viewed Jeshua and Zerubbabel as the two men chosen by God for the task. Accordingly, in many of their oracles, support for one or both men is openly stated (e.g., Hg 2:21-23; Zec 3:8; 4:6-7; 6:12). The prophets viewed Jeshua and Zerubbabel’s work as being messianic. This is most clearly seen in the vision of Zechariah (Zec 4:11-14). In the vision, two olive branches, one on either side of the lampstand, are identified as “the two anointed who stand by the Lord of the whole earth.” As the context clearly shows, none other than Jeshua (or Joshua; named in 3:1-9) and Zerubbabel (named in 4:6-10) are meant. Because of his association with the rebuilding of the temple in Jerusalem, Zerubbabel had been accorded a place of great honor in Jewish tradition.<\/p>\nSome hold that Zerubbabel was known to the Persians as Sheshbazzar. See<\/em> Sheshbazzar.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>ZERUBBABEL<\/h3>\nBabylonian-born Jew who returned to Palestine in 538 BC<\/span> to serve as governor of Jerusalem under Persian rule. The name presumably means “seed [offspring] of Babylon,” referring to someone born in Babylon.<\/p>\nThe exact identity of Zerubbabel’s biological father is uncertain. All biblical references except one mention Shealtiel as his father (Ezr 3:2, 8; 5:2; Neh 12:1; Hg 1:1, 12-14; 2:2, 23; Mt 1:12-13; Lk 3:27). This would make Zerubbabel the grandson of the Davidic king Jehoiachin. However, 1 Chronicles 3:19 identifies Pedaiah, the brother of Shealtiel, as Zerubbabel’s father.<\/p>\nTwo solutions have been proposed. Many scholars have assumed that Shealtiel died before fathering an heir. His brother, Pedaiah, would then have fathered Zerubbabel by Shealtiel’s widow. Hence, Zerubbabel would have retained the name of Shealtiel rather than Pedaiah in accordance with the law of levirate marriage (Dt 25:5-10). This solution is weakened by its lack of textual support; similarly, the Chronicler would hardly have failed to state such an important piece of information if he had been desirous of “correcting” an error pertaining to Zerubbabel’s parentage.<\/p>\nA simpler solution is obtained by reading the Septuagint text of 1 Chronicles 3:19, which lists Salathiel (Shealtiel) as the father of Zerubbabel. In this way, the single reference to 1 Chronicles may be harmonized with the other verses cited above.<\/p>\nIn either case, whether Shealtiel or Pedaiah was Zerubbabel’s biological father, it is clear that Zerubbabel was of Davidic lineage and was viewed by members of the Israelite community as a viable candidate for leading them back to a position of power.<\/p>\nFollowing the edict of Cyrus in 538 BC<\/span>, Jews were permitted to return to Palestine and reclaim their former homeland. Zerubbabel was appointed governor, and probably by the decade of 529–520 had started work on the reconstruction of the Jerusalem temple. However, because of several discouraging events, little was accomplished until the year 520 BC<\/span>.<\/p>\nThe writings of Haggai and Zechariah reveal much information about Zerubbabel’s standing in the community. These two prophets evidently viewed Jeshua and Zerubbabel as the two men chosen by God for the task. Accordingly, in many of their oracles, support for one or both men is openly stated (e.g., Hg 2:21-23; Zec 3:8; 4:6-7; 6:12). The prophets viewed Jeshua and Zerubbabel’s work as being messianic. This is most clearly seen in the vision of Zechariah (Zec 4:11-14). In the vision, two olive branches, one on either side of the lampstand, are identified as “the two anointed who stand by the Lord of the whole earth.” As the context clearly shows, none other than Jeshua (or Joshua; named in 3:1-9) and Zerubbabel (named in 4:6-10) are meant. Because of his association with the rebuilding of the temple in Jerusalem, Zerubbabel had been accorded a place of great honor in Jewish tradition.<\/p>\nSome hold that Zerubbabel was known to the Persians as Sheshbazzar. See<\/em> Sheshbazzar.<\/p>","summary_ro":"ZERUBBABEL Babylonian-born Jew who returned to Palestine in 538 BC to serve as governor of Jerusalem under Persian rule. The name presumably means “seed [offspring] of Babylon,” referring to someone born in Babylon. The exact identity of Zerubbabel’s biological father is uncertain. All biblical references except one mention Shealtiel as his father (Ezr 3:2, 8; 5:2; Neh 12:1; Hg 1:1, 12-14; 2:2, 23; Mt 1:12-13; Lk 3:27). This would make Zerubbabel the grandson of the Davidic king Jehoiachin. H...","summary_en":"ZERUBBABEL Babylonian-born Jew who returned to Palestine in 538 BC to serve as governor of Jerusalem under Persian rule. The name presumably means “seed [offspring] of Babylon,” referring to someone born in Babylon. The exact identity of Zerubbabel’s biological father is uncertain. All biblical references except one mention Shealtiel as his father (Ezr 3:2, 8; 5:2; Neh 12:1; Hg 1:1, 12-14; 2:2, 23; Mt 1:12-13; Lk 3:27). This would make Zerubbabel the grandson of the Davidic king Jehoiachin. H...","source":"Articles\/Z.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":48034,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ezra 5:2","title_en":"Study Note: Ezra 5:2","content_ro":"5:2<\/strong> The Jewish leaders had not led by faith (see Hag 1:1, 12). Now God’s Spirit stirred them up (Hag 1:14), and they obeyed by getting to work. • Zerubbabel<\/em> and Jeshua<\/em> figure prominently in the books of Haggai and Zechariah.<\/p>","content_en":"5:2<\/strong> The Jewish leaders had not led by faith (see Hag 1:1, 12). Now God’s Spirit stirred them up (Hag 1:14), and they obeyed by getting to work. • Zerubbabel<\/em> and Jeshua<\/em> figure prominently in the books of Haggai and Zechariah.<\/p>","summary_ro":"5:2 The Jewish leaders had not led by faith (see Hag 1:1, 12). Now God’s Spirit stirred them up (Hag 1:14), and they obeyed by getting to work. • Zerubbabel and Jeshua figure prominently in the books of Haggai and Zechariah.","summary_en":"5:2 The Jewish leaders had not led by faith (see Hag 1:1, 12). Now God’s Spirit stirred them up (Hag 1:14), and they obeyed by getting to work. • Zerubbabel and Jeshua figure prominently in the books of Haggai and Zechariah.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":75660,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ezra 5:2","title_en":"Study Note: Ezra 5:2","content_ro":"5:2<\/strong> The Jewish leaders had not led by faith (see Hag 1:1, 12). Now God’s Spirit stirred them up (Hag 1:14), and they obeyed by getting to work. • Zerubbabel<\/em> and Jeshua<\/em> figure prominently in the books of Haggai and Zechariah.<\/p>","content_en":"5:2<\/strong> The Jewish leaders had not led by faith (see Hag 1:1, 12). Now God’s Spirit stirred them up (Hag 1:14), and they obeyed by getting to work. • Zerubbabel<\/em> and Jeshua<\/em> figure prominently in the books of Haggai and Zechariah.<\/p>","summary_ro":"5:2 The Jewish leaders had not led by faith (see Hag 1:1, 12). Now God’s Spirit stirred them up (Hag 1:14), and they obeyed by getting to work. • Zerubbabel and Jeshua figure prominently in the books of Haggai and Zechariah.","summary_en":"5:2 The Jewish leaders had not led by faith (see Hag 1:1, 12). Now God’s Spirit stirred them up (Hag 1:14), and they obeyed by getting to work. • Zerubbabel and Jeshua figure prominently in the books of Haggai and Zechariah.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":103286,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ezra 5:2","title_en":"Study Note: Ezra 5:2","content_ro":"5:2<\/strong> The Jewish leaders had not led by faith (see Hag 1:1, 12). Now God’s Spirit stirred them up (Hag 1:14), and they obeyed by getting to work. • Zerubbabel<\/em> and Jeshua<\/em> figure prominently in the books of Haggai and Zechariah.<\/p>","content_en":"5:2<\/strong> The Jewish leaders had not led by faith (see Hag 1:1, 12). Now God’s Spirit stirred them up (Hag 1:14), and they obeyed by getting to work. • Zerubbabel<\/em> and Jeshua<\/em> figure prominently in the books of Haggai and Zechariah.<\/p>","summary_ro":"5:2 The Jewish leaders had not led by faith (see Hag 1:1, 12). Now God’s Spirit stirred them up (Hag 1:14), and they obeyed by getting to work. • Zerubbabel and Jeshua figure prominently in the books of Haggai and Zechariah.","summary_en":"5:2 The Jewish leaders had not led by faith (see Hag 1:1, 12). Now God’s Spirit stirred them up (Hag 1:14), and they obeyed by getting to work. • Zerubbabel and Jeshua figure prominently in the books of Haggai and Zechariah.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":130912,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ezra 5:2","title_en":"Study Note: Ezra 5:2","content_ro":"5:2<\/strong> The Jewish leaders had not led by faith (see Hag 1:1, 12). Now God’s Spirit stirred them up (Hag 1:14), and they obeyed by getting to work. • Zerubbabel<\/em> and Jeshua<\/em> figure prominently in the books of Haggai and Zechariah.<\/p>","content_en":"5:2<\/strong> The Jewish leaders had not led by faith (see Hag 1:1, 12). Now God’s Spirit stirred them up (Hag 1:14), and they obeyed by getting to work. • Zerubbabel<\/em> and Jeshua<\/em> figure prominently in the books of Haggai and Zechariah.<\/p>","summary_ro":"5:2 The Jewish leaders had not led by faith (see Hag 1:1, 12). Now God’s Spirit stirred them up (Hag 1:14), and they obeyed by getting to work. • Zerubbabel and Jeshua figure prominently in the books of Haggai and Zechariah.","summary_en":"5:2 The Jewish leaders had not led by faith (see Hag 1:1, 12). Now God’s Spirit stirred them up (Hag 1:14), and they obeyed by getting to work. • Zerubbabel and Jeshua figure prominently in the books of Haggai and Zechariah.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"3":[{"id":15022,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Book of Haggai","title_en":"Book of Haggai","content_ro":"<h3>HAGGAI, Book of<\/h3>\nTenth of the 12 short prophetic books at the end of the OT.<\/p>\nPreview<\/p>\n• Author and Date<\/p>\n• Purpose<\/p>\n• Teaching<\/p>\n• Content<\/p>\nAuthor and Date<\/p>\nHaggai was among the Jewish colonists at Jerusalem in the year 520 BC<\/span> when his prophetic words were recorded (Ezr 5:1-2; 6:14). The four messages the Lord gave to Haggai were to be directed to specific individuals. The first was to Zerubbabel the governor and Joshua the high priest (Hg 1:1). The second was to Zerubbabel, Joshua, and the remnant of the people (2:2). The third was a word to the priests (v 11). The final message was limited to Zerubbabel (v 21).<\/p>\nPurpose<\/p>\nThe key phrase of Haggai’s prophecies is “Consider your ways” or “Consider” (1:5, 7; 2:15, 18). The purpose of God’s messages to the Judean leadership and people, therefore, was to awaken them to their spiritual responsibilities. Two different classes of Judeans had to be turned from their indifference. The true believers needed to be reminded that God was merciful. The situation could be remedied, even though they thought the sins committed by their fathers were unforgivable. The hypocrites among the Judeans had only sought the promised blessings. They had only exchanged one form of idolatry for another. When the blessings did not materialize, they were disappointed.<\/p>\nThe unifying message was that today gives no key to what God will do tomorrow. God’s fulfillment of his promises cannot be judged by appearances. Haggai’s message was twofold: reproof and encouragement. The colonists needed to be chastised for their indifference and consoled in the midst of their troubles.<\/p>\nTeaching<\/p>\nHaggai is a practical book, dealing with the believer’s service to God. Procrastination and indifference have been debilitating sins among God’s people throughout all ages. Concern and a sense of urgency are always pleasing to God (Rom 13:11-14).<\/p>\nThe presence of God is the primary motivation for boldness and the means of banishing discouragement (Mt 28:19-20; Eph 3:8-21; Heb 13:5-6).<\/p>\nSeparation from contaminating influences and sin is demanded of all believers (2 Cor 6:14–7:1). Without this quality of life, the believer cannot expect to be found fit for God’s service (2 Tm 2:19-26). The disobedient child of God can expect removal of blessing and chastisement from God (Heb 12:3-13; Jas 4:1-3).<\/p>\nThe message concerning God’s judgment of sin and the establishment of the messianic kingdom is a message of hope to the NT believer as well as the Jews of Haggai’s day (Rom 15:4-13; 2 Pt 3:10-18).<\/p>\nThe key phrase of Haggai (“consider your ways”) has echoes in 1 Corinthians 11:28 and 2 Corinthians 13:5, as do his writings about the effects of sin and the blessings of God (Jude 1:1-25).<\/p>\nThe God of Haggai is given the title “Lord of hosts” (“Lord<\/span> Almighty”) 14 times in the book. This title is characteristic of the postexilic prophetic books, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, where it is found more than 80 times. It teaches that God is all-powerful and is Master of all spirit beings in heaven and all created beings on the earth.<\/p>\nHaggai also testifies to the God-breathed quality of the Word of God and its divine authority. Over and over the prophet announces ways that God has spoken to him and is the author of these messages (at least 25 times in the space of 28 verses).<\/p>\nContent<\/p>\n<h5>First Message<\/h5>\nThe first message Haggai was to deliver to the Judeans was given to him “on the first day of the month” (Hg 1:1). Upon the first day of each month, the Jews were to bring special offerings to the sanctuary (Nm 28:11-15). God chose this special time to reveal the sin of the people with regard to the unfinished sanctuary.<\/p>\nThe leaders of the Judeans were singled out for the first message from the Lord (Hg 1:1). Zerubbabel was the civil leader or governor, and Joshua was the spiritual leader or high priest. Together, they were responsible for the activity (or inactivity) of God’s people.<\/p>\nThe word of the Lord revealed the procrastination of the people (1:2). God’s temple had not been completed because his people had determined for themselves that “the time is not come.” The energies and finances of God’s people had been channeled selfishly into their own homes (v 4).<\/p>\n“Now” (1:5, rsv<\/span>) focused the attention of the Jews upon the present requirement of God in the light of their sinful indifference. They were to give attention to their own condition spiritually and materially: “Consider how you have fared.” This key phrase of Haggai’s prophecies is literally “Set your heart on your ways” or “Lay your ways to your heart.” Self-examination would reveal that their procrastination had robbed them of more than just 16 years.<\/p>\nVerse 6 reveals the poverty in which the Jews were living as a result of God’s chastisement for their sin. The blessings of God had been withdrawn in accord with his covenant (see Dt 28:15–29:1).<\/p>\nFollowing another exhortation to “consider” their ways (Hg 1:7), the Lord revealed the remedy for the Jews’ cursed condition: “rebuild my house” (v 8). The disobedience with regard to the completion of the temple was the reason for their poverty (vv 9-11).<\/p>\nThe response of the leaders and the people was encouraging. The resumption of the construction of the temple was a definite manifestation of belief in the word of God (1:12). Immediate obedience also testified to the acceptance of the ministry of Haggai, who was “the Lord<\/span>’s messenger” delivering “the Lord<\/span>’s message” (v 13).<\/p>\n<h5>Second Message<\/h5>\nApproximately one month later Haggai was summoned again by the Lord (2:1). The second message continued the note of encouragement with which the first message closed. Perhaps the builders had begun to feel the pressures of their service. Perhaps the old doubts and discouragements had plagued their faith again. The adversaries had reappeared to hinder them (Ezr 5:3–6:12). Haggai’s second message was similar to Ezra’s claim that “the eye of their God was upon the elders of the Jews” (Ezr 5:5, rsv<\/span>). The Lord not only sees his servants’ needs but also sends relief and encouragement.<\/p>\nThe day of this second message was the last day of the Feast of Tabernacles (Lv 23:33-43). Perhaps this reminder of God’s glorious presence with their ancestors in the wilderness made their present situation all the more discouraging. Therefore, the Lord spoke to all the people rather than just to their leaders (Hg 2:2). Was there any survivor of the preexilic days who had personally beheld the glory of God as it resided in the Solomonic temple (cf. 1 Kgs 8:1-11; Ez 9:1–11:23)? Was the present temple “as nothing” in comparison (Hg 2:3)? The Babylonian Talmud listed five things that were absent in the new temple that had been present in the Solomonic temple: (1) the ark of the covenant, (2) the sacred fire, (3) the shekinah glory, (4) the Holy Spirit, and (5) the Urim and Thummim.<\/p>\nAgain, “now” calls attention to God’s remedy. Three times the command “take courage” is proclaimed (2:4). Each time the command is given, one of the recipients of God’s message is addressed (cf. v 2). The concluding command was “work.” The reason for the strength and the activity was God’s presence. The Holy Spirit might seem to be absent from the temple, but he would remain among the people “according to the word” of God (v 5).<\/p>\nTo encourage the workers further, God revealed the future glory of his house (2:6-9). That glory would come to pass after a time of judgment (vv 6-7a), when the treasures of all nations come in (v 7b). The exact meaning of this verse has been variously interpreted. The views center around two different translations: “the desire of all nations shall come” (kjv<\/span>) and “and the treasures of all the nations will come to this Temple” (nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\nThe arguments for the messianic interpretation based on the first translation may be summarized as follows: (1) The vast majority of both Christian and Jewish interpreters took this phrase as a reference to the Messiah. (2) The abstract noun “desire” may have the concrete concept of the one who is desirable. (3) Though the verb in the Hebrew is plural, it is grammatically possible for the agreement of subject and predicate to be based upon the second noun (“nations”) in a genitive relationship. (4) The time element is suitable since God has just judged the nations and the hour of Christ’s coming would be at hand. (5) An alternate translation is available that meets the grammatical difficulties but retains the messianic import: “They [the nations] have come to the desire of all the nations.”<\/p>\nIn spite of the weight of the arguments for this first view, it seems better to accept the second translation and corresponding view. The arguments are as follows: (1) The vast majority of early Christian and Jewish interpreters base their view on the Latin Vulgate translation (c. AD<\/span> 400), while the second translation is in agreement with an older version, the Greek Septuagint (c. 300 BC<\/span>). (2) The singular “desire” may be taken as a collective noun referring to “features” or “wealth.” (3) The principle of Hebrew grammar that allows the noun “nations” to be the one with which the verb agrees is a rare occurrence in poetic books for such constructions as this. It is unlikely that such phraseology would be used without Haggai’s declaring the exact meaning in the immediate context. (4) The immediate context does solve the difficulty by the plain declaration that the silver and the gold belong to the Lord (2:8). (5) The kingdom context of these verses accords well with such parallel passages as Isaiah 60:5, 11 and Revelation 21:24.<\/p>\nThe conclusion to this message of encouragement is that the future glory of the temple (cf. Hg 2:3) will be greater than in the days of the Solomonic temple (v 9), because the shekinah glory will return (Hg 2:7; Ez 43:1-5) and the building will have great beauty (cf. Hg 2:8; Is 60:13, 17). God will also grant peace (Hg 2:9) in his kingdom at the time of this future glorious temple (see Is 9:6-7; 66:12; Zec 6:13).<\/p>\n<h5>Third Message<\/h5>\nAbout two months later Haggai received a third message from God (Hg 2:10). This time exhortation would be the theme, and the message was directed to the priests alone (v 11). Haggai used questions concerning the law of Moses to instruct the priests in the polluting character of sin. Something clean or holy cannot transfer its sanctity to something else (v 12). But that which is unholy can<\/em> transfer its<\/em> character to something clean, defiling it (Hg 2:13; cf. Lv 22:4-6; Nm 19:11).<\/p>\nThe application of this principle to the Judeans was clear: the offerings they brought during their years of disobedience were unacceptable to God because of Judah’s uncleanness (Hg 2:14).<\/p>\nBy reviving the memory of past disobedience and chastisement, God was exhorting the Jews to constantly “consider” (2:15, 18) the consequences of disobedience. Such consideration should prevent future spiritual indifference. The conclusion of the message was a reminder of the blessing of God upon the obedient (v 19).<\/p>\n<h5>Fourth Message<\/h5>\nOn the same day Haggai received another message from God (2:20). This message was to be directed toward Zerubbabel (v 21), who was to be encouraged by the permanency of his inherited Davidic office (cf. Hg 1:1; 2 Sm 7:4-17; 1 Chr 3:1, 5, 10, 17-20). The gentile nations would be judged and the kingdoms of the world overthrown (Hg 2:6-7, 21-22). This would be but the preparation for God’s rule (cf. Rv 11:15-18).<\/p>\nThe promise to Zerubbabel in Haggai 2:23 was God’s means of confirming that his promises to David were still operative even after the 70-year Babylonian captivity and the 16-year stagnation among the Judeans who had returned to Jerusalem. Zerubbabel was appointed “as a signet ring” by God. A signet was a personal cylinder or ring seal and a sign of the authenticity of their signature. Kings used them for identifying their decrees (Est 3:10; 8:8-10) and for confirming the authority of their deputies (Gn 41:42). God’s appointment of Zerubbabel “as a signet ring,” therefore, meant that Zerubbabel would be God’s seal of authority on the continuation of the Davidic line from which the Messiah should come and reign (cf. Mt 1:12; Lk 3:27).<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Haggai (Person); Israel, History of; Postexilic Period; Prophecy; Prophet, Prophetess.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>HAGGAI, Book of<\/h3>\nTenth of the 12 short prophetic books at the end of the OT.<\/p>\nPreview<\/p>\n• Author and Date<\/p>\n• Purpose<\/p>\n• Teaching<\/p>\n• Content<\/p>\nAuthor and Date<\/p>\nHaggai was among the Jewish colonists at Jerusalem in the year 520 BC<\/span> when his prophetic words were recorded (Ezr 5:1-2; 6:14). The four messages the Lord gave to Haggai were to be directed to specific individuals. The first was to Zerubbabel the governor and Joshua the high priest (Hg 1:1). The second was to Zerubbabel, Joshua, and the remnant of the people (2:2). The third was a word to the priests (v 11). The final message was limited to Zerubbabel (v 21).<\/p>\nPurpose<\/p>\nThe key phrase of Haggai’s prophecies is “Consider your ways” or “Consider” (1:5, 7; 2:15, 18). The purpose of God’s messages to the Judean leadership and people, therefore, was to awaken them to their spiritual responsibilities. Two different classes of Judeans had to be turned from their indifference. The true believers needed to be reminded that God was merciful. The situation could be remedied, even though they thought the sins committed by their fathers were unforgivable. The hypocrites among the Judeans had only sought the promised blessings. They had only exchanged one form of idolatry for another. When the blessings did not materialize, they were disappointed.<\/p>\nThe unifying message was that today gives no key to what God will do tomorrow. God’s fulfillment of his promises cannot be judged by appearances. Haggai’s message was twofold: reproof and encouragement. The colonists needed to be chastised for their indifference and consoled in the midst of their troubles.<\/p>\nTeaching<\/p>\nHaggai is a practical book, dealing with the believer’s service to God. Procrastination and indifference have been debilitating sins among God’s people throughout all ages. Concern and a sense of urgency are always pleasing to God (Rom 13:11-14).<\/p>\nThe presence of God is the primary motivation for boldness and the means of banishing discouragement (Mt 28:19-20; Eph 3:8-21; Heb 13:5-6).<\/p>\nSeparation from contaminating influences and sin is demanded of all believers (2 Cor 6:14–7:1). Without this quality of life, the believer cannot expect to be found fit for God’s service (2 Tm 2:19-26). The disobedient child of God can expect removal of blessing and chastisement from God (Heb 12:3-13; Jas 4:1-3).<\/p>\nThe message concerning God’s judgment of sin and the establishment of the messianic kingdom is a message of hope to the NT believer as well as the Jews of Haggai’s day (Rom 15:4-13; 2 Pt 3:10-18).<\/p>\nThe key phrase of Haggai (“consider your ways”) has echoes in 1 Corinthians 11:28 and 2 Corinthians 13:5, as do his writings about the effects of sin and the blessings of God (Jude 1:1-25).<\/p>\nThe God of Haggai is given the title “Lord of hosts” (“Lord<\/span> Almighty”) 14 times in the book. This title is characteristic of the postexilic prophetic books, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, where it is found more than 80 times. It teaches that God is all-powerful and is Master of all spirit beings in heaven and all created beings on the earth.<\/p>\nHaggai also testifies to the God-breathed quality of the Word of God and its divine authority. Over and over the prophet announces ways that God has spoken to him and is the author of these messages (at least 25 times in the space of 28 verses).<\/p>\nContent<\/p>\n<h5>First Message<\/h5>\nThe first message Haggai was to deliver to the Judeans was given to him “on the first day of the month” (Hg 1:1). Upon the first day of each month, the Jews were to bring special offerings to the sanctuary (Nm 28:11-15). God chose this special time to reveal the sin of the people with regard to the unfinished sanctuary.<\/p>\nThe leaders of the Judeans were singled out for the first message from the Lord (Hg 1:1). Zerubbabel was the civil leader or governor, and Joshua was the spiritual leader or high priest. Together, they were responsible for the activity (or inactivity) of God’s people.<\/p>\nThe word of the Lord revealed the procrastination of the people (1:2). God’s temple had not been completed because his people had determined for themselves that “the time is not come.” The energies and finances of God’s people had been channeled selfishly into their own homes (v 4).<\/p>\n“Now” (1:5, rsv<\/span>) focused the attention of the Jews upon the present requirement of God in the light of their sinful indifference. They were to give attention to their own condition spiritually and materially: “Consider how you have fared.” This key phrase of Haggai’s prophecies is literally “Set your heart on your ways” or “Lay your ways to your heart.” Self-examination would reveal that their procrastination had robbed them of more than just 16 years.<\/p>\nVerse 6 reveals the poverty in which the Jews were living as a result of God’s chastisement for their sin. The blessings of God had been withdrawn in accord with his covenant (see Dt 28:15–29:1).<\/p>\nFollowing another exhortation to “consider” their ways (Hg 1:7), the Lord revealed the remedy for the Jews’ cursed condition: “rebuild my house” (v 8). The disobedience with regard to the completion of the temple was the reason for their poverty (vv 9-11).<\/p>\nThe response of the leaders and the people was encouraging. The resumption of the construction of the temple was a definite manifestation of belief in the word of God (1:12). Immediate obedience also testified to the acceptance of the ministry of Haggai, who was “the Lord<\/span>’s messenger” delivering “the Lord<\/span>’s message” (v 13).<\/p>\n<h5>Second Message<\/h5>\nApproximately one month later Haggai was summoned again by the Lord (2:1). The second message continued the note of encouragement with which the first message closed. Perhaps the builders had begun to feel the pressures of their service. Perhaps the old doubts and discouragements had plagued their faith again. The adversaries had reappeared to hinder them (Ezr 5:3–6:12). Haggai’s second message was similar to Ezra’s claim that “the eye of their God was upon the elders of the Jews” (Ezr 5:5, rsv<\/span>). The Lord not only sees his servants’ needs but also sends relief and encouragement.<\/p>\nThe day of this second message was the last day of the Feast of Tabernacles (Lv 23:33-43). Perhaps this reminder of God’s glorious presence with their ancestors in the wilderness made their present situation all the more discouraging. Therefore, the Lord spoke to all the people rather than just to their leaders (Hg 2:2). Was there any survivor of the preexilic days who had personally beheld the glory of God as it resided in the Solomonic temple (cf. 1 Kgs 8:1-11; Ez 9:1–11:23)? Was the present temple “as nothing” in comparison (Hg 2:3)? The Babylonian Talmud listed five things that were absent in the new temple that had been present in the Solomonic temple: (1) the ark of the covenant, (2) the sacred fire, (3) the shekinah glory, (4) the Holy Spirit, and (5) the Urim and Thummim.<\/p>\nAgain, “now” calls attention to God’s remedy. Three times the command “take courage” is proclaimed (2:4). Each time the command is given, one of the recipients of God’s message is addressed (cf. v 2). The concluding command was “work.” The reason for the strength and the activity was God’s presence. The Holy Spirit might seem to be absent from the temple, but he would remain among the people “according to the word” of God (v 5).<\/p>\nTo encourage the workers further, God revealed the future glory of his house (2:6-9). That glory would come to pass after a time of judgment (vv 6-7a), when the treasures of all nations come in (v 7b). The exact meaning of this verse has been variously interpreted. The views center around two different translations: “the desire of all nations shall come” (kjv<\/span>) and “and the treasures of all the nations will come to this Temple” (nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\nThe arguments for the messianic interpretation based on the first translation may be summarized as follows: (1) The vast majority of both Christian and Jewish interpreters took this phrase as a reference to the Messiah. (2) The abstract noun “desire” may have the concrete concept of the one who is desirable. (3) Though the verb in the Hebrew is plural, it is grammatically possible for the agreement of subject and predicate to be based upon the second noun (“nations”) in a genitive relationship. (4) The time element is suitable since God has just judged the nations and the hour of Christ’s coming would be at hand. (5) An alternate translation is available that meets the grammatical difficulties but retains the messianic import: “They [the nations] have come to the desire of all the nations.”<\/p>\nIn spite of the weight of the arguments for this first view, it seems better to accept the second translation and corresponding view. The arguments are as follows: (1) The vast majority of early Christian and Jewish interpreters base their view on the Latin Vulgate translation (c. AD<\/span> 400), while the second translation is in agreement with an older version, the Greek Septuagint (c. 300 BC<\/span>). (2) The singular “desire” may be taken as a collective noun referring to “features” or “wealth.” (3) The principle of Hebrew grammar that allows the noun “nations” to be the one with which the verb agrees is a rare occurrence in poetic books for such constructions as this. It is unlikely that such phraseology would be used without Haggai’s declaring the exact meaning in the immediate context. (4) The immediate context does solve the difficulty by the plain declaration that the silver and the gold belong to the Lord (2:8). (5) The kingdom context of these verses accords well with such parallel passages as Isaiah 60:5, 11 and Revelation 21:24.<\/p>\nThe conclusion to this message of encouragement is that the future glory of the temple (cf. Hg 2:3) will be greater than in the days of the Solomonic temple (v 9), because the shekinah glory will return (Hg 2:7; Ez 43:1-5) and the building will have great beauty (cf. Hg 2:8; Is 60:13, 17). God will also grant peace (Hg 2:9) in his kingdom at the time of this future glorious temple (see Is 9:6-7; 66:12; Zec 6:13).<\/p>\n<h5>Third Message<\/h5>\nAbout two months later Haggai received a third message from God (Hg 2:10). This time exhortation would be the theme, and the message was directed to the priests alone (v 11). Haggai used questions concerning the law of Moses to instruct the priests in the polluting character of sin. Something clean or holy cannot transfer its sanctity to something else (v 12). But that which is unholy can<\/em> transfer its<\/em> character to something clean, defiling it (Hg 2:13; cf. Lv 22:4-6; Nm 19:11).<\/p>\nThe application of this principle to the Judeans was clear: the offerings they brought during their years of disobedience were unacceptable to God because of Judah’s uncleanness (Hg 2:14).<\/p>\nBy reviving the memory of past disobedience and chastisement, God was exhorting the Jews to constantly “consider” (2:15, 18) the consequences of disobedience. Such consideration should prevent future spiritual indifference. The conclusion of the message was a reminder of the blessing of God upon the obedient (v 19).<\/p>\n<h5>Fourth Message<\/h5>\nOn the same day Haggai received another message from God (2:20). This message was to be directed toward Zerubbabel (v 21), who was to be encouraged by the permanency of his inherited Davidic office (cf. Hg 1:1; 2 Sm 7:4-17; 1 Chr 3:1, 5, 10, 17-20). The gentile nations would be judged and the kingdoms of the world overthrown (Hg 2:6-7, 21-22). This would be but the preparation for God’s rule (cf. Rv 11:15-18).<\/p>\nThe promise to Zerubbabel in Haggai 2:23 was God’s means of confirming that his promises to David were still operative even after the 70-year Babylonian captivity and the 16-year stagnation among the Judeans who had returned to Jerusalem. Zerubbabel was appointed “as a signet ring” by God. A signet was a personal cylinder or ring seal and a sign of the authenticity of their signature. Kings used them for identifying their decrees (Est 3:10; 8:8-10) and for confirming the authority of their deputies (Gn 41:42). God’s appointment of Zerubbabel “as a signet ring,” therefore, meant that Zerubbabel would be God’s seal of authority on the continuation of the Davidic line from which the Messiah should come and reign (cf. Mt 1:12; Lk 3:27).<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Haggai (Person); Israel, History of; Postexilic Period; Prophecy; Prophet, Prophetess.<\/p>","summary_ro":"HAGGAI, Book of Tenth of the 12 short prophetic books at the end of the OT. Preview • Author and Date • Purpose • Teaching • Content Author and Date Haggai was among the Jewish colonists at Jerusalem in the year 520 BC when his prophetic words were recorded (Ezr 5:1-2; 6:14). The four messages the Lord gave to Haggai were to be directed to specific individuals. The first was to Zerubbabel the governor and Joshua the high priest (Hg 1:1). The second was to Zerubbabel, Joshua, and the remnant o...","summary_en":"HAGGAI, Book of Tenth of the 12 short prophetic books at the end of the OT. Preview • Author and Date • Purpose • Teaching • Content Author and Date Haggai was among the Jewish colonists at Jerusalem in the year 520 BC when his prophetic words were recorded (Ezr 5:1-2; 6:14). The four messages the Lord gave to Haggai were to be directed to specific individuals. The first was to Zerubbabel the governor and Joshua the high priest (Hg 1:1). The second was to Zerubbabel, Joshua, and the remnant o...","source":"Articles\/H.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":35040,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Shethar-Boznai* Shethar-Bozenai","title_en":"Shethar-Boznai* Shethar-Bozenai","content_ro":"<h3>SHETHAR-BOZENAI, SHETHAR-BOZNAI*<\/h3>\nPersian official in a province west of the Euphrates River, who joined with Tattenai and his colleagues in writing a letter to Darius Hystaspeis, king of Persia, protesting the rebuilding of the temple and walls of Jerusalem under Zerubbabel (Ezr 5:3, 6). Darius warned them not to interfere with Zerubbabel’s work, and they obeyed him (Ezr 6:6, 13).<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>SHETHAR-BOZENAI, SHETHAR-BOZNAI*<\/h3>\nPersian official in a province west of the Euphrates River, who joined with Tattenai and his colleagues in writing a letter to Darius Hystaspeis, king of Persia, protesting the rebuilding of the temple and walls of Jerusalem under Zerubbabel (Ezr 5:3, 6). Darius warned them not to interfere with Zerubbabel’s work, and they obeyed him (Ezr 6:6, 13).<\/p>","summary_ro":"SHETHAR-BOZENAI, SHETHAR-BOZNAI* Persian official in a province west of the Euphrates River, who joined with Tattenai and his colleagues in writing a letter to Darius Hystaspeis, king of Persia, protesting the rebuilding of the temple and walls of Jerusalem under Zerubbabel (Ezr 5:3, 6). Darius warned them not to interfere with Zerubbabel’s work, and they obeyed him (Ezr 6:6, 13).","summary_en":"SHETHAR-BOZENAI, SHETHAR-BOZNAI* Persian official in a province west of the Euphrates River, who joined with Tattenai and his colleagues in writing a letter to Darius Hystaspeis, king of Persia, protesting the rebuilding of the temple and walls of Jerusalem under Zerubbabel (Ezr 5:3, 6). Darius warned them not to interfere with Zerubbabel’s work, and they obeyed him (Ezr 6:6, 13).","source":"Articles\/S.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":36795,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Tattenai","title_en":"Tattenai","content_ro":"<h3>TATTENAI<\/h3>\nPersian governor of a province west of the Euphrates River who opposed the rebuilding of the Jerusalem temple and walls under Zerubbabel during the postexilic period (Ezr 5:3, 6; 6:6, 13).<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>TATTENAI<\/h3>\nPersian governor of a province west of the Euphrates River who opposed the rebuilding of the Jerusalem temple and walls under Zerubbabel during the postexilic period (Ezr 5:3, 6; 6:6, 13).<\/p>","summary_ro":"TATTENAI Persian governor of a province west of the Euphrates River who opposed the rebuilding of the Jerusalem temple and walls under Zerubbabel during the postexilic period (Ezr 5:3, 6; 6:6, 13).","summary_en":"TATTENAI Persian governor of a province west of the Euphrates River who opposed the rebuilding of the Jerusalem temple and walls under Zerubbabel during the postexilic period (Ezr 5:3, 6; 6:6, 13).","source":"Articles\/T.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":48035,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ezra 5:3","title_en":"Study Note: Ezra 5:3","content_ro":"5:3<\/strong> Who gave you permission?<\/em> Unlike the hostile opposition recorded in ch 4, this seems to have been a routine inquiry to make sure that everything was done according to official requirements.<\/p>","content_en":"5:3<\/strong> Who gave you permission?<\/em> Unlike the hostile opposition recorded in ch 4, this seems to have been a routine inquiry to make sure that everything was done according to official requirements.<\/p>","summary_ro":"5:3 Who gave you permission? Unlike the hostile opposition recorded in ch 4, this seems to have been a routine inquiry to make sure that everything was done according to official requirements.","summary_en":"5:3 Who gave you permission? Unlike the hostile opposition recorded in ch 4, this seems to have been a routine inquiry to make sure that everything was done according to official requirements.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":75661,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ezra 5:3","title_en":"Study Note: Ezra 5:3","content_ro":"5:3<\/strong> Who gave you permission?<\/em> Unlike the hostile opposition recorded in ch 4, this seems to have been a routine inquiry to make sure that everything was done according to official requirements.<\/p>","content_en":"5:3<\/strong> Who gave you permission?<\/em> Unlike the hostile opposition recorded in ch 4, this seems to have been a routine inquiry to make sure that everything was done according to official requirements.<\/p>","summary_ro":"5:3 Who gave you permission? Unlike the hostile opposition recorded in ch 4, this seems to have been a routine inquiry to make sure that everything was done according to official requirements.","summary_en":"5:3 Who gave you permission? Unlike the hostile opposition recorded in ch 4, this seems to have been a routine inquiry to make sure that everything was done according to official requirements.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":103287,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ezra 5:3","title_en":"Study Note: Ezra 5:3","content_ro":"5:3<\/strong> Who gave you permission?<\/em> Unlike the hostile opposition recorded in ch 4, this seems to have been a routine inquiry to make sure that everything was done according to official requirements.<\/p>","content_en":"5:3<\/strong> Who gave you permission?<\/em> Unlike the hostile opposition recorded in ch 4, this seems to have been a routine inquiry to make sure that everything was done according to official requirements.<\/p>","summary_ro":"5:3 Who gave you permission? Unlike the hostile opposition recorded in ch 4, this seems to have been a routine inquiry to make sure that everything was done according to official requirements.","summary_en":"5:3 Who gave you permission? Unlike the hostile opposition recorded in ch 4, this seems to have been a routine inquiry to make sure that everything was done according to official requirements.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":130913,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ezra 5:3","title_en":"Study Note: Ezra 5:3","content_ro":"5:3<\/strong> Who gave you permission?<\/em> Unlike the hostile opposition recorded in ch 4, this seems to have been a routine inquiry to make sure that everything was done according to official requirements.<\/p>","content_en":"5:3<\/strong> Who gave you permission?<\/em> Unlike the hostile opposition recorded in ch 4, this seems to have been a routine inquiry to make sure that everything was done according to official requirements.<\/p>","summary_ro":"5:3 Who gave you permission? Unlike the hostile opposition recorded in ch 4, this seems to have been a routine inquiry to make sure that everything was done according to official requirements.","summary_en":"5:3 Who gave you permission? Unlike the hostile opposition recorded in ch 4, this seems to have been a routine inquiry to make sure that everything was done according to official requirements.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"5":[{"id":42205,"type":"profile","type_label":"Profil","type_icon":"👤","type_color":"#f59e0b","title_ro":"The Jewish High Council","title_en":"The Jewish High Council","content_ro":"<h3>The Jewish High Council<\/h3>\nThe high council of Jewish aristocrats in Jerusalem was endowed with considerable power in governing the Jewish people. It is traditionally called the Sanhedrin, a transliteration of the Greek word sunedrion<\/span> (“council”).<\/p>\nAccording to Jewish tradition, the Sanhedrin dates from Moses’ choice of seventy elders (Num 11:16), but the earliest datable reference is found in Josephus (Antiquities<\/em> 12.3.3) from the time of Antiochus the Great (223–187 BC<\/span>). The Sanhedrin probably emerged from a self-governing body of leaders under the Persians (see Ezra 5:5-10; Neh 2:16). The high council was controlled by the priestly class under the leadership of the high priest, though these priests were influenced to various degrees by Roman rulers and the Pharisees. Herod the Great exercised a particularly heavy hand over the affairs of the Sanhedrin.<\/p>\nThe Sanhedrin managed the internal legal and religious affairs of Judaism, including judicial decisions not resolved in lesser courts (called “local sanhedrins”), criminal justice and arrests (see Acts 9:1-2), and official (though unenforceable) decisions regarding Jewish matters. Though the Sanhedrin could not of its own accord put tried criminals to death (John 18:31), apparently it could do so with the support of Roman officials.<\/p>\nThe destruction of Jerusalem in AD<\/span> 70 eliminated the high council as the ruling body of Judaism.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nMatt 26:57-68; Mark 14:53-65; 15:1, 43; Luke 22:66-71; 23:50-54; John 11:47-53; Acts 5:21-41; 6:11–8:1; 22:30–23:10; 23:26-30<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>The Jewish High Council<\/h3>\nThe high council of Jewish aristocrats in Jerusalem was endowed with considerable power in governing the Jewish people. It is traditionally called the Sanhedrin, a transliteration of the Greek word sunedrion<\/span> (“council”).<\/p>\nAccording to Jewish tradition, the Sanhedrin dates from Moses’ choice of seventy elders (Num 11:16), but the earliest datable reference is found in Josephus (Antiquities<\/em> 12.3.3) from the time of Antiochus the Great (223–187 BC<\/span>). The Sanhedrin probably emerged from a self-governing body of leaders under the Persians (see Ezra 5:5-10; Neh 2:16). The high council was controlled by the priestly class under the leadership of the high priest, though these priests were influenced to various degrees by Roman rulers and the Pharisees. Herod the Great exercised a particularly heavy hand over the affairs of the Sanhedrin.<\/p>\nThe Sanhedrin managed the internal legal and religious affairs of Judaism, including judicial decisions not resolved in lesser courts (called “local sanhedrins”), criminal justice and arrests (see Acts 9:1-2), and official (though unenforceable) decisions regarding Jewish matters. Though the Sanhedrin could not of its own accord put tried criminals to death (John 18:31), apparently it could do so with the support of Roman officials.<\/p>\nThe destruction of Jerusalem in AD<\/span> 70 eliminated the high council as the ruling body of Judaism.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nMatt 26:57-68; Mark 14:53-65; 15:1, 43; Luke 22:66-71; 23:50-54; John 11:47-53; Acts 5:21-41; 6:11–8:1; 22:30–23:10; 23:26-30<\/p>","summary_ro":"The Jewish High Council The high council of Jewish aristocrats in Jerusalem was endowed with considerable power in governing the Jewish people. It is traditionally called the Sanhedrin, a transliteration of the Greek word sunedrion (“council”). According to Jewish tradition, the Sanhedrin dates from Moses’ choice of seventy elders (Num 11:16), but the earliest datable reference is found in Josephus (Antiquities 12.3.3) from the time of Antiochus the Great (223–187 BC). The Sanhedrin probably ...","summary_en":"The Jewish High Council The high council of Jewish aristocrats in Jerusalem was endowed with considerable power in governing the Jewish people. It is traditionally called the Sanhedrin, a transliteration of the Greek word sunedrion (“council”). According to Jewish tradition, the Sanhedrin dates from Moses’ choice of seventy elders (Num 11:16), but the earliest datable reference is found in Josephus (Antiquities 12.3.3) from the time of Antiochus the Great (223–187 BC). The Sanhedrin probably ...","source":"Profiles.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":69831,"type":"profile","type_label":"Profil","type_icon":"👤","type_color":"#f59e0b","title_ro":"The Jewish High Council","title_en":"The Jewish High Council","content_ro":"<h3>The Jewish High Council<\/h3>\nThe high council of Jewish aristocrats in Jerusalem was endowed with considerable power in governing the Jewish people. It is traditionally called the Sanhedrin, a transliteration of the Greek word sunedrion<\/span> (“council”).<\/p>\nAccording to Jewish tradition, the Sanhedrin dates from Moses’ choice of seventy elders (Num 11:16), but the earliest datable reference is found in Josephus (Antiquities<\/em> 12.3.3) from the time of Antiochus the Great (223–187 BC<\/span>). The Sanhedrin probably emerged from a self-governing body of leaders under the Persians (see Ezra 5:5-10; Neh 2:16). The high council was controlled by the priestly class under the leadership of the high priest, though these priests were influenced to various degrees by Roman rulers and the Pharisees. Herod the Great exercised a particularly heavy hand over the affairs of the Sanhedrin.<\/p>\nThe Sanhedrin managed the internal legal and religious affairs of Judaism, including judicial decisions not resolved in lesser courts (called “local sanhedrins”), criminal justice and arrests (see Acts 9:1-2), and official (though unenforceable) decisions regarding Jewish matters. Though the Sanhedrin could not of its own accord put tried criminals to death (John 18:31), apparently it could do so with the support of Roman officials.<\/p>\nThe destruction of Jerusalem in AD<\/span> 70 eliminated the high council as the ruling body of Judaism.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nMatt 26:57-68; Mark 14:53-65; 15:1, 43; Luke 22:66-71; 23:50-54; John 11:47-53; Acts 5:21-41; 6:11–8:1; 22:30–23:10; 23:26-30<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>The Jewish High Council<\/h3>\nThe high council of Jewish aristocrats in Jerusalem was endowed with considerable power in governing the Jewish people. It is traditionally called the Sanhedrin, a transliteration of the Greek word sunedrion<\/span> (“council”).<\/p>\nAccording to Jewish tradition, the Sanhedrin dates from Moses’ choice of seventy elders (Num 11:16), but the earliest datable reference is found in Josephus (Antiquities<\/em> 12.3.3) from the time of Antiochus the Great (223–187 BC<\/span>). The Sanhedrin probably emerged from a self-governing body of leaders under the Persians (see Ezra 5:5-10; Neh 2:16). The high council was controlled by the priestly class under the leadership of the high priest, though these priests were influenced to various degrees by Roman rulers and the Pharisees. Herod the Great exercised a particularly heavy hand over the affairs of the Sanhedrin.<\/p>\nThe Sanhedrin managed the internal legal and religious affairs of Judaism, including judicial decisions not resolved in lesser courts (called “local sanhedrins”), criminal justice and arrests (see Acts 9:1-2), and official (though unenforceable) decisions regarding Jewish matters. Though the Sanhedrin could not of its own accord put tried criminals to death (John 18:31), apparently it could do so with the support of Roman officials.<\/p>\nThe destruction of Jerusalem in AD<\/span> 70 eliminated the high council as the ruling body of Judaism.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nMatt 26:57-68; Mark 14:53-65; 15:1, 43; Luke 22:66-71; 23:50-54; John 11:47-53; Acts 5:21-41; 6:11–8:1; 22:30–23:10; 23:26-30<\/p>","summary_ro":"The Jewish High Council The high council of Jewish aristocrats in Jerusalem was endowed with considerable power in governing the Jewish people. It is traditionally called the Sanhedrin, a transliteration of the Greek word sunedrion (“council”). According to Jewish tradition, the Sanhedrin dates from Moses’ choice of seventy elders (Num 11:16), but the earliest datable reference is found in Josephus (Antiquities 12.3.3) from the time of Antiochus the Great (223–187 BC). The Sanhedrin probably ...","summary_en":"The Jewish High Council The high council of Jewish aristocrats in Jerusalem was endowed with considerable power in governing the Jewish people. It is traditionally called the Sanhedrin, a transliteration of the Greek word sunedrion (“council”). According to Jewish tradition, the Sanhedrin dates from Moses’ choice of seventy elders (Num 11:16), but the earliest datable reference is found in Josephus (Antiquities 12.3.3) from the time of Antiochus the Great (223–187 BC). The Sanhedrin probably ...","source":"Profiles.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":97457,"type":"profile","type_label":"Profil","type_icon":"👤","type_color":"#f59e0b","title_ro":"The Jewish High Council","title_en":"The Jewish High Council","content_ro":"<h3>The Jewish High Council<\/h3>\nThe high council of Jewish aristocrats in Jerusalem was endowed with considerable power in governing the Jewish people. It is traditionally called the Sanhedrin, a transliteration of the Greek word sunedrion<\/span> (“council”).<\/p>\nAccording to Jewish tradition, the Sanhedrin dates from Moses’ choice of seventy elders (Num 11:16), but the earliest datable reference is found in Josephus (Antiquities<\/em> 12.3.3) from the time of Antiochus the Great (223–187 BC<\/span>). The Sanhedrin probably emerged from a self-governing body of leaders under the Persians (see Ezra 5:5-10; Neh 2:16). The high council was controlled by the priestly class under the leadership of the high priest, though these priests were influenced to various degrees by Roman rulers and the Pharisees. Herod the Great exercised a particularly heavy hand over the affairs of the Sanhedrin.<\/p>\nThe Sanhedrin managed the internal legal and religious affairs of Judaism, including judicial decisions not resolved in lesser courts (called “local sanhedrins”), criminal justice and arrests (see Acts 9:1-2), and official (though unenforceable) decisions regarding Jewish matters. Though the Sanhedrin could not of its own accord put tried criminals to death (John 18:31), apparently it could do so with the support of Roman officials.<\/p>\nThe destruction of Jerusalem in AD<\/span> 70 eliminated the high council as the ruling body of Judaism.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nMatt 26:57-68; Mark 14:53-65; 15:1, 43; Luke 22:66-71; 23:50-54; John 11:47-53; Acts 5:21-41; 6:11–8:1; 22:30–23:10; 23:26-30<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>The Jewish High Council<\/h3>\nThe high council of Jewish aristocrats in Jerusalem was endowed with considerable power in governing the Jewish people. It is traditionally called the Sanhedrin, a transliteration of the Greek word sunedrion<\/span> (“council”).<\/p>\nAccording to Jewish tradition, the Sanhedrin dates from Moses’ choice of seventy elders (Num 11:16), but the earliest datable reference is found in Josephus (Antiquities<\/em> 12.3.3) from the time of Antiochus the Great (223–187 BC<\/span>). The Sanhedrin probably emerged from a self-governing body of leaders under the Persians (see Ezra 5:5-10; Neh 2:16). The high council was controlled by the priestly class under the leadership of the high priest, though these priests were influenced to various degrees by Roman rulers and the Pharisees. Herod the Great exercised a particularly heavy hand over the affairs of the Sanhedrin.<\/p>\nThe Sanhedrin managed the internal legal and religious affairs of Judaism, including judicial decisions not resolved in lesser courts (called “local sanhedrins”), criminal justice and arrests (see Acts 9:1-2), and official (though unenforceable) decisions regarding Jewish matters. Though the Sanhedrin could not of its own accord put tried criminals to death (John 18:31), apparently it could do so with the support of Roman officials.<\/p>\nThe destruction of Jerusalem in AD<\/span> 70 eliminated the high council as the ruling body of Judaism.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nMatt 26:57-68; Mark 14:53-65; 15:1, 43; Luke 22:66-71; 23:50-54; John 11:47-53; Acts 5:21-41; 6:11–8:1; 22:30–23:10; 23:26-30<\/p>","summary_ro":"The Jewish High Council The high council of Jewish aristocrats in Jerusalem was endowed with considerable power in governing the Jewish people. It is traditionally called the Sanhedrin, a transliteration of the Greek word sunedrion (“council”). According to Jewish tradition, the Sanhedrin dates from Moses’ choice of seventy elders (Num 11:16), but the earliest datable reference is found in Josephus (Antiquities 12.3.3) from the time of Antiochus the Great (223–187 BC). The Sanhedrin probably ...","summary_en":"The Jewish High Council The high council of Jewish aristocrats in Jerusalem was endowed with considerable power in governing the Jewish people. It is traditionally called the Sanhedrin, a transliteration of the Greek word sunedrion (“council”). According to Jewish tradition, the Sanhedrin dates from Moses’ choice of seventy elders (Num 11:16), but the earliest datable reference is found in Josephus (Antiquities 12.3.3) from the time of Antiochus the Great (223–187 BC). The Sanhedrin probably ...","source":"Profiles.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":125083,"type":"profile","type_label":"Profil","type_icon":"👤","type_color":"#f59e0b","title_ro":"The Jewish High Council","title_en":"The Jewish High Council","content_ro":"<h3>The Jewish High Council<\/h3>\nThe high council of Jewish aristocrats in Jerusalem was endowed with considerable power in governing the Jewish people. It is traditionally called the Sanhedrin, a transliteration of the Greek word sunedrion<\/span> (“council”).<\/p>\nAccording to Jewish tradition, the Sanhedrin dates from Moses’ choice of seventy elders (Num 11:16), but the earliest datable reference is found in Josephus (Antiquities<\/em> 12.3.3) from the time of Antiochus the Great (223–187 BC<\/span>). The Sanhedrin probably emerged from a self-governing body of leaders under the Persians (see Ezra 5:5-10; Neh 2:16). The high council was controlled by the priestly class under the leadership of the high priest, though these priests were influenced to various degrees by Roman rulers and the Pharisees. Herod the Great exercised a particularly heavy hand over the affairs of the Sanhedrin.<\/p>\nThe Sanhedrin managed the internal legal and religious affairs of Judaism, including judicial decisions not resolved in lesser courts (called “local sanhedrins”), criminal justice and arrests (see Acts 9:1-2), and official (though unenforceable) decisions regarding Jewish matters. Though the Sanhedrin could not of its own accord put tried criminals to death (John 18:31), apparently it could do so with the support of Roman officials.<\/p>\nThe destruction of Jerusalem in AD<\/span> 70 eliminated the high council as the ruling body of Judaism.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nMatt 26:57-68; Mark 14:53-65; 15:1, 43; Luke 22:66-71; 23:50-54; John 11:47-53; Acts 5:21-41; 6:11–8:1; 22:30–23:10; 23:26-30<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>The Jewish High Council<\/h3>\nThe high council of Jewish aristocrats in Jerusalem was endowed with considerable power in governing the Jewish people. It is traditionally called the Sanhedrin, a transliteration of the Greek word sunedrion<\/span> (“council”).<\/p>\nAccording to Jewish tradition, the Sanhedrin dates from Moses’ choice of seventy elders (Num 11:16), but the earliest datable reference is found in Josephus (Antiquities<\/em> 12.3.3) from the time of Antiochus the Great (223–187 BC<\/span>). The Sanhedrin probably emerged from a self-governing body of leaders under the Persians (see Ezra 5:5-10; Neh 2:16). The high council was controlled by the priestly class under the leadership of the high priest, though these priests were influenced to various degrees by Roman rulers and the Pharisees. Herod the Great exercised a particularly heavy hand over the affairs of the Sanhedrin.<\/p>\nThe Sanhedrin managed the internal legal and religious affairs of Judaism, including judicial decisions not resolved in lesser courts (called “local sanhedrins”), criminal justice and arrests (see Acts 9:1-2), and official (though unenforceable) decisions regarding Jewish matters. Though the Sanhedrin could not of its own accord put tried criminals to death (John 18:31), apparently it could do so with the support of Roman officials.<\/p>\nThe destruction of Jerusalem in AD<\/span> 70 eliminated the high council as the ruling body of Judaism.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nMatt 26:57-68; Mark 14:53-65; 15:1, 43; Luke 22:66-71; 23:50-54; John 11:47-53; Acts 5:21-41; 6:11–8:1; 22:30–23:10; 23:26-30<\/p>","summary_ro":"The Jewish High Council The high council of Jewish aristocrats in Jerusalem was endowed with considerable power in governing the Jewish people. It is traditionally called the Sanhedrin, a transliteration of the Greek word sunedrion (“council”). According to Jewish tradition, the Sanhedrin dates from Moses’ choice of seventy elders (Num 11:16), but the earliest datable reference is found in Josephus (Antiquities 12.3.3) from the time of Antiochus the Great (223–187 BC). The Sanhedrin probably ...","summary_en":"The Jewish High Council The high council of Jewish aristocrats in Jerusalem was endowed with considerable power in governing the Jewish people. It is traditionally called the Sanhedrin, a transliteration of the Greek word sunedrion (“council”). According to Jewish tradition, the Sanhedrin dates from Moses’ choice of seventy elders (Num 11:16), but the earliest datable reference is found in Josephus (Antiquities 12.3.3) from the time of Antiochus the Great (223–187 BC). The Sanhedrin probably ...","source":"Profiles.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":15023,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Book of Haggai","title_en":"Book of Haggai","content_ro":"<h3>HAGGAI, Book of<\/h3>\nTenth of the 12 short prophetic books at the end of the OT.<\/p>\nPreview<\/p>\n• Author and Date<\/p>\n• Purpose<\/p>\n• Teaching<\/p>\n• Content<\/p>\nAuthor and Date<\/p>\nHaggai was among the Jewish colonists at Jerusalem in the year 520 BC<\/span> when his prophetic words were recorded (Ezr 5:1-2; 6:14). The four messages the Lord gave to Haggai were to be directed to specific individuals. The first was to Zerubbabel the governor and Joshua the high priest (Hg 1:1). The second was to Zerubbabel, Joshua, and the remnant of the people (2:2). The third was a word to the priests (v 11). The final message was limited to Zerubbabel (v 21).<\/p>\nPurpose<\/p>\nThe key phrase of Haggai’s prophecies is “Consider your ways” or “Consider” (1:5, 7; 2:15, 18). The purpose of God’s messages to the Judean leadership and people, therefore, was to awaken them to their spiritual responsibilities. Two different classes of Judeans had to be turned from their indifference. The true believers needed to be reminded that God was merciful. The situation could be remedied, even though they thought the sins committed by their fathers were unforgivable. The hypocrites among the Judeans had only sought the promised blessings. They had only exchanged one form of idolatry for another. When the blessings did not materialize, they were disappointed.<\/p>\nThe unifying message was that today gives no key to what God will do tomorrow. God’s fulfillment of his promises cannot be judged by appearances. Haggai’s message was twofold: reproof and encouragement. The colonists needed to be chastised for their indifference and consoled in the midst of their troubles.<\/p>\nTeaching<\/p>\nHaggai is a practical book, dealing with the believer’s service to God. Procrastination and indifference have been debilitating sins among God’s people throughout all ages. Concern and a sense of urgency are always pleasing to God (Rom 13:11-14).<\/p>\nThe presence of God is the primary motivation for boldness and the means of banishing discouragement (Mt 28:19-20; Eph 3:8-21; Heb 13:5-6).<\/p>\nSeparation from contaminating influences and sin is demanded of all believers (2 Cor 6:14–7:1). Without this quality of life, the believer cannot expect to be found fit for God’s service (2 Tm 2:19-26). The disobedient child of God can expect removal of blessing and chastisement from God (Heb 12:3-13; Jas 4:1-3).<\/p>\nThe message concerning God’s judgment of sin and the establishment of the messianic kingdom is a message of hope to the NT believer as well as the Jews of Haggai’s day (Rom 15:4-13; 2 Pt 3:10-18).<\/p>\nThe key phrase of Haggai (“consider your ways”) has echoes in 1 Corinthians 11:28 and 2 Corinthians 13:5, as do his writings about the effects of sin and the blessings of God (Jude 1:1-25).<\/p>\nThe God of Haggai is given the title “Lord of hosts” (“Lord<\/span> Almighty”) 14 times in the book. This title is characteristic of the postexilic prophetic books, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, where it is found more than 80 times. It teaches that God is all-powerful and is Master of all spirit beings in heaven and all created beings on the earth.<\/p>\nHaggai also testifies to the God-breathed quality of the Word of God and its divine authority. Over and over the prophet announces ways that God has spoken to him and is the author of these messages (at least 25 times in the space of 28 verses).<\/p>\nContent<\/p>\n<h5>First Message<\/h5>\nThe first message Haggai was to deliver to the Judeans was given to him “on the first day of the month” (Hg 1:1). Upon the first day of each month, the Jews were to bring special offerings to the sanctuary (Nm 28:11-15). God chose this special time to reveal the sin of the people with regard to the unfinished sanctuary.<\/p>\nThe leaders of the Judeans were singled out for the first message from the Lord (Hg 1:1). Zerubbabel was the civil leader or governor, and Joshua was the spiritual leader or high priest. Together, they were responsible for the activity (or inactivity) of God’s people.<\/p>\nThe word of the Lord revealed the procrastination of the people (1:2). God’s temple had not been completed because his people had determined for themselves that “the time is not come.” The energies and finances of God’s people had been channeled selfishly into their own homes (v 4).<\/p>\n“Now” (1:5, rsv<\/span>) focused the attention of the Jews upon the present requirement of God in the light of their sinful indifference. They were to give attention to their own condition spiritually and materially: “Consider how you have fared.” This key phrase of Haggai’s prophecies is literally “Set your heart on your ways” or “Lay your ways to your heart.” Self-examination would reveal that their procrastination had robbed them of more than just 16 years.<\/p>\nVerse 6 reveals the poverty in which the Jews were living as a result of God’s chastisement for their sin. The blessings of God had been withdrawn in accord with his covenant (see Dt 28:15–29:1).<\/p>\nFollowing another exhortation to “consider” their ways (Hg 1:7), the Lord revealed the remedy for the Jews’ cursed condition: “rebuild my house” (v 8). The disobedience with regard to the completion of the temple was the reason for their poverty (vv 9-11).<\/p>\nThe response of the leaders and the people was encouraging. The resumption of the construction of the temple was a definite manifestation of belief in the word of God (1:12). Immediate obedience also testified to the acceptance of the ministry of Haggai, who was “the Lord<\/span>’s messenger” delivering “the Lord<\/span>’s message” (v 13).<\/p>\n<h5>Second Message<\/h5>\nApproximately one month later Haggai was summoned again by the Lord (2:1). The second message continued the note of encouragement with which the first message closed. Perhaps the builders had begun to feel the pressures of their service. Perhaps the old doubts and discouragements had plagued their faith again. The adversaries had reappeared to hinder them (Ezr 5:3–6:12). Haggai’s second message was similar to Ezra’s claim that “the eye of their God was upon the elders of the Jews” (Ezr 5:5, rsv<\/span>). The Lord not only sees his servants’ needs but also sends relief and encouragement.<\/p>\nThe day of this second message was the last day of the Feast of Tabernacles (Lv 23:33-43). Perhaps this reminder of God’s glorious presence with their ancestors in the wilderness made their present situation all the more discouraging. Therefore, the Lord spoke to all the people rather than just to their leaders (Hg 2:2). Was there any survivor of the preexilic days who had personally beheld the glory of God as it resided in the Solomonic temple (cf. 1 Kgs 8:1-11; Ez 9:1–11:23)? Was the present temple “as nothing” in comparison (Hg 2:3)? The Babylonian Talmud listed five things that were absent in the new temple that had been present in the Solomonic temple: (1) the ark of the covenant, (2) the sacred fire, (3) the shekinah glory, (4) the Holy Spirit, and (5) the Urim and Thummim.<\/p>\nAgain, “now” calls attention to God’s remedy. Three times the command “take courage” is proclaimed (2:4). Each time the command is given, one of the recipients of God’s message is addressed (cf. v 2). The concluding command was “work.” The reason for the strength and the activity was God’s presence. The Holy Spirit might seem to be absent from the temple, but he would remain among the people “according to the word” of God (v 5).<\/p>\nTo encourage the workers further, God revealed the future glory of his house (2:6-9). That glory would come to pass after a time of judgment (vv 6-7a), when the treasures of all nations come in (v 7b). The exact meaning of this verse has been variously interpreted. The views center around two different translations: “the desire of all nations shall come” (kjv<\/span>) and “and the treasures of all the nations will come to this Temple” (nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\nThe arguments for the messianic interpretation based on the first translation may be summarized as follows: (1) The vast majority of both Christian and Jewish interpreters took this phrase as a reference to the Messiah. (2) The abstract noun “desire” may have the concrete concept of the one who is desirable. (3) Though the verb in the Hebrew is plural, it is grammatically possible for the agreement of subject and predicate to be based upon the second noun (“nations”) in a genitive relationship. (4) The time element is suitable since God has just judged the nations and the hour of Christ’s coming would be at hand. (5) An alternate translation is available that meets the grammatical difficulties but retains the messianic import: “They [the nations] have come to the desire of all the nations.”<\/p>\nIn spite of the weight of the arguments for this first view, it seems better to accept the second translation and corresponding view. The arguments are as follows: (1) The vast majority of early Christian and Jewish interpreters base their view on the Latin Vulgate translation (c. AD<\/span> 400), while the second translation is in agreement with an older version, the Greek Septuagint (c. 300 BC<\/span>). (2) The singular “desire” may be taken as a collective noun referring to “features” or “wealth.” (3) The principle of Hebrew grammar that allows the noun “nations” to be the one with which the verb agrees is a rare occurrence in poetic books for such constructions as this. It is unlikely that such phraseology would be used without Haggai’s declaring the exact meaning in the immediate context. (4) The immediate context does solve the difficulty by the plain declaration that the silver and the gold belong to the Lord (2:8). (5) The kingdom context of these verses accords well with such parallel passages as Isaiah 60:5, 11 and Revelation 21:24.<\/p>\nThe conclusion to this message of encouragement is that the future glory of the temple (cf. Hg 2:3) will be greater than in the days of the Solomonic temple (v 9), because the shekinah glory will return (Hg 2:7; Ez 43:1-5) and the building will have great beauty (cf. Hg 2:8; Is 60:13, 17). God will also grant peace (Hg 2:9) in his kingdom at the time of this future glorious temple (see Is 9:6-7; 66:12; Zec 6:13).<\/p>\n<h5>Third Message<\/h5>\nAbout two months later Haggai received a third message from God (Hg 2:10). This time exhortation would be the theme, and the message was directed to the priests alone (v 11). Haggai used questions concerning the law of Moses to instruct the priests in the polluting character of sin. Something clean or holy cannot transfer its sanctity to something else (v 12). But that which is unholy can<\/em> transfer its<\/em> character to something clean, defiling it (Hg 2:13; cf. Lv 22:4-6; Nm 19:11).<\/p>\nThe application of this principle to the Judeans was clear: the offerings they brought during their years of disobedience were unacceptable to God because of Judah’s uncleanness (Hg 2:14).<\/p>\nBy reviving the memory of past disobedience and chastisement, God was exhorting the Jews to constantly “consider” (2:15, 18) the consequences of disobedience. Such consideration should prevent future spiritual indifference. The conclusion of the message was a reminder of the blessing of God upon the obedient (v 19).<\/p>\n<h5>Fourth Message<\/h5>\nOn the same day Haggai received another message from God (2:20). This message was to be directed toward Zerubbabel (v 21), who was to be encouraged by the permanency of his inherited Davidic office (cf. Hg 1:1; 2 Sm 7:4-17; 1 Chr 3:1, 5, 10, 17-20). The gentile nations would be judged and the kingdoms of the world overthrown (Hg 2:6-7, 21-22). This would be but the preparation for God’s rule (cf. Rv 11:15-18).<\/p>\nThe promise to Zerubbabel in Haggai 2:23 was God’s means of confirming that his promises to David were still operative even after the 70-year Babylonian captivity and the 16-year stagnation among the Judeans who had returned to Jerusalem. Zerubbabel was appointed “as a signet ring” by God. A signet was a personal cylinder or ring seal and a sign of the authenticity of their signature. Kings used them for identifying their decrees (Est 3:10; 8:8-10) and for confirming the authority of their deputies (Gn 41:42). God’s appointment of Zerubbabel “as a signet ring,” therefore, meant that Zerubbabel would be God’s seal of authority on the continuation of the Davidic line from which the Messiah should come and reign (cf. Mt 1:12; Lk 3:27).<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Haggai (Person); Israel, History of; Postexilic Period; Prophecy; Prophet, Prophetess.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>HAGGAI, Book of<\/h3>\nTenth of the 12 short prophetic books at the end of the OT.<\/p>\nPreview<\/p>\n• Author and Date<\/p>\n• Purpose<\/p>\n• Teaching<\/p>\n• Content<\/p>\nAuthor and Date<\/p>\nHaggai was among the Jewish colonists at Jerusalem in the year 520 BC<\/span> when his prophetic words were recorded (Ezr 5:1-2; 6:14). The four messages the Lord gave to Haggai were to be directed to specific individuals. The first was to Zerubbabel the governor and Joshua the high priest (Hg 1:1). The second was to Zerubbabel, Joshua, and the remnant of the people (2:2). The third was a word to the priests (v 11). The final message was limited to Zerubbabel (v 21).<\/p>\nPurpose<\/p>\nThe key phrase of Haggai’s prophecies is “Consider your ways” or “Consider” (1:5, 7; 2:15, 18). The purpose of God’s messages to the Judean leadership and people, therefore, was to awaken them to their spiritual responsibilities. Two different classes of Judeans had to be turned from their indifference. The true believers needed to be reminded that God was merciful. The situation could be remedied, even though they thought the sins committed by their fathers were unforgivable. The hypocrites among the Judeans had only sought the promised blessings. They had only exchanged one form of idolatry for another. When the blessings did not materialize, they were disappointed.<\/p>\nThe unifying message was that today gives no key to what God will do tomorrow. God’s fulfillment of his promises cannot be judged by appearances. Haggai’s message was twofold: reproof and encouragement. The colonists needed to be chastised for their indifference and consoled in the midst of their troubles.<\/p>\nTeaching<\/p>\nHaggai is a practical book, dealing with the believer’s service to God. Procrastination and indifference have been debilitating sins among God’s people throughout all ages. Concern and a sense of urgency are always pleasing to God (Rom 13:11-14).<\/p>\nThe presence of God is the primary motivation for boldness and the means of banishing discouragement (Mt 28:19-20; Eph 3:8-21; Heb 13:5-6).<\/p>\nSeparation from contaminating influences and sin is demanded of all believers (2 Cor 6:14–7:1). Without this quality of life, the believer cannot expect to be found fit for God’s service (2 Tm 2:19-26). The disobedient child of God can expect removal of blessing and chastisement from God (Heb 12:3-13; Jas 4:1-3).<\/p>\nThe message concerning God’s judgment of sin and the establishment of the messianic kingdom is a message of hope to the NT believer as well as the Jews of Haggai’s day (Rom 15:4-13; 2 Pt 3:10-18).<\/p>\nThe key phrase of Haggai (“consider your ways”) has echoes in 1 Corinthians 11:28 and 2 Corinthians 13:5, as do his writings about the effects of sin and the blessings of God (Jude 1:1-25).<\/p>\nThe God of Haggai is given the title “Lord of hosts” (“Lord<\/span> Almighty”) 14 times in the book. This title is characteristic of the postexilic prophetic books, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, where it is found more than 80 times. It teaches that God is all-powerful and is Master of all spirit beings in heaven and all created beings on the earth.<\/p>\nHaggai also testifies to the God-breathed quality of the Word of God and its divine authority. Over and over the prophet announces ways that God has spoken to him and is the author of these messages (at least 25 times in the space of 28 verses).<\/p>\nContent<\/p>\n<h5>First Message<\/h5>\nThe first message Haggai was to deliver to the Judeans was given to him “on the first day of the month” (Hg 1:1). Upon the first day of each month, the Jews were to bring special offerings to the sanctuary (Nm 28:11-15). God chose this special time to reveal the sin of the people with regard to the unfinished sanctuary.<\/p>\nThe leaders of the Judeans were singled out for the first message from the Lord (Hg 1:1). Zerubbabel was the civil leader or governor, and Joshua was the spiritual leader or high priest. Together, they were responsible for the activity (or inactivity) of God’s people.<\/p>\nThe word of the Lord revealed the procrastination of the people (1:2). God’s temple had not been completed because his people had determined for themselves that “the time is not come.” The energies and finances of God’s people had been channeled selfishly into their own homes (v 4).<\/p>\n“Now” (1:5, rsv<\/span>) focused the attention of the Jews upon the present requirement of God in the light of their sinful indifference. They were to give attention to their own condition spiritually and materially: “Consider how you have fared.” This key phrase of Haggai’s prophecies is literally “Set your heart on your ways” or “Lay your ways to your heart.” Self-examination would reveal that their procrastination had robbed them of more than just 16 years.<\/p>\nVerse 6 reveals the poverty in which the Jews were living as a result of God’s chastisement for their sin. The blessings of God had been withdrawn in accord with his covenant (see Dt 28:15–29:1).<\/p>\nFollowing another exhortation to “consider” their ways (Hg 1:7), the Lord revealed the remedy for the Jews’ cursed condition: “rebuild my house” (v 8). The disobedience with regard to the completion of the temple was the reason for their poverty (vv 9-11).<\/p>\nThe response of the leaders and the people was encouraging. The resumption of the construction of the temple was a definite manifestation of belief in the word of God (1:12). Immediate obedience also testified to the acceptance of the ministry of Haggai, who was “the Lord<\/span>’s messenger” delivering “the Lord<\/span>’s message” (v 13).<\/p>\n<h5>Second Message<\/h5>\nApproximately one month later Haggai was summoned again by the Lord (2:1). The second message continued the note of encouragement with which the first message closed. Perhaps the builders had begun to feel the pressures of their service. Perhaps the old doubts and discouragements had plagued their faith again. The adversaries had reappeared to hinder them (Ezr 5:3–6:12). Haggai’s second message was similar to Ezra’s claim that “the eye of their God was upon the elders of the Jews” (Ezr 5:5, rsv<\/span>). The Lord not only sees his servants’ needs but also sends relief and encouragement.<\/p>\nThe day of this second message was the last day of the Feast of Tabernacles (Lv 23:33-43). Perhaps this reminder of God’s glorious presence with their ancestors in the wilderness made their present situation all the more discouraging. Therefore, the Lord spoke to all the people rather than just to their leaders (Hg 2:2). Was there any survivor of the preexilic days who had personally beheld the glory of God as it resided in the Solomonic temple (cf. 1 Kgs 8:1-11; Ez 9:1–11:23)? Was the present temple “as nothing” in comparison (Hg 2:3)? The Babylonian Talmud listed five things that were absent in the new temple that had been present in the Solomonic temple: (1) the ark of the covenant, (2) the sacred fire, (3) the shekinah glory, (4) the Holy Spirit, and (5) the Urim and Thummim.<\/p>\nAgain, “now” calls attention to God’s remedy. Three times the command “take courage” is proclaimed (2:4). Each time the command is given, one of the recipients of God’s message is addressed (cf. v 2). The concluding command was “work.” The reason for the strength and the activity was God’s presence. The Holy Spirit might seem to be absent from the temple, but he would remain among the people “according to the word” of God (v 5).<\/p>\nTo encourage the workers further, God revealed the future glory of his house (2:6-9). That glory would come to pass after a time of judgment (vv 6-7a), when the treasures of all nations come in (v 7b). The exact meaning of this verse has been variously interpreted. The views center around two different translations: “the desire of all nations shall come” (kjv<\/span>) and “and the treasures of all the nations will come to this Temple” (nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\nThe arguments for the messianic interpretation based on the first translation may be summarized as follows: (1) The vast majority of both Christian and Jewish interpreters took this phrase as a reference to the Messiah. (2) The abstract noun “desire” may have the concrete concept of the one who is desirable. (3) Though the verb in the Hebrew is plural, it is grammatically possible for the agreement of subject and predicate to be based upon the second noun (“nations”) in a genitive relationship. (4) The time element is suitable since God has just judged the nations and the hour of Christ’s coming would be at hand. (5) An alternate translation is available that meets the grammatical difficulties but retains the messianic import: “They [the nations] have come to the desire of all the nations.”<\/p>\nIn spite of the weight of the arguments for this first view, it seems better to accept the second translation and corresponding view. The arguments are as follows: (1) The vast majority of early Christian and Jewish interpreters base their view on the Latin Vulgate translation (c. AD<\/span> 400), while the second translation is in agreement with an older version, the Greek Septuagint (c. 300 BC<\/span>). (2) The singular “desire” may be taken as a collective noun referring to “features” or “wealth.” (3) The principle of Hebrew grammar that allows the noun “nations” to be the one with which the verb agrees is a rare occurrence in poetic books for such constructions as this. It is unlikely that such phraseology would be used without Haggai’s declaring the exact meaning in the immediate context. (4) The immediate context does solve the difficulty by the plain declaration that the silver and the gold belong to the Lord (2:8). (5) The kingdom context of these verses accords well with such parallel passages as Isaiah 60:5, 11 and Revelation 21:24.<\/p>\nThe conclusion to this message of encouragement is that the future glory of the temple (cf. Hg 2:3) will be greater than in the days of the Solomonic temple (v 9), because the shekinah glory will return (Hg 2:7; Ez 43:1-5) and the building will have great beauty (cf. Hg 2:8; Is 60:13, 17). God will also grant peace (Hg 2:9) in his kingdom at the time of this future glorious temple (see Is 9:6-7; 66:12; Zec 6:13).<\/p>\n<h5>Third Message<\/h5>\nAbout two months later Haggai received a third message from God (Hg 2:10). This time exhortation would be the theme, and the message was directed to the priests alone (v 11). Haggai used questions concerning the law of Moses to instruct the priests in the polluting character of sin. Something clean or holy cannot transfer its sanctity to something else (v 12). But that which is unholy can<\/em> transfer its<\/em> character to something clean, defiling it (Hg 2:13; cf. Lv 22:4-6; Nm 19:11).<\/p>\nThe application of this principle to the Judeans was clear: the offerings they brought during their years of disobedience were unacceptable to God because of Judah’s uncleanness (Hg 2:14).<\/p>\nBy reviving the memory of past disobedience and chastisement, God was exhorting the Jews to constantly “consider” (2:15, 18) the consequences of disobedience. Such consideration should prevent future spiritual indifference. The conclusion of the message was a reminder of the blessing of God upon the obedient (v 19).<\/p>\n<h5>Fourth Message<\/h5>\nOn the same day Haggai received another message from God (2:20). This message was to be directed toward Zerubbabel (v 21), who was to be encouraged by the permanency of his inherited Davidic office (cf. Hg 1:1; 2 Sm 7:4-17; 1 Chr 3:1, 5, 10, 17-20). The gentile nations would be judged and the kingdoms of the world overthrown (Hg 2:6-7, 21-22). This would be but the preparation for God’s rule (cf. Rv 11:15-18).<\/p>\nThe promise to Zerubbabel in Haggai 2:23 was God’s means of confirming that his promises to David were still operative even after the 70-year Babylonian captivity and the 16-year stagnation among the Judeans who had returned to Jerusalem. Zerubbabel was appointed “as a signet ring” by God. A signet was a personal cylinder or ring seal and a sign of the authenticity of their signature. Kings used them for identifying their decrees (Est 3:10; 8:8-10) and for confirming the authority of their deputies (Gn 41:42). God’s appointment of Zerubbabel “as a signet ring,” therefore, meant that Zerubbabel would be God’s seal of authority on the continuation of the Davidic line from which the Messiah should come and reign (cf. Mt 1:12; Lk 3:27).<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Haggai (Person); Israel, History of; Postexilic Period; Prophecy; Prophet, Prophetess.<\/p>","summary_ro":"HAGGAI, Book of Tenth of the 12 short prophetic books at the end of the OT. Preview • Author and Date • Purpose • Teaching • Content Author and Date Haggai was among the Jewish colonists at Jerusalem in the year 520 BC when his prophetic words were recorded (Ezr 5:1-2; 6:14). The four messages the Lord gave to Haggai were to be directed to specific individuals. The first was to Zerubbabel the governor and Joshua the high priest (Hg 1:1). The second was to Zerubbabel, Joshua, and the remnant o...","summary_en":"HAGGAI, Book of Tenth of the 12 short prophetic books at the end of the OT. Preview • Author and Date • Purpose • Teaching • Content Author and Date Haggai was among the Jewish colonists at Jerusalem in the year 520 BC when his prophetic words were recorded (Ezr 5:1-2; 6:14). The four messages the Lord gave to Haggai were to be directed to specific individuals. The first was to Zerubbabel the governor and Joshua the high priest (Hg 1:1). The second was to Zerubbabel, Joshua, and the remnant o...","source":"Articles\/H.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":33890,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Sanhedrin*","title_en":"Sanhedrin*","content_ro":"<h3>SANHEDRIN*<\/h3>\nSupreme judicial council (nlt<\/span> “high council”) of Judaism with 71 members, located in Jerusalem. It figures prominently in the Passion narratives of the Gospels as the body that tried Jesus, and it appears again in Acts as the judicial court that investigated and persecuted the growing Christian church.<\/p>\nHistory<\/p>\nThe history of the Sanhedrin is difficult to reconstruct. Jewish tradition recorded in the Mishnah views it as originating with Moses and his council of 70, but this is doubtful (Mishnah tractate Sanhedrin<\/em> 1:6; cf. Nm 11:16). These were probably informal gatherings of tribal elders (1 Kgs 8:1; 2 Kgs 23:1). The likely origin of the Sanhedrin is to be found in the postexilic period, when those who reorganized Israel without a king made the ancient ruling families the basis of authority. The legislative assembly that emerged was a union of the nobility of the land and the priestly aristocracy (see Ezr 5:5; Neh 2:16). The influence of this council increased due to the relative freedom enjoyed under the Persians.<\/p>\nThe advent of Hellenism in Israel in the fourth century BC<\/span> affirmed this government. Hellenistic cities commonly possessed democratic assemblies and a council. Jerusalem hosted an aristocratic council that was given its appropriate Greek title, Gerousia<\/span>.<\/em> This council is first noted by Josephus, who records the decree of Antiochus III after his seizure of Jerusalem (Antiquities<\/em> 12.3.3). Yet even though the political climate shifted drastically, the council still remained in force. Judas Maccabeus expelled the old line of elders and installed another hereditary rulership stemming from the Hasmonean families. Thus the Gerousia continued as a council of the nobility. But in the first century BC<\/span>, as the tensions between Sadducees and Pharisees were pulling apart the fabric of Judaism, the council underwent a transformation. From the time of Alexandra (76–67 BC<\/span>), scribes of Pharisee persuasion entered the council. Thereafter, the Gerousia was a mixture: aristocratic nobility on the one hand (both lay and priestly) and the popular Pharisees on the other.<\/p>\nThe Romans left the council intact but more carefully defined the limits of its jurisdiction. As Judaism lost its self-government, the council lost much legislative and political power. Rome appointed the true powers of the land. For instance, Herod the Great began his rule in severe conflict with the old aristocracy, and in the end executed most of the Sanhedrin members (Antiquities<\/em> 14.9.4). The prefects appointed the high priests and, as a symbol of control, from AD<\/span> 6 to 36 they kept the priests’ vestments in the Antonia fortress.<\/p>\nThe name Sanhedrin (Greek, sunedrion<\/span>,<\/em> from sun<\/span>,<\/em> “together,” and hedra<\/span>,<\/em> “seat”) occurs for the first time in the reign of Herod the Great (Antiquities<\/em> 14.9.3-5). This is the term used throughout the NT (22 times), along with “the elders” (Lk 22:66; Acts 22:5) and “gerousia” (Acts 5:21). The Mishnah provides still more titles: The Great Tribunal (Sanhedrin<\/em> 11:2), the Great Sanhedrin (Sanhedrin<\/em> 1:6), and the Sanhedrin of the 71 (Shebuoth<\/em> 2:2).<\/p>\nAfter the great war of AD<\/span> 70, when the final vestiges of Jewish autonomy were destroyed by Rome, the Sanhedrin reconvened in Jamnia. Its power, however, was only theoretical (addressing religious issues primarily), and the Romans gave it little consideration.<\/p>\nCharacter<\/p>\nLittle is known about the procedure for admission into the Sanhedrin, but because the council had aristocratic roots (and was not truly democratic), appointments were probably made from among the priests, leading scribes, and lay nobility. The Mishnah stipulates that the sole test of membership was rabbinic learning along with true Israelite descent (Sanhedrin<\/em> 4:4). The council had 71 members (Sanhedrin<\/em> 1:6) divided into the following three categories: the high priests, the elders, and the scribes.<\/p>\n<h5>The High Priests<\/h5>\nUsually from Sadducean backgrounds, these were the most powerful men of the Sanhedrin. Some scholars believe that they comprised an executive council of ten wealthy and distinguished citizens, on the pattern of several Greek and Roman cities. Tiberias in Galilee, for instance, was ruled by such a board, and Josephus refers to them as a body of “the ten foremost men” (Antiquities<\/em> 20.8.11; cf. Acts 4:6). One was the captain of the temple, who supervised temple proceedings and was commander of the temple guard (Acts 5:24-26). Others served as treasurers who controlled the wages of priests and workers and monitored the vast amount of money coming through the temple. Income came from sacrifices and market taxes; the payroll included as many as 18,000 men during Herod’s reconstruction of the temple. There was a president of the Sanhedrin who also headed this council and was called “the high priest” (Antiquities<\/em> 20.10.5). In the NT he is a leading figure: Caiaphas ruled in Jesus’ day (Mt 26:3), and Ananias in Paul’s day (Acts 23:2). In Luke 3:2 and Acts 4:6, Annas is termed a high priest, but his title is emeritus, since his reign ended in AD<\/span> 15.<\/p>\n<h5>The Elders<\/h5>\nThis was a major category and represented the priestly and financial aristocracy in Judea. Distinguished laymen, such as Joseph of Arimathea (Mk 15:43), shared the conservative views of the Sadducees and gave the assembly the diversity of a modern parliament.<\/p>\n<h5>The Scribes<\/h5>\nThese were the most recent members of the Sanhedrin. Mostly Pharisees, they were professional lawyers trained in theology, jurisprudence, and philosophy. They were organized in guilds and often followed celebrated teachers. One famous Sanhedrin scribe, Gamaliel, appears in the NT (Acts 5:34) and was the rabbinic scholar who instructed Paul (22:3).<\/p>\n<h5>In Jesus’ Day<\/h5>\nThe domain of the Sanhedrin was formally restricted to Judea, but there was a de facto influence that affected Galilee and even Damascus (cf. Acts 9:2; 22:5). The council was chiefly concerned to arbitrate matters of Jewish law when disagreements arose (Sanhedrin<\/em> 11:2). In all cases, its decision was final. It prosecuted charges of blasphemy, as in the cases of Jesus (Mt 26:65) and Stephen (Acts 6:12-14), and participated in criminal justice as well.<\/p>\nIt is still not known if the Sanhedrin had the power of capital punishment. Philo seems to indicate that violations to the temple could be prosecuted in the Roman period (Legatio to Gaius,<\/em> 39). This may explain the deaths of Stephen (Acts 7:58-60) and James (Antiquities<\/em> 20.9.1). At any rate, Gentiles caught trespassing in the temple precincts were warned about an automatic death penalty. But the NT and the Talmud disagree with this. In the trial of Jesus, the authorities are compelled to involve Pilate who alone can put Jesus to death (Jn 18:31). According to the Talmud, the Sanhedrin lost this privilege “forty years before the destruction of the temple” (Sanhedrin<\/em> I 18a, 34; VII 24b).<\/p>\nJudicial Procedure<\/p>\nDespite the serious irregularities of Jesus’ trial, the formal procedures of Sanhedrin law describe a court that was fair and exceedingly concerned about the miscarriage of justice. Unfortunately, the procedural notes in the Mishnah only address guidelines for lesser courts (Sanhedrins with 23 members), but it can be reasonably conjectured that similar rules applied to the Great Sanhedrin of 71. In sections four and five of the Mishnah tractate Sanhedrin,<\/em> these guidelines are carefully set forth.<\/p>\nThe Sanhedrin sat in semicircular rows so that members could view one another. Two clerks sat at either end, taking notes and recording votes. Facing the assembly sat three rows of students, who were usually disciples of leading scribes. The accused stood in the middle facing the elders. He was required to show abject humility: he was dressed in a black robe as if in mourning and wore his hair disheveled (Antiquities<\/em> 14.9.4). After questioning, he was dismissed and deliberations were private.<\/p>\nThe procedures for capital cases illustrate the concern for fairness. The defense would be heard first and then the accusations. An elder who had spoken for the defense could not then speak against the accused. Students could speak only for but never against the accused (but in noncapital cases they could do either). Members stood to vote, beginning with the youngest. Acquittal required a simple majority, but condemnation demanded a majority of two.<\/p>\nIn noncapital cases, the trial was heard during the daytime and the verdict could be given at night. In capital cases, both trial and verdict were during the day and thus open to more public scrutiny. In noncapital cases, any verdict could be reached the same day. In capital cases, the verdict of guilt (which was immediately followed by execution) had to be postponed one day because its consequences were irreversible. Hence, these trials were not to be held on the eve of the Sabbath or a festival day (Sanhedrin<\/em> 4:1).<\/p>\nThe trial of Jesus as recorded in the Gospels shows many departures from the usual pattern of Sanhedrin justice. It seems clear that a miscarriage of justice was evidenced in Jesus’ arrest, interrogation, and death.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Courts and Trials; Jerusalem Council.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>SANHEDRIN*<\/h3>\nSupreme judicial council (nlt<\/span> “high council”) of Judaism with 71 members, located in Jerusalem. It figures prominently in the Passion narratives of the Gospels as the body that tried Jesus, and it appears again in Acts as the judicial court that investigated and persecuted the growing Christian church.<\/p>\nHistory<\/p>\nThe history of the Sanhedrin is difficult to reconstruct. Jewish tradition recorded in the Mishnah views it as originating with Moses and his council of 70, but this is doubtful (Mishnah tractate Sanhedrin<\/em> 1:6; cf. Nm 11:16). These were probably informal gatherings of tribal elders (1 Kgs 8:1; 2 Kgs 23:1). The likely origin of the Sanhedrin is to be found in the postexilic period, when those who reorganized Israel without a king made the ancient ruling families the basis of authority. The legislative assembly that emerged was a union of the nobility of the land and the priestly aristocracy (see Ezr 5:5; Neh 2:16). The influence of this council increased due to the relative freedom enjoyed under the Persians.<\/p>\nThe advent of Hellenism in Israel in the fourth century BC<\/span> affirmed this government. Hellenistic cities commonly possessed democratic assemblies and a council. Jerusalem hosted an aristocratic council that was given its appropriate Greek title, Gerousia<\/span>.<\/em> This council is first noted by Josephus, who records the decree of Antiochus III after his seizure of Jerusalem (Antiquities<\/em> 12.3.3). Yet even though the political climate shifted drastically, the council still remained in force. Judas Maccabeus expelled the old line of elders and installed another hereditary rulership stemming from the Hasmonean families. Thus the Gerousia continued as a council of the nobility. But in the first century BC<\/span>, as the tensions between Sadducees and Pharisees were pulling apart the fabric of Judaism, the council underwent a transformation. From the time of Alexandra (76–67 BC<\/span>), scribes of Pharisee persuasion entered the council. Thereafter, the Gerousia was a mixture: aristocratic nobility on the one hand (both lay and priestly) and the popular Pharisees on the other.<\/p>\nThe Romans left the council intact but more carefully defined the limits of its jurisdiction. As Judaism lost its self-government, the council lost much legislative and political power. Rome appointed the true powers of the land. For instance, Herod the Great began his rule in severe conflict with the old aristocracy, and in the end executed most of the Sanhedrin members (Antiquities<\/em> 14.9.4). The prefects appointed the high priests and, as a symbol of control, from AD<\/span> 6 to 36 they kept the priests’ vestments in the Antonia fortress.<\/p>\nThe name Sanhedrin (Greek, sunedrion<\/span>,<\/em> from sun<\/span>,<\/em> “together,” and hedra<\/span>,<\/em> “seat”) occurs for the first time in the reign of Herod the Great (Antiquities<\/em> 14.9.3-5). This is the term used throughout the NT (22 times), along with “the elders” (Lk 22:66; Acts 22:5) and “gerousia” (Acts 5:21). The Mishnah provides still more titles: The Great Tribunal (Sanhedrin<\/em> 11:2), the Great Sanhedrin (Sanhedrin<\/em> 1:6), and the Sanhedrin of the 71 (Shebuoth<\/em> 2:2).<\/p>\nAfter the great war of AD<\/span> 70, when the final vestiges of Jewish autonomy were destroyed by Rome, the Sanhedrin reconvened in Jamnia. Its power, however, was only theoretical (addressing religious issues primarily), and the Romans gave it little consideration.<\/p>\nCharacter<\/p>\nLittle is known about the procedure for admission into the Sanhedrin, but because the council had aristocratic roots (and was not truly democratic), appointments were probably made from among the priests, leading scribes, and lay nobility. The Mishnah stipulates that the sole test of membership was rabbinic learning along with true Israelite descent (Sanhedrin<\/em> 4:4). The council had 71 members (Sanhedrin<\/em> 1:6) divided into the following three categories: the high priests, the elders, and the scribes.<\/p>\n<h5>The High Priests<\/h5>\nUsually from Sadducean backgrounds, these were the most powerful men of the Sanhedrin. Some scholars believe that they comprised an executive council of ten wealthy and distinguished citizens, on the pattern of several Greek and Roman cities. Tiberias in Galilee, for instance, was ruled by such a board, and Josephus refers to them as a body of “the ten foremost men” (Antiquities<\/em> 20.8.11; cf. Acts 4:6). One was the captain of the temple, who supervised temple proceedings and was commander of the temple guard (Acts 5:24-26). Others served as treasurers who controlled the wages of priests and workers and monitored the vast amount of money coming through the temple. Income came from sacrifices and market taxes; the payroll included as many as 18,000 men during Herod’s reconstruction of the temple. There was a president of the Sanhedrin who also headed this council and was called “the high priest” (Antiquities<\/em> 20.10.5). In the NT he is a leading figure: Caiaphas ruled in Jesus’ day (Mt 26:3), and Ananias in Paul’s day (Acts 23:2). In Luke 3:2 and Acts 4:6, Annas is termed a high priest, but his title is emeritus, since his reign ended in AD<\/span> 15.<\/p>\n<h5>The Elders<\/h5>\nThis was a major category and represented the priestly and financial aristocracy in Judea. Distinguished laymen, such as Joseph of Arimathea (Mk 15:43), shared the conservative views of the Sadducees and gave the assembly the diversity of a modern parliament.<\/p>\n<h5>The Scribes<\/h5>\nThese were the most recent members of the Sanhedrin. Mostly Pharisees, they were professional lawyers trained in theology, jurisprudence, and philosophy. They were organized in guilds and often followed celebrated teachers. One famous Sanhedrin scribe, Gamaliel, appears in the NT (Acts 5:34) and was the rabbinic scholar who instructed Paul (22:3).<\/p>\n<h5>In Jesus’ Day<\/h5>\nThe domain of the Sanhedrin was formally restricted to Judea, but there was a de facto influence that affected Galilee and even Damascus (cf. Acts 9:2; 22:5). The council was chiefly concerned to arbitrate matters of Jewish law when disagreements arose (Sanhedrin<\/em> 11:2). In all cases, its decision was final. It prosecuted charges of blasphemy, as in the cases of Jesus (Mt 26:65) and Stephen (Acts 6:12-14), and participated in criminal justice as well.<\/p>\nIt is still not known if the Sanhedrin had the power of capital punishment. Philo seems to indicate that violations to the temple could be prosecuted in the Roman period (Legatio to Gaius,<\/em> 39). This may explain the deaths of Stephen (Acts 7:58-60) and James (Antiquities<\/em> 20.9.1). At any rate, Gentiles caught trespassing in the temple precincts were warned about an automatic death penalty. But the NT and the Talmud disagree with this. In the trial of Jesus, the authorities are compelled to involve Pilate who alone can put Jesus to death (Jn 18:31). According to the Talmud, the Sanhedrin lost this privilege “forty years before the destruction of the temple” (Sanhedrin<\/em> I 18a, 34; VII 24b).<\/p>\nJudicial Procedure<\/p>\nDespite the serious irregularities of Jesus’ trial, the formal procedures of Sanhedrin law describe a court that was fair and exceedingly concerned about the miscarriage of justice. Unfortunately, the procedural notes in the Mishnah only address guidelines for lesser courts (Sanhedrins with 23 members), but it can be reasonably conjectured that similar rules applied to the Great Sanhedrin of 71. In sections four and five of the Mishnah tractate Sanhedrin,<\/em> these guidelines are carefully set forth.<\/p>\nThe Sanhedrin sat in semicircular rows so that members could view one another. Two clerks sat at either end, taking notes and recording votes. Facing the assembly sat three rows of students, who were usually disciples of leading scribes. The accused stood in the middle facing the elders. He was required to show abject humility: he was dressed in a black robe as if in mourning and wore his hair disheveled (Antiquities<\/em> 14.9.4). After questioning, he was dismissed and deliberations were private.<\/p>\nThe procedures for capital cases illustrate the concern for fairness. The defense would be heard first and then the accusations. An elder who had spoken for the defense could not then speak against the accused. Students could speak only for but never against the accused (but in noncapital cases they could do either). Members stood to vote, beginning with the youngest. Acquittal required a simple majority, but condemnation demanded a majority of two.<\/p>\nIn noncapital cases, the trial was heard during the daytime and the verdict could be given at night. In capital cases, both trial and verdict were during the day and thus open to more public scrutiny. In noncapital cases, any verdict could be reached the same day. In capital cases, the verdict of guilt (which was immediately followed by execution) had to be postponed one day because its consequences were irreversible. Hence, these trials were not to be held on the eve of the Sabbath or a festival day (Sanhedrin<\/em> 4:1).<\/p>\nThe trial of Jesus as recorded in the Gospels shows many departures from the usual pattern of Sanhedrin justice. It seems clear that a miscarriage of justice was evidenced in Jesus’ arrest, interrogation, and death.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Courts and Trials; Jerusalem Council.<\/p>","summary_ro":"SANHEDRIN* Supreme judicial council (nlt “high council”) of Judaism with 71 members, located in Jerusalem. It figures prominently in the Passion narratives of the Gospels as the body that tried Jesus, and it appears again in Acts as the judicial court that investigated and persecuted the growing Christian church. History The history of the Sanhedrin is difficult to reconstruct. Jewish tradition recorded in the Mishnah views it as originating with Moses and his council of 70, but this is doubt...","summary_en":"SANHEDRIN* Supreme judicial council (nlt “high council”) of Judaism with 71 members, located in Jerusalem. It figures prominently in the Passion narratives of the Gospels as the body that tried Jesus, and it appears again in Acts as the judicial court that investigated and persecuted the growing Christian church. History The history of the Sanhedrin is difficult to reconstruct. Jewish tradition recorded in the Mishnah views it as originating with Moses and his council of 70, but this is doubt...","source":"Articles\/S.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":48036,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ezra 5:5","title_en":"Study Note: Ezra 5:5","content_ro":"5:5<\/strong> God was watching over them:<\/em> All credit goes to God’s sovereign control of events, not to any human leader or prophet. God had promised that the ruins would be rebuilt (Isa 44:26).<\/p>","content_en":"5:5<\/strong> God was watching over them:<\/em> All credit goes to God’s sovereign control of events, not to any human leader or prophet. God had promised that the ruins would be rebuilt (Isa 44:26).<\/p>","summary_ro":"5:5 God was watching over them: All credit goes to God’s sovereign control of events, not to any human leader or prophet. God had promised that the ruins would be rebuilt (Isa 44:26).","summary_en":"5:5 God was watching over them: All credit goes to God’s sovereign control of events, not to any human leader or prophet. God had promised that the ruins would be rebuilt (Isa 44:26).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":75662,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ezra 5:5","title_en":"Study Note: Ezra 5:5","content_ro":"5:5<\/strong> God was watching over them:<\/em> All credit goes to God’s sovereign control of events, not to any human leader or prophet. God had promised that the ruins would be rebuilt (Isa 44:26).<\/p>","content_en":"5:5<\/strong> God was watching over them:<\/em> All credit goes to God’s sovereign control of events, not to any human leader or prophet. God had promised that the ruins would be rebuilt (Isa 44:26).<\/p>","summary_ro":"5:5 God was watching over them: All credit goes to God’s sovereign control of events, not to any human leader or prophet. God had promised that the ruins would be rebuilt (Isa 44:26).","summary_en":"5:5 God was watching over them: All credit goes to God’s sovereign control of events, not to any human leader or prophet. God had promised that the ruins would be rebuilt (Isa 44:26).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":103288,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ezra 5:5","title_en":"Study Note: Ezra 5:5","content_ro":"5:5<\/strong> God was watching over them:<\/em> All credit goes to God’s sovereign control of events, not to any human leader or prophet. God had promised that the ruins would be rebuilt (Isa 44:26).<\/p>","content_en":"5:5<\/strong> God was watching over them:<\/em> All credit goes to God’s sovereign control of events, not to any human leader or prophet. God had promised that the ruins would be rebuilt (Isa 44:26).<\/p>","summary_ro":"5:5 God was watching over them: All credit goes to God’s sovereign control of events, not to any human leader or prophet. God had promised that the ruins would be rebuilt (Isa 44:26).","summary_en":"5:5 God was watching over them: All credit goes to God’s sovereign control of events, not to any human leader or prophet. God had promised that the ruins would be rebuilt (Isa 44:26).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":130914,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ezra 5:5","title_en":"Study Note: Ezra 5:5","content_ro":"5:5<\/strong> God was watching over them:<\/em> All credit goes to God’s sovereign control of events, not to any human leader or prophet. God had promised that the ruins would be rebuilt (Isa 44:26).<\/p>","content_en":"5:5<\/strong> God was watching over them:<\/em> All credit goes to God’s sovereign control of events, not to any human leader or prophet. God had promised that the ruins would be rebuilt (Isa 44:26).<\/p>","summary_ro":"5:5 God was watching over them: All credit goes to God’s sovereign control of events, not to any human leader or prophet. God had promised that the ruins would be rebuilt (Isa 44:26).","summary_en":"5:5 God was watching over them: All credit goes to God’s sovereign control of events, not to any human leader or prophet. God had promised that the ruins would be rebuilt (Isa 44:26).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":62110,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Completion of the Second Temple","title_en":"Completion of the Second Temple","content_ro":"<h3>Completion of the Second Temple<\/h3>\nThe dedication of Israel’s second Temple on March 12, 515 BC<\/span>, was the most significant event in the lives of those who returned from Babylonian exile. Now they could worship and praise God in the same way their ancestors had worshiped before the Exile, and God’s requirements for covenant relationship with him could be fulfilled. The high priest could go into God’s presence to sprinkle the blood once a year on the Day of Atonement for the nation’s sins. After seventy years of estrangement from God, the covenant community was now restored.<\/p>\nThis joyous event did not come without difficulty. With God’s help, the returned exiles overcame sixteen years of opposition from the people who had inhabited their land and from Persian officials. Although their enemies made every attempt to discourage them, the Israelites completed the job of rebuilding the Temple and reestablishing worship through patience, persistence, and strong prophetic encouragement (Ezra 5:1-5; 6:14).<\/p>\nThe dedication of the Temple demonstrates that God can accomplish his will through a small group of people who set their priorities on pleasing him and who trust him to provide the resources to fulfill his promises (see Hag 2:6-9). Instead of focusing on what little they had, the people of God trusted in what he could provide. They were dedicated to glorifying God and maintaining their relationship with him. God proved that he was sovereignly in control of nations and could change the hearts of the leaders of those nations to accomplish his will (Ezra 5:5; 6:6-12, 22).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nExod 40:1-38; 1 Kgs 7:51–9:9; Ezra 6:14-22; Hag 1:8; 2:7-8; Zech 4:1-10; Rev 21:1-27<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Completion of the Second Temple<\/h3>\nThe dedication of Israel’s second Temple on March 12, 515 BC<\/span>, was the most significant event in the lives of those who returned from Babylonian exile. Now they could worship and praise God in the same way their ancestors had worshiped before the Exile, and God’s requirements for covenant relationship with him could be fulfilled. The high priest could go into God’s presence to sprinkle the blood once a year on the Day of Atonement for the nation’s sins. After seventy years of estrangement from God, the covenant community was now restored.<\/p>\nThis joyous event did not come without difficulty. With God’s help, the returned exiles overcame sixteen years of opposition from the people who had inhabited their land and from Persian officials. Although their enemies made every attempt to discourage them, the Israelites completed the job of rebuilding the Temple and reestablishing worship through patience, persistence, and strong prophetic encouragement (Ezra 5:1-5; 6:14).<\/p>\nThe dedication of the Temple demonstrates that God can accomplish his will through a small group of people who set their priorities on pleasing him and who trust him to provide the resources to fulfill his promises (see Hag 2:6-9). Instead of focusing on what little they had, the people of God trusted in what he could provide. They were dedicated to glorifying God and maintaining their relationship with him. God proved that he was sovereignly in control of nations and could change the hearts of the leaders of those nations to accomplish his will (Ezra 5:5; 6:6-12, 22).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nExod 40:1-38; 1 Kgs 7:51–9:9; Ezra 6:14-22; Hag 1:8; 2:7-8; Zech 4:1-10; Rev 21:1-27<\/p>","summary_ro":"Completion of the Second Temple The dedication of Israel’s second Temple on March 12, 515 BC, was the most significant event in the lives of those who returned from Babylonian exile. Now they could worship and praise God in the same way their ancestors had worshiped before the Exile, and God’s requirements for covenant relationship with him could be fulfilled. The high priest could go into God’s presence to sprinkle the blood once a year on the Day of Atonement for the nation’s sins. After se...","summary_en":"Completion of the Second Temple The dedication of Israel’s second Temple on March 12, 515 BC, was the most significant event in the lives of those who returned from Babylonian exile. Now they could worship and praise God in the same way their ancestors had worshiped before the Exile, and God’s requirements for covenant relationship with him could be fulfilled. The high priest could go into God’s presence to sprinkle the blood once a year on the Day of Atonement for the nation’s sins. After se...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":89736,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Completion of the Second Temple","title_en":"Completion of the Second Temple","content_ro":"<h3>Completion of the Second Temple<\/h3>\nThe dedication of Israel’s second Temple on March 12, 515 BC<\/span>, was the most significant event in the lives of those who returned from Babylonian exile. Now they could worship and praise God in the same way their ancestors had worshiped before the Exile, and God’s requirements for covenant relationship with him could be fulfilled. The high priest could go into God’s presence to sprinkle the blood once a year on the Day of Atonement for the nation’s sins. After seventy years of estrangement from God, the covenant community was now restored.<\/p>\nThis joyous event did not come without difficulty. With God’s help, the returned exiles overcame sixteen years of opposition from the people who had inhabited their land and from Persian officials. Although their enemies made every attempt to discourage them, the Israelites completed the job of rebuilding the Temple and reestablishing worship through patience, persistence, and strong prophetic encouragement (Ezra 5:1-5; 6:14).<\/p>\nThe dedication of the Temple demonstrates that God can accomplish his will through a small group of people who set their priorities on pleasing him and who trust him to provide the resources to fulfill his promises (see Hag 2:6-9). Instead of focusing on what little they had, the people of God trusted in what he could provide. They were dedicated to glorifying God and maintaining their relationship with him. God proved that he was sovereignly in control of nations and could change the hearts of the leaders of those nations to accomplish his will (Ezra 5:5; 6:6-12, 22).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nExod 40:1-38; 1 Kgs 7:51–9:9; Ezra 6:14-22; Hag 1:8; 2:7-8; Zech 4:1-10; Rev 21:1-27<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Completion of the Second Temple<\/h3>\nThe dedication of Israel’s second Temple on March 12, 515 BC<\/span>, was the most significant event in the lives of those who returned from Babylonian exile. Now they could worship and praise God in the same way their ancestors had worshiped before the Exile, and God’s requirements for covenant relationship with him could be fulfilled. The high priest could go into God’s presence to sprinkle the blood once a year on the Day of Atonement for the nation’s sins. After seventy years of estrangement from God, the covenant community was now restored.<\/p>\nThis joyous event did not come without difficulty. With God’s help, the returned exiles overcame sixteen years of opposition from the people who had inhabited their land and from Persian officials. Although their enemies made every attempt to discourage them, the Israelites completed the job of rebuilding the Temple and reestablishing worship through patience, persistence, and strong prophetic encouragement (Ezra 5:1-5; 6:14).<\/p>\nThe dedication of the Temple demonstrates that God can accomplish his will through a small group of people who set their priorities on pleasing him and who trust him to provide the resources to fulfill his promises (see Hag 2:6-9). Instead of focusing on what little they had, the people of God trusted in what he could provide. They were dedicated to glorifying God and maintaining their relationship with him. God proved that he was sovereignly in control of nations and could change the hearts of the leaders of those nations to accomplish his will (Ezra 5:5; 6:6-12, 22).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nExod 40:1-38; 1 Kgs 7:51–9:9; Ezra 6:14-22; Hag 1:8; 2:7-8; Zech 4:1-10; Rev 21:1-27<\/p>","summary_ro":"Completion of the Second Temple The dedication of Israel’s second Temple on March 12, 515 BC, was the most significant event in the lives of those who returned from Babylonian exile. Now they could worship and praise God in the same way their ancestors had worshiped before the Exile, and God’s requirements for covenant relationship with him could be fulfilled. The high priest could go into God’s presence to sprinkle the blood once a year on the Day of Atonement for the nation’s sins. After se...","summary_en":"Completion of the Second Temple The dedication of Israel’s second Temple on March 12, 515 BC, was the most significant event in the lives of those who returned from Babylonian exile. Now they could worship and praise God in the same way their ancestors had worshiped before the Exile, and God’s requirements for covenant relationship with him could be fulfilled. The high priest could go into God’s presence to sprinkle the blood once a year on the Day of Atonement for the nation’s sins. After se...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":117362,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Completion of the Second Temple","title_en":"Completion of the Second Temple","content_ro":"<h3>Completion of the Second Temple<\/h3>\nThe dedication of Israel’s second Temple on March 12, 515 BC<\/span>, was the most significant event in the lives of those who returned from Babylonian exile. Now they could worship and praise God in the same way their ancestors had worshiped before the Exile, and God’s requirements for covenant relationship with him could be fulfilled. The high priest could go into God’s presence to sprinkle the blood once a year on the Day of Atonement for the nation’s sins. After seventy years of estrangement from God, the covenant community was now restored.<\/p>\nThis joyous event did not come without difficulty. With God’s help, the returned exiles overcame sixteen years of opposition from the people who had inhabited their land and from Persian officials. Although their enemies made every attempt to discourage them, the Israelites completed the job of rebuilding the Temple and reestablishing worship through patience, persistence, and strong prophetic encouragement (Ezra 5:1-5; 6:14).<\/p>\nThe dedication of the Temple demonstrates that God can accomplish his will through a small group of people who set their priorities on pleasing him and who trust him to provide the resources to fulfill his promises (see Hag 2:6-9). Instead of focusing on what little they had, the people of God trusted in what he could provide. They were dedicated to glorifying God and maintaining their relationship with him. God proved that he was sovereignly in control of nations and could change the hearts of the leaders of those nations to accomplish his will (Ezra 5:5; 6:6-12, 22).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nExod 40:1-38; 1 Kgs 7:51–9:9; Ezra 6:14-22; Hag 1:8; 2:7-8; Zech 4:1-10; Rev 21:1-27<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Completion of the Second Temple<\/h3>\nThe dedication of Israel’s second Temple on March 12, 515 BC<\/span>, was the most significant event in the lives of those who returned from Babylonian exile. Now they could worship and praise God in the same way their ancestors had worshiped before the Exile, and God’s requirements for covenant relationship with him could be fulfilled. The high priest could go into God’s presence to sprinkle the blood once a year on the Day of Atonement for the nation’s sins. After seventy years of estrangement from God, the covenant community was now restored.<\/p>\nThis joyous event did not come without difficulty. With God’s help, the returned exiles overcame sixteen years of opposition from the people who had inhabited their land and from Persian officials. Although their enemies made every attempt to discourage them, the Israelites completed the job of rebuilding the Temple and reestablishing worship through patience, persistence, and strong prophetic encouragement (Ezra 5:1-5; 6:14).<\/p>\nThe dedication of the Temple demonstrates that God can accomplish his will through a small group of people who set their priorities on pleasing him and who trust him to provide the resources to fulfill his promises (see Hag 2:6-9). Instead of focusing on what little they had, the people of God trusted in what he could provide. They were dedicated to glorifying God and maintaining their relationship with him. God proved that he was sovereignly in control of nations and could change the hearts of the leaders of those nations to accomplish his will (Ezra 5:5; 6:6-12, 22).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nExod 40:1-38; 1 Kgs 7:51–9:9; Ezra 6:14-22; Hag 1:8; 2:7-8; Zech 4:1-10; Rev 21:1-27<\/p>","summary_ro":"Completion of the Second Temple The dedication of Israel’s second Temple on March 12, 515 BC, was the most significant event in the lives of those who returned from Babylonian exile. Now they could worship and praise God in the same way their ancestors had worshiped before the Exile, and God’s requirements for covenant relationship with him could be fulfilled. The high priest could go into God’s presence to sprinkle the blood once a year on the Day of Atonement for the nation’s sins. After se...","summary_en":"Completion of the Second Temple The dedication of Israel’s second Temple on March 12, 515 BC, was the most significant event in the lives of those who returned from Babylonian exile. Now they could worship and praise God in the same way their ancestors had worshiped before the Exile, and God’s requirements for covenant relationship with him could be fulfilled. The high priest could go into God’s presence to sprinkle the blood once a year on the Day of Atonement for the nation’s sins. After se...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":144988,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Completion of the Second Temple","title_en":"Completion of the Second Temple","content_ro":"<h3>Completion of the Second Temple<\/h3>\nThe dedication of Israel’s second Temple on March 12, 515 BC<\/span>, was the most significant event in the lives of those who returned from Babylonian exile. Now they could worship and praise God in the same way their ancestors had worshiped before the Exile, and God’s requirements for covenant relationship with him could be fulfilled. The high priest could go into God’s presence to sprinkle the blood once a year on the Day of Atonement for the nation’s sins. After seventy years of estrangement from God, the covenant community was now restored.<\/p>\nThis joyous event did not come without difficulty. With God’s help, the returned exiles overcame sixteen years of opposition from the people who had inhabited their land and from Persian officials. Although their enemies made every attempt to discourage them, the Israelites completed the job of rebuilding the Temple and reestablishing worship through patience, persistence, and strong prophetic encouragement (Ezra 5:1-5; 6:14).<\/p>\nThe dedication of the Temple demonstrates that God can accomplish his will through a small group of people who set their priorities on pleasing him and who trust him to provide the resources to fulfill his promises (see Hag 2:6-9). Instead of focusing on what little they had, the people of God trusted in what he could provide. They were dedicated to glorifying God and maintaining their relationship with him. God proved that he was sovereignly in control of nations and could change the hearts of the leaders of those nations to accomplish his will (Ezra 5:5; 6:6-12, 22).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nExod 40:1-38; 1 Kgs 7:51–9:9; Ezra 6:14-22; Hag 1:8; 2:7-8; Zech 4:1-10; Rev 21:1-27<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Completion of the Second Temple<\/h3>\nThe dedication of Israel’s second Temple on March 12, 515 BC<\/span>, was the most significant event in the lives of those who returned from Babylonian exile. Now they could worship and praise God in the same way their ancestors had worshiped before the Exile, and God’s requirements for covenant relationship with him could be fulfilled. The high priest could go into God’s presence to sprinkle the blood once a year on the Day of Atonement for the nation’s sins. After seventy years of estrangement from God, the covenant community was now restored.<\/p>\nThis joyous event did not come without difficulty. With God’s help, the returned exiles overcame sixteen years of opposition from the people who had inhabited their land and from Persian officials. Although their enemies made every attempt to discourage them, the Israelites completed the job of rebuilding the Temple and reestablishing worship through patience, persistence, and strong prophetic encouragement (Ezra 5:1-5; 6:14).<\/p>\nThe dedication of the Temple demonstrates that God can accomplish his will through a small group of people who set their priorities on pleasing him and who trust him to provide the resources to fulfill his promises (see Hag 2:6-9). Instead of focusing on what little they had, the people of God trusted in what he could provide. They were dedicated to glorifying God and maintaining their relationship with him. God proved that he was sovereignly in control of nations and could change the hearts of the leaders of those nations to accomplish his will (Ezra 5:5; 6:6-12, 22).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nExod 40:1-38; 1 Kgs 7:51–9:9; Ezra 6:14-22; Hag 1:8; 2:7-8; Zech 4:1-10; Rev 21:1-27<\/p>","summary_ro":"Completion of the Second Temple The dedication of Israel’s second Temple on March 12, 515 BC, was the most significant event in the lives of those who returned from Babylonian exile. Now they could worship and praise God in the same way their ancestors had worshiped before the Exile, and God’s requirements for covenant relationship with him could be fulfilled. The high priest could go into God’s presence to sprinkle the blood once a year on the Day of Atonement for the nation’s sins. After se...","summary_en":"Completion of the Second Temple The dedication of Israel’s second Temple on March 12, 515 BC, was the most significant event in the lives of those who returned from Babylonian exile. Now they could worship and praise God in the same way their ancestors had worshiped before the Exile, and God’s requirements for covenant relationship with him could be fulfilled. The high priest could go into God’s presence to sprinkle the blood once a year on the Day of Atonement for the nation’s sins. After se...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"6":[{"id":41764,"type":"profile","type_label":"Profil","type_icon":"👤","type_color":"#f59e0b","title_ro":"Cyrus II","title_en":"Cyrus II","content_ro":"<h3>Cyrus II<\/h3>\nCyrus II, king of Persia (559–530 BC<\/span>), founded the great Persian Empire. His father was king of Persia, a small nation that was subject to Media, and his mother was the daughter of the king of the Medes. Cyrus conquered the Medes in 549 BC<\/span> and combined the two nations into one. He conquered Lydia in Asia Minor in 547 BC<\/span>, then turned to the east and brought Parthia and part of India into the Persian Empire. Finally, on October 29, 539 BC<\/span>, Cyrus conquered the city of Babylon and brought Babylonia into his empire (see Dan 5:30-31).<\/p>\nAfter conquering Babylon, Cyrus issued a decree that allowed the Jewish people to return home and rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem. The part of this decree dealing with the Jews has been recorded in 2 Chronicles 36:22-23 and Ezra 1:1-4. This practice is confirmed by the Cyrus Cylinder, a barrel that was discovered at Babylon in 1879–82, which describes Cyrus’s policy regarding conquered peoples.<\/p>\nIsaiah named Cyrus as Judah’s future deliverer (Isa 44:28–45:13) and even called him the Lord’s anointed (Isa 45:1, Hebrew mashiakh,<\/span> “messiah”). Israel regarded Cyrus as called and empowered by God to free them. Cyrus was not the<\/em> Messiah, but what he did served as an example of what the Messiah, Jesus Christ, would later do in setting God’s people free from servitude.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n2 Chr 36:22-23; Ezra 1:1-11; 3:7; 4:1-5; 5:6-17; 6:14-15; Isa 44:28–45:13; 48:14-16; Dan 6:28; 10:1<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Cyrus II<\/h3>\nCyrus II, king of Persia (559–530 BC<\/span>), founded the great Persian Empire. His father was king of Persia, a small nation that was subject to Media, and his mother was the daughter of the king of the Medes. Cyrus conquered the Medes in 549 BC<\/span> and combined the two nations into one. He conquered Lydia in Asia Minor in 547 BC<\/span>, then turned to the east and brought Parthia and part of India into the Persian Empire. Finally, on October 29, 539 BC<\/span>, Cyrus conquered the city of Babylon and brought Babylonia into his empire (see Dan 5:30-31).<\/p>\nAfter conquering Babylon, Cyrus issued a decree that allowed the Jewish people to return home and rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem. The part of this decree dealing with the Jews has been recorded in 2 Chronicles 36:22-23 and Ezra 1:1-4. This practice is confirmed by the Cyrus Cylinder, a barrel that was discovered at Babylon in 1879–82, which describes Cyrus’s policy regarding conquered peoples.<\/p>\nIsaiah named Cyrus as Judah’s future deliverer (Isa 44:28–45:13) and even called him the Lord’s anointed (Isa 45:1, Hebrew mashiakh,<\/span> “messiah”). Israel regarded Cyrus as called and empowered by God to free them. Cyrus was not the<\/em> Messiah, but what he did served as an example of what the Messiah, Jesus Christ, would later do in setting God’s people free from servitude.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n2 Chr 36:22-23; Ezra 1:1-11; 3:7; 4:1-5; 5:6-17; 6:14-15; Isa 44:28–45:13; 48:14-16; Dan 6:28; 10:1<\/p>","summary_ro":"Cyrus II Cyrus II, king of Persia (559–530 BC), founded the great Persian Empire. His father was king of Persia, a small nation that was subject to Media, and his mother was the daughter of the king of the Medes. Cyrus conquered the Medes in 549 BC and combined the two nations into one. He conquered Lydia in Asia Minor in 547 BC, then turned to the east and brought Parthia and part of India into the Persian Empire. Finally, on October 29, 539 BC, Cyrus conquered the city of Babylon and brough...","summary_en":"Cyrus II Cyrus II, king of Persia (559–530 BC), founded the great Persian Empire. His father was king of Persia, a small nation that was subject to Media, and his mother was the daughter of the king of the Medes. Cyrus conquered the Medes in 549 BC and combined the two nations into one. He conquered Lydia in Asia Minor in 547 BC, then turned to the east and brought Parthia and part of India into the Persian Empire. Finally, on October 29, 539 BC, Cyrus conquered the city of Babylon and brough...","source":"Profiles.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":69390,"type":"profile","type_label":"Profil","type_icon":"👤","type_color":"#f59e0b","title_ro":"Cyrus II","title_en":"Cyrus II","content_ro":"<h3>Cyrus II<\/h3>\nCyrus II, king of Persia (559–530 BC<\/span>), founded the great Persian Empire. His father was king of Persia, a small nation that was subject to Media, and his mother was the daughter of the king of the Medes. Cyrus conquered the Medes in 549 BC<\/span> and combined the two nations into one. He conquered Lydia in Asia Minor in 547 BC<\/span>, then turned to the east and brought Parthia and part of India into the Persian Empire. Finally, on October 29, 539 BC<\/span>, Cyrus conquered the city of Babylon and brought Babylonia into his empire (see Dan 5:30-31).<\/p>\nAfter conquering Babylon, Cyrus issued a decree that allowed the Jewish people to return home and rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem. The part of this decree dealing with the Jews has been recorded in 2 Chronicles 36:22-23 and Ezra 1:1-4. This practice is confirmed by the Cyrus Cylinder, a barrel that was discovered at Babylon in 1879–82, which describes Cyrus’s policy regarding conquered peoples.<\/p>\nIsaiah named Cyrus as Judah’s future deliverer (Isa 44:28–45:13) and even called him the Lord’s anointed (Isa 45:1, Hebrew mashiakh,<\/span> “messiah”). Israel regarded Cyrus as called and empowered by God to free them. Cyrus was not the<\/em> Messiah, but what he did served as an example of what the Messiah, Jesus Christ, would later do in setting God’s people free from servitude.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n2 Chr 36:22-23; Ezra 1:1-11; 3:7; 4:1-5; 5:6-17; 6:14-15; Isa 44:28–45:13; 48:14-16; Dan 6:28; 10:1<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Cyrus II<\/h3>\nCyrus II, king of Persia (559–530 BC<\/span>), founded the great Persian Empire. His father was king of Persia, a small nation that was subject to Media, and his mother was the daughter of the king of the Medes. Cyrus conquered the Medes in 549 BC<\/span> and combined the two nations into one. He conquered Lydia in Asia Minor in 547 BC<\/span>, then turned to the east and brought Parthia and part of India into the Persian Empire. Finally, on October 29, 539 BC<\/span>, Cyrus conquered the city of Babylon and brought Babylonia into his empire (see Dan 5:30-31).<\/p>\nAfter conquering Babylon, Cyrus issued a decree that allowed the Jewish people to return home and rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem. The part of this decree dealing with the Jews has been recorded in 2 Chronicles 36:22-23 and Ezra 1:1-4. This practice is confirmed by the Cyrus Cylinder, a barrel that was discovered at Babylon in 1879–82, which describes Cyrus’s policy regarding conquered peoples.<\/p>\nIsaiah named Cyrus as Judah’s future deliverer (Isa 44:28–45:13) and even called him the Lord’s anointed (Isa 45:1, Hebrew mashiakh,<\/span> “messiah”). Israel regarded Cyrus as called and empowered by God to free them. Cyrus was not the<\/em> Messiah, but what he did served as an example of what the Messiah, Jesus Christ, would later do in setting God’s people free from servitude.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n2 Chr 36:22-23; Ezra 1:1-11; 3:7; 4:1-5; 5:6-17; 6:14-15; Isa 44:28–45:13; 48:14-16; Dan 6:28; 10:1<\/p>","summary_ro":"Cyrus II Cyrus II, king of Persia (559–530 BC), founded the great Persian Empire. His father was king of Persia, a small nation that was subject to Media, and his mother was the daughter of the king of the Medes. Cyrus conquered the Medes in 549 BC and combined the two nations into one. He conquered Lydia in Asia Minor in 547 BC, then turned to the east and brought Parthia and part of India into the Persian Empire. Finally, on October 29, 539 BC, Cyrus conquered the city of Babylon and brough...","summary_en":"Cyrus II Cyrus II, king of Persia (559–530 BC), founded the great Persian Empire. His father was king of Persia, a small nation that was subject to Media, and his mother was the daughter of the king of the Medes. Cyrus conquered the Medes in 549 BC and combined the two nations into one. He conquered Lydia in Asia Minor in 547 BC, then turned to the east and brought Parthia and part of India into the Persian Empire. Finally, on October 29, 539 BC, Cyrus conquered the city of Babylon and brough...","source":"Profiles.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":97016,"type":"profile","type_label":"Profil","type_icon":"👤","type_color":"#f59e0b","title_ro":"Cyrus II","title_en":"Cyrus II","content_ro":"<h3>Cyrus II<\/h3>\nCyrus II, king of Persia (559–530 BC<\/span>), founded the great Persian Empire. His father was king of Persia, a small nation that was subject to Media, and his mother was the daughter of the king of the Medes. Cyrus conquered the Medes in 549 BC<\/span> and combined the two nations into one. He conquered Lydia in Asia Minor in 547 BC<\/span>, then turned to the east and brought Parthia and part of India into the Persian Empire. Finally, on October 29, 539 BC<\/span>, Cyrus conquered the city of Babylon and brought Babylonia into his empire (see Dan 5:30-31).<\/p>\nAfter conquering Babylon, Cyrus issued a decree that allowed the Jewish people to return home and rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem. The part of this decree dealing with the Jews has been recorded in 2 Chronicles 36:22-23 and Ezra 1:1-4. This practice is confirmed by the Cyrus Cylinder, a barrel that was discovered at Babylon in 1879–82, which describes Cyrus’s policy regarding conquered peoples.<\/p>\nIsaiah named Cyrus as Judah’s future deliverer (Isa 44:28–45:13) and even called him the Lord’s anointed (Isa 45:1, Hebrew mashiakh,<\/span> “messiah”). Israel regarded Cyrus as called and empowered by God to free them. Cyrus was not the<\/em> Messiah, but what he did served as an example of what the Messiah, Jesus Christ, would later do in setting God’s people free from servitude.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n2 Chr 36:22-23; Ezra 1:1-11; 3:7; 4:1-5; 5:6-17; 6:14-15; Isa 44:28–45:13; 48:14-16; Dan 6:28; 10:1<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Cyrus II<\/h3>\nCyrus II, king of Persia (559–530 BC<\/span>), founded the great Persian Empire. His father was king of Persia, a small nation that was subject to Media, and his mother was the daughter of the king of the Medes. Cyrus conquered the Medes in 549 BC<\/span> and combined the two nations into one. He conquered Lydia in Asia Minor in 547 BC<\/span>, then turned to the east and brought Parthia and part of India into the Persian Empire. Finally, on October 29, 539 BC<\/span>, Cyrus conquered the city of Babylon and brought Babylonia into his empire (see Dan 5:30-31).<\/p>\nAfter conquering Babylon, Cyrus issued a decree that allowed the Jewish people to return home and rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem. The part of this decree dealing with the Jews has been recorded in 2 Chronicles 36:22-23 and Ezra 1:1-4. This practice is confirmed by the Cyrus Cylinder, a barrel that was discovered at Babylon in 1879–82, which describes Cyrus’s policy regarding conquered peoples.<\/p>\nIsaiah named Cyrus as Judah’s future deliverer (Isa 44:28–45:13) and even called him the Lord’s anointed (Isa 45:1, Hebrew mashiakh,<\/span> “messiah”). Israel regarded Cyrus as called and empowered by God to free them. Cyrus was not the<\/em> Messiah, but what he did served as an example of what the Messiah, Jesus Christ, would later do in setting God’s people free from servitude.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n2 Chr 36:22-23; Ezra 1:1-11; 3:7; 4:1-5; 5:6-17; 6:14-15; Isa 44:28–45:13; 48:14-16; Dan 6:28; 10:1<\/p>","summary_ro":"Cyrus II Cyrus II, king of Persia (559–530 BC), founded the great Persian Empire. His father was king of Persia, a small nation that was subject to Media, and his mother was the daughter of the king of the Medes. Cyrus conquered the Medes in 549 BC and combined the two nations into one. He conquered Lydia in Asia Minor in 547 BC, then turned to the east and brought Parthia and part of India into the Persian Empire. Finally, on October 29, 539 BC, Cyrus conquered the city of Babylon and brough...","summary_en":"Cyrus II Cyrus II, king of Persia (559–530 BC), founded the great Persian Empire. His father was king of Persia, a small nation that was subject to Media, and his mother was the daughter of the king of the Medes. Cyrus conquered the Medes in 549 BC and combined the two nations into one. He conquered Lydia in Asia Minor in 547 BC, then turned to the east and brought Parthia and part of India into the Persian Empire. Finally, on October 29, 539 BC, Cyrus conquered the city of Babylon and brough...","source":"Profiles.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":124642,"type":"profile","type_label":"Profil","type_icon":"👤","type_color":"#f59e0b","title_ro":"Cyrus II","title_en":"Cyrus II","content_ro":"<h3>Cyrus II<\/h3>\nCyrus II, king of Persia (559–530 BC<\/span>), founded the great Persian Empire. His father was king of Persia, a small nation that was subject to Media, and his mother was the daughter of the king of the Medes. Cyrus conquered the Medes in 549 BC<\/span> and combined the two nations into one. He conquered Lydia in Asia Minor in 547 BC<\/span>, then turned to the east and brought Parthia and part of India into the Persian Empire. Finally, on October 29, 539 BC<\/span>, Cyrus conquered the city of Babylon and brought Babylonia into his empire (see Dan 5:30-31).<\/p>\nAfter conquering Babylon, Cyrus issued a decree that allowed the Jewish people to return home and rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem. The part of this decree dealing with the Jews has been recorded in 2 Chronicles 36:22-23 and Ezra 1:1-4. This practice is confirmed by the Cyrus Cylinder, a barrel that was discovered at Babylon in 1879–82, which describes Cyrus’s policy regarding conquered peoples.<\/p>\nIsaiah named Cyrus as Judah’s future deliverer (Isa 44:28–45:13) and even called him the Lord’s anointed (Isa 45:1, Hebrew mashiakh,<\/span> “messiah”). Israel regarded Cyrus as called and empowered by God to free them. Cyrus was not the<\/em> Messiah, but what he did served as an example of what the Messiah, Jesus Christ, would later do in setting God’s people free from servitude.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n2 Chr 36:22-23; Ezra 1:1-11; 3:7; 4:1-5; 5:6-17; 6:14-15; Isa 44:28–45:13; 48:14-16; Dan 6:28; 10:1<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Cyrus II<\/h3>\nCyrus II, king of Persia (559–530 BC<\/span>), founded the great Persian Empire. His father was king of Persia, a small nation that was subject to Media, and his mother was the daughter of the king of the Medes. Cyrus conquered the Medes in 549 BC<\/span> and combined the two nations into one. He conquered Lydia in Asia Minor in 547 BC<\/span>, then turned to the east and brought Parthia and part of India into the Persian Empire. Finally, on October 29, 539 BC<\/span>, Cyrus conquered the city of Babylon and brought Babylonia into his empire (see Dan 5:30-31).<\/p>\nAfter conquering Babylon, Cyrus issued a decree that allowed the Jewish people to return home and rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem. The part of this decree dealing with the Jews has been recorded in 2 Chronicles 36:22-23 and Ezra 1:1-4. This practice is confirmed by the Cyrus Cylinder, a barrel that was discovered at Babylon in 1879–82, which describes Cyrus’s policy regarding conquered peoples.<\/p>\nIsaiah named Cyrus as Judah’s future deliverer (Isa 44:28–45:13) and even called him the Lord’s anointed (Isa 45:1, Hebrew mashiakh,<\/span> “messiah”). Israel regarded Cyrus as called and empowered by God to free them. Cyrus was not the<\/em> Messiah, but what he did served as an example of what the Messiah, Jesus Christ, would later do in setting God’s people free from servitude.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n2 Chr 36:22-23; Ezra 1:1-11; 3:7; 4:1-5; 5:6-17; 6:14-15; Isa 44:28–45:13; 48:14-16; Dan 6:28; 10:1<\/p>","summary_ro":"Cyrus II Cyrus II, king of Persia (559–530 BC), founded the great Persian Empire. His father was king of Persia, a small nation that was subject to Media, and his mother was the daughter of the king of the Medes. Cyrus conquered the Medes in 549 BC and combined the two nations into one. He conquered Lydia in Asia Minor in 547 BC, then turned to the east and brought Parthia and part of India into the Persian Empire. Finally, on October 29, 539 BC, Cyrus conquered the city of Babylon and brough...","summary_en":"Cyrus II Cyrus II, king of Persia (559–530 BC), founded the great Persian Empire. His father was king of Persia, a small nation that was subject to Media, and his mother was the daughter of the king of the Medes. Cyrus conquered the Medes in 549 BC and combined the two nations into one. He conquered Lydia in Asia Minor in 547 BC, then turned to the east and brought Parthia and part of India into the Persian Empire. Finally, on October 29, 539 BC, Cyrus conquered the city of Babylon and brough...","source":"Profiles.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":2254,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Apharsachites*, Apharsathchites*, Apharsites*","title_en":"Apharsachites*, Apharsathchites*, Apharsites*","content_ro":"<h3>APHARSACHITES*, APHARSATHCHITES*, APHARSITES*<\/h3>\nWords used in the book of Ezra to designate certain groups of people in Samaria who joined in writing King Artaxerxes of Babylon to stop the rebuilding of the temple in Jerusalem. Apharsathchites (Ezr 4:9, kjv<\/span>) could refer to a specific ethnic group or to government leaders; a similar Old Persian word meant “messengers.” Apharsachites (Ezr 5:6; 6:6, kjv<\/span>) could be a shortened form of Apharsathchites or could be derived from an old Persian word for “investigators.” Apharsites (Ezr 4:9, kjv<\/span>) is similar to the Hebrew word for “Persians” and has been translated that way.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>APHARSACHITES*, APHARSATHCHITES*, APHARSITES*<\/h3>\nWords used in the book of Ezra to designate certain groups of people in Samaria who joined in writing King Artaxerxes of Babylon to stop the rebuilding of the temple in Jerusalem. Apharsathchites (Ezr 4:9, kjv<\/span>) could refer to a specific ethnic group or to government leaders; a similar Old Persian word meant “messengers.” Apharsachites (Ezr 5:6; 6:6, kjv<\/span>) could be a shortened form of Apharsathchites or could be derived from an old Persian word for “investigators.” Apharsites (Ezr 4:9, kjv<\/span>) is similar to the Hebrew word for “Persians” and has been translated that way.<\/p>","summary_ro":"APHARSACHITES*, APHARSATHCHITES*, APHARSITES* Words used in the book of Ezra to designate certain groups of people in Samaria who joined in writing King Artaxerxes of Babylon to stop the rebuilding of the temple in Jerusalem. Apharsathchites (Ezr 4:9, kjv) could refer to a specific ethnic group or to government leaders; a similar Old Persian word meant “messengers.” Apharsachites (Ezr 5:6; 6:6, kjv) could be a shortened form of Apharsathchites or could be derived from an old Persian word for ...","summary_en":"APHARSACHITES*, APHARSATHCHITES*, APHARSITES* Words used in the book of Ezra to designate certain groups of people in Samaria who joined in writing King Artaxerxes of Babylon to stop the rebuilding of the temple in Jerusalem. Apharsathchites (Ezr 4:9, kjv) could refer to a specific ethnic group or to government leaders; a similar Old Persian word meant “messengers.” Apharsachites (Ezr 5:6; 6:6, kjv) could be a shortened form of Apharsathchites or could be derived from an old Persian word for ...","source":"Articles\/A.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":11789,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Book of Ezra","title_en":"Book of Ezra","content_ro":"<h3>EZRA, Book of<\/h3>\nOne of the historical books of the OT, associated with 2 Chronicles and Nehemiah.<\/p>\nPreview<\/p>\n• Name<\/p>\n• Background<\/p>\n• Sources<\/p>\n• Date<\/p>\n• Languages, Texts, and Versions<\/p>\n• Purpose and Content<\/p>\nName<\/p>\nIn the Talmud tractate Baba Bathra<\/em> 15a, the rabbis and scribes regarded Ezra and Nehemiah as one book. Josephus (Apion<\/em> 1.8) also considered the two books to be one when the number of OT books was given as 22. Some church fathers, such as Melito of Sardis and Jerome, thought of them as one book. The Septuagint (Greek translation of the OT) also grouped the two books as one, referring to them as 2 Ezra to distinguish them from an apocryphal book known as 1 Ezra. The Latin Vulgate, however, called Ezra “1 Ezra” and Nehemiah “2 Ezra.”<\/p>\nBackground<\/p>\nThe Jewish people came under the rule of the Persian Empire when Cyrus conquered Babylon in 539 BC<\/span>. From then until Ezra’s time, the Persian kings were Cyrus (539–530 BC<\/span>), who allowed the Jewish people and other captives to return to their homeland (Ezr 1); Cambyses (529–522 BC<\/span>); Gaumata, a usurper of the throne (522 BC<\/span>); Darius I (521–486 BC<\/span>; Ezr 5:6); Xerxes I (OT Ahasuerus, 486–465 BC<\/span>; Ezr 4:6); and Artaxerxes I (465–424 BC<\/span>; Ezr 4:7-23; 7:1–10:44). Both Ezra’s and Nehemiah’s work fall within the period between Cyrus and Artaxerxes I. Some scholars, however, place Ezra during the reign of Artaxerxes II (404–359 BC<\/span>).<\/p>\nSources<\/p>\nBy tradition, the Jewish leader Ezra researched and put together the material that forms his book. Chapters 7–10 are written in the first person singular, and Ezra may have used the autobiographical passages as the core of this book, adding information from other sources. That the book contains portions written in Aramaic has been used as justification for assigning a date later than Ezra’s time. But the Aramaic of Ezra bears a remarkable similarity to fifth-century BC<\/span> Aramaic papyri from the Jewish community at Elephantine in Egypt.<\/p>\nThe book is largely a compilation, using autobiography, official documents, edicts, and other material. The present book of Ezra contains four identifiable strata of source material.<\/p>\n<h5>Memoirs of Ezra<\/h5>\nCertain sections appear in the first person singular (7:27–9:15), located between third-person narratives (7:1-26; 10). The memoirs were probably part of Ezra’s own official reports.<\/p>\n<h5>Aramaic Documents<\/h5>\nAramaic was the diplomatic language of the Persian Empire, and a number of documents appear in the book of Ezra. A letter of complaint was written to Artaxerxes I about the rebuilding of the city walls, for example, and Ezra also included the official reply (Ezr 4:8-23). There is also a letter of Darius I and the king’s reply (5:1–6:18). An official authorization by the Persian court of Artaxerxes permitted Ezra to return, and this included a description of material entrusted into his keeping (7:12-26). Since all of those sections were official correspondence, the record naturally is written in Aramaic.<\/p>\n<h5>Hebrew Lists<\/h5>\nEzra included Hebrew documents listing people’s names for a number of purposes. One such document indicated the Persian government’s permission for Jewish immigrants to return to the land of Israel (Ezr 1:2-4). It was a Jewish version of Cyrus’s general edict expressing concern for all his subjects. The edict in Aramaic is repeated by Ezra in 6:3-5, and that version is probably taken from an original memorandum of a royal decision. Ezra included lists of the immigrants who returned to begin the second commonwealth of Israel (ch 2, repeated in Neh 7). The book also contains a list of immigrants who returned with Ezra by permission of Artaxerxes I (Ezr 8:1-14). Lists of those who had married pagan wives are provided as well (10:18-43).<\/p>\n<h5>Narrative<\/h5>\nThe rest of the book comprises narrative by Ezra himself. For the period of the first return prior to his own time, he probably drew upon existing sources, either oral or documentary. Material in the book that was contemporary with the scribe would be his personal account about his own work.<\/p>\nDate<\/p>\nTraditionally, the Artaxerxes in Ezra 7:1 has been identified with Artaxerxes I Longimanus. Ezra’s arrival in Jerusalem would thus have been in 458 BC<\/span> (see nlt<\/span> mg for 7:8). Therefore, Ezra’s work at Jerusalem started before that of Nehemiah, who came in 445 BC<\/span>.<\/p>\nBut the traditional dates are questioned from a number of sources. One alternative is to place Nehemiah during the reign of Artaxerxes I (464–424 BC<\/span>) and Ezra at a later date, in the reign of Artaxerxes II Mnemon (404–359 BC<\/span>). Such a suggestion creates a difficulty with Nehemiah 8:2, because there Ezra is named as Nehemiah’s contemporary and coworker.<\/p>\nIn addition, the Elephantine papyri (407–400 BC<\/span>) mention the high priest Johanan in Jerusalem, and Sanballat as governor of Samaria. Johanan is considered a grandson of Eliashib, but Nehemiah was a contemporary of Eliashib (Neh 3:1, 20). The biblical material that speaks of Nehemiah going to Jerusalem in the 20th year of Artaxerxes (Neh 2:1, 445 BC<\/span>) and again during the 32nd year (Neh 13:6, 433 BC<\/span>) refers to Eliashib’s contemporary high priesthood with Ezra. The traditional position thus furnishes a reasonable date for the book of Ezra. If the scribe were placed during the reign of Artaxerxes II (c. 397 BC<\/span>), his ministry would be too late for the high priesthood of Johanan.<\/p>\nLanguages, Texts, and Versions<\/p>\nThe primary language of the book of Ezra is Hebrew; the exceptions are 4:7, 6:18, and 7:12-26, which are written in Aramaic. The Hebrew portion appears to resemble the language of Daniel, Haggai, and 2 Chronicles much more than later Hebrew, such as that of Ecclesiasticus. As indicated, the Aramaic portions resemble the Elephantine papyri, dated about 407–400 BC<\/span>. In addition, Persian personal and family names and Persian words and expressions occur in the book, such as Bigvai, Mithredath, and Elam. All of these evidences serve to place the book in about the fifth century BC<\/span>.<\/p>\nThe Hebrew Masoretic Text of Ezra seems well preserved. The Septuagint version is a bit shorter than the Masoretic Text. Only parts of Ezra 4 and 5 have been found among the Dead Sea Scrolls.<\/p>\nPurpose and Content<\/p>\nThe book of Ezra is a straightforward account of one of the most important events in Jewish history. From a priestly point of view, it is an account of the restoration of Jewish people to their homeland following the Babylonian dispersion. The record tells of two distinct returns, one under the leadership of Zerubbabel (chs 1–6; 538 BC<\/span>), and 80 years later, the second return led by Ezra (chs 7–10; 458 BC<\/span>). The book emphasizes Ezra’s leadership and the reestablishment of the people on their land, both of which were to have important future consequences.<\/p>\nLittle is known about the political activity of Ezra in the Persian court. He appears to have been a man of considerable influence, however, and could well be described as an official who held a position corresponding to that of “Secretary of State for Jewish Affairs.” To what extent that function applied to the Persian Empire as a whole is uncertain, since Ezra’s recorded activities took place only in the area known to the Persians as the province “Beyond the River,” that is, the territory lying to the west of the Euphrates. The importance of Ezra’s position in the Persian Empire is indicated by the fact that King Artaxerxes gave him full authority to do whatever he thought necessary for the welfare of his people and the empire (7:21-26). Ezra’s genealogy is given in 7:1-5, and he is consistently spoken of as a scribe learned in the Mosaic law. As a descendant of Zadok the priest, he would have the authority to instruct others in the Torah.<\/p>\nChapter 4 speaks of the opposition to rebuilding the temple and the walls. We should recognize that Ezra’s approach in this chapter is topical rather than chronological where, in the middle of describing the earlier opposition to building the temple (5:1-5), he complained that the same kind of opposition was being repeated in his day concerning the attempt to rebuild the city walls and repair the fortifications of Jerusalem (5:7-23). Internal evidence suggests that a long historical interval ensued during the reign of Ahasuerus, or Xerxes, and the early part of Artaxerxes’ regime. During this period, complaints were made to the Persian authorities that the returned Judeans were rebuilding the city wall of Jerusalem, and as a result the work was halted for some time. It readily can be seen that Ezra was dealing with the evil intentions of Judah’s enemies and that the opposition of Rehum and Shimshai did not appear in the 520s (when the temple was being built) because they lived in the 460s, early in the reign of Artaxerxes I.<\/p>\nBut the initial passage is actually a history of opposition to rebuilding the ruined temple. It narrates the frustrations experienced by the Judean community from the time of return to their homeland during Cyrus’s rule (4:1-5) up to the time of King Darius (v 24). The prophet Haggai (520 BC<\/span>) aroused the people with his message and persuaded them to lay the foundations of the new temple.<\/p>\nEzra resumes the theme of the book in chapter 5. He points out the problems, frustrations, and hindrances the Jewish people had with the construction of the temple. It was not until a diligent search had been made in the archives by the Persian authorities that the original edict granting permission to build the temple was found (5:7–6:5).<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Ezra (Person) #1; Postexilic Period.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>EZRA, Book of<\/h3>\nOne of the historical books of the OT, associated with 2 Chronicles and Nehemiah.<\/p>\nPreview<\/p>\n• Name<\/p>\n• Background<\/p>\n• Sources<\/p>\n• Date<\/p>\n• Languages, Texts, and Versions<\/p>\n• Purpose and Content<\/p>\nName<\/p>\nIn the Talmud tractate Baba Bathra<\/em> 15a, the rabbis and scribes regarded Ezra and Nehemiah as one book. Josephus (Apion<\/em> 1.8) also considered the two books to be one when the number of OT books was given as 22. Some church fathers, such as Melito of Sardis and Jerome, thought of them as one book. The Septuagint (Greek translation of the OT) also grouped the two books as one, referring to them as 2 Ezra to distinguish them from an apocryphal book known as 1 Ezra. The Latin Vulgate, however, called Ezra “1 Ezra” and Nehemiah “2 Ezra.”<\/p>\nBackground<\/p>\nThe Jewish people came under the rule of the Persian Empire when Cyrus conquered Babylon in 539 BC<\/span>. From then until Ezra’s time, the Persian kings were Cyrus (539–530 BC<\/span>), who allowed the Jewish people and other captives to return to their homeland (Ezr 1); Cambyses (529–522 BC<\/span>); Gaumata, a usurper of the throne (522 BC<\/span>); Darius I (521–486 BC<\/span>; Ezr 5:6); Xerxes I (OT Ahasuerus, 486–465 BC<\/span>; Ezr 4:6); and Artaxerxes I (465–424 BC<\/span>; Ezr 4:7-23; 7:1–10:44). Both Ezra’s and Nehemiah’s work fall within the period between Cyrus and Artaxerxes I. Some scholars, however, place Ezra during the reign of Artaxerxes II (404–359 BC<\/span>).<\/p>\nSources<\/p>\nBy tradition, the Jewish leader Ezra researched and put together the material that forms his book. Chapters 7–10 are written in the first person singular, and Ezra may have used the autobiographical passages as the core of this book, adding information from other sources. That the book contains portions written in Aramaic has been used as justification for assigning a date later than Ezra’s time. But the Aramaic of Ezra bears a remarkable similarity to fifth-century BC<\/span> Aramaic papyri from the Jewish community at Elephantine in Egypt.<\/p>\nThe book is largely a compilation, using autobiography, official documents, edicts, and other material. The present book of Ezra contains four identifiable strata of source material.<\/p>\n<h5>Memoirs of Ezra<\/h5>\nCertain sections appear in the first person singular (7:27–9:15), located between third-person narratives (7:1-26; 10). The memoirs were probably part of Ezra’s own official reports.<\/p>\n<h5>Aramaic Documents<\/h5>\nAramaic was the diplomatic language of the Persian Empire, and a number of documents appear in the book of Ezra. A letter of complaint was written to Artaxerxes I about the rebuilding of the city walls, for example, and Ezra also included the official reply (Ezr 4:8-23). There is also a letter of Darius I and the king’s reply (5:1–6:18). An official authorization by the Persian court of Artaxerxes permitted Ezra to return, and this included a description of material entrusted into his keeping (7:12-26). Since all of those sections were official correspondence, the record naturally is written in Aramaic.<\/p>\n<h5>Hebrew Lists<\/h5>\nEzra included Hebrew documents listing people’s names for a number of purposes. One such document indicated the Persian government’s permission for Jewish immigrants to return to the land of Israel (Ezr 1:2-4). It was a Jewish version of Cyrus’s general edict expressing concern for all his subjects. The edict in Aramaic is repeated by Ezra in 6:3-5, and that version is probably taken from an original memorandum of a royal decision. Ezra included lists of the immigrants who returned to begin the second commonwealth of Israel (ch 2, repeated in Neh 7). The book also contains a list of immigrants who returned with Ezra by permission of Artaxerxes I (Ezr 8:1-14). Lists of those who had married pagan wives are provided as well (10:18-43).<\/p>\n<h5>Narrative<\/h5>\nThe rest of the book comprises narrative by Ezra himself. For the period of the first return prior to his own time, he probably drew upon existing sources, either oral or documentary. Material in the book that was contemporary with the scribe would be his personal account about his own work.<\/p>\nDate<\/p>\nTraditionally, the Artaxerxes in Ezra 7:1 has been identified with Artaxerxes I Longimanus. Ezra’s arrival in Jerusalem would thus have been in 458 BC<\/span> (see nlt<\/span> mg for 7:8). Therefore, Ezra’s work at Jerusalem started before that of Nehemiah, who came in 445 BC<\/span>.<\/p>\nBut the traditional dates are questioned from a number of sources. One alternative is to place Nehemiah during the reign of Artaxerxes I (464–424 BC<\/span>) and Ezra at a later date, in the reign of Artaxerxes II Mnemon (404–359 BC<\/span>). Such a suggestion creates a difficulty with Nehemiah 8:2, because there Ezra is named as Nehemiah’s contemporary and coworker.<\/p>\nIn addition, the Elephantine papyri (407–400 BC<\/span>) mention the high priest Johanan in Jerusalem, and Sanballat as governor of Samaria. Johanan is considered a grandson of Eliashib, but Nehemiah was a contemporary of Eliashib (Neh 3:1, 20). The biblical material that speaks of Nehemiah going to Jerusalem in the 20th year of Artaxerxes (Neh 2:1, 445 BC<\/span>) and again during the 32nd year (Neh 13:6, 433 BC<\/span>) refers to Eliashib’s contemporary high priesthood with Ezra. The traditional position thus furnishes a reasonable date for the book of Ezra. If the scribe were placed during the reign of Artaxerxes II (c. 397 BC<\/span>), his ministry would be too late for the high priesthood of Johanan.<\/p>\nLanguages, Texts, and Versions<\/p>\nThe primary language of the book of Ezra is Hebrew; the exceptions are 4:7, 6:18, and 7:12-26, which are written in Aramaic. The Hebrew portion appears to resemble the language of Daniel, Haggai, and 2 Chronicles much more than later Hebrew, such as that of Ecclesiasticus. As indicated, the Aramaic portions resemble the Elephantine papyri, dated about 407–400 BC<\/span>. In addition, Persian personal and family names and Persian words and expressions occur in the book, such as Bigvai, Mithredath, and Elam. All of these evidences serve to place the book in about the fifth century BC<\/span>.<\/p>\nThe Hebrew Masoretic Text of Ezra seems well preserved. The Septuagint version is a bit shorter than the Masoretic Text. Only parts of Ezra 4 and 5 have been found among the Dead Sea Scrolls.<\/p>\nPurpose and Content<\/p>\nThe book of Ezra is a straightforward account of one of the most important events in Jewish history. From a priestly point of view, it is an account of the restoration of Jewish people to their homeland following the Babylonian dispersion. The record tells of two distinct returns, one under the leadership of Zerubbabel (chs 1–6; 538 BC<\/span>), and 80 years later, the second return led by Ezra (chs 7–10; 458 BC<\/span>). The book emphasizes Ezra’s leadership and the reestablishment of the people on their land, both of which were to have important future consequences.<\/p>\nLittle is known about the political activity of Ezra in the Persian court. He appears to have been a man of considerable influence, however, and could well be described as an official who held a position corresponding to that of “Secretary of State for Jewish Affairs.” To what extent that function applied to the Persian Empire as a whole is uncertain, since Ezra’s recorded activities took place only in the area known to the Persians as the province “Beyond the River,” that is, the territory lying to the west of the Euphrates. The importance of Ezra’s position in the Persian Empire is indicated by the fact that King Artaxerxes gave him full authority to do whatever he thought necessary for the welfare of his people and the empire (7:21-26). Ezra’s genealogy is given in 7:1-5, and he is consistently spoken of as a scribe learned in the Mosaic law. As a descendant of Zadok the priest, he would have the authority to instruct others in the Torah.<\/p>\nChapter 4 speaks of the opposition to rebuilding the temple and the walls. We should recognize that Ezra’s approach in this chapter is topical rather than chronological where, in the middle of describing the earlier opposition to building the temple (5:1-5), he complained that the same kind of opposition was being repeated in his day concerning the attempt to rebuild the city walls and repair the fortifications of Jerusalem (5:7-23). Internal evidence suggests that a long historical interval ensued during the reign of Ahasuerus, or Xerxes, and the early part of Artaxerxes’ regime. During this period, complaints were made to the Persian authorities that the returned Judeans were rebuilding the city wall of Jerusalem, and as a result the work was halted for some time. It readily can be seen that Ezra was dealing with the evil intentions of Judah’s enemies and that the opposition of Rehum and Shimshai did not appear in the 520s (when the temple was being built) because they lived in the 460s, early in the reign of Artaxerxes I.<\/p>\nBut the initial passage is actually a history of opposition to rebuilding the ruined temple. It narrates the frustrations experienced by the Judean community from the time of return to their homeland during Cyrus’s rule (4:1-5) up to the time of King Darius (v 24). The prophet Haggai (520 BC<\/span>) aroused the people with his message and persuaded them to lay the foundations of the new temple.<\/p>\nEzra resumes the theme of the book in chapter 5. He points out the problems, frustrations, and hindrances the Jewish people had with the construction of the temple. It was not until a diligent search had been made in the archives by the Persian authorities that the original edict granting permission to build the temple was found (5:7–6:5).<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Ezra (Person) #1; Postexilic Period.<\/p>","summary_ro":"EZRA, Book of One of the historical books of the OT, associated with 2 Chronicles and Nehemiah. Preview • Name • Background • Sources • Date • Languages, Texts, and Versions • Purpose and Content Name In the Talmud tractate Baba Bathra 15a, the rabbis and scribes regarded Ezra and Nehemiah as one book. Josephus (Apion 1.8) also considered the two books to be one when the number of OT books was given as 22. Some church fathers, such as Melito of Sardis and Jerome, thought of them as one book. ...","summary_en":"EZRA, Book of One of the historical books of the OT, associated with 2 Chronicles and Nehemiah. Preview • Name • Background • Sources • Date • Languages, Texts, and Versions • Purpose and Content Name In the Talmud tractate Baba Bathra 15a, the rabbis and scribes regarded Ezra and Nehemiah as one book. Josephus (Apion 1.8) also considered the two books to be one when the number of OT books was given as 22. Some church fathers, such as Melito of Sardis and Jerome, thought of them as one book. ...","source":"Articles\/E.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":29794,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Persians Persia","title_en":"Persians Persia","content_ro":"<h3>PERSIA, PERSIANS<\/h3>\nCountry lying just to the east of Mesopotamia (modern Iraq) and covering virtually the same territory as present-day Iran. It was known in ancient times by various forms of Fars or Pars, which came down to us as Persia. It continued to be known as Persia until 1935, when its name was changed to Iran. The official modern language of the country is Persian, an Indo-European language written in Arabic characters.<\/p>\nPreview<\/p>\n• Geography and Climate<\/p>\n• History<\/p>\n• Persia and the Bible<\/p>\nGeography and Climate<\/p>\nPersia served as a geographical link between inner Asia and the plateau of Asia Minor. It has been described as a triangle set between two depressions, the Persian Gulf on the south and the Caspian Sea to the north. The sides of the triangle are made up of mountain ranges that enclose an area of desert. On the west the Zagros Mountains run northwest-southeast, with many fertile valleys that are suitable for agriculture. Severe summer heat requires that animals be taken to cooler elevations during that season.<\/p>\nOn the north is the Elburz range, with Mt Demavend reaching a height of more than 19,000 feet (5,791.2 meters). The most heavily populated area of Persia is Azerbaijan, which, because of routes leading from various northern points, was one of the most accessible parts of the country and therefore had to be protected by strong fortifications.<\/p>\nFarther east, the Elburz becomes the mountains of Khorasan, which also afford easy passage into the country. This district, which has been called the “granary of Iran,” has been susceptible to foreign invasion over the centuries. On the south, the third side of the triangle, is another mountain range, the Makran. Within these ranges is a saline depression, the southern part of which has been regarded as more arid than the Gobi Desert.<\/p>\nOne of the important sections of the country was actually an extension of the Mesopotamian plain; this was known in ancient times as Susiana and now is called Khuzistan. Here the capital, Susa, was situated. Adjoining it to the north is a mountain spur that was the location of Luristan, famous for its bronzes. Another plain, near the Caspian Sea, is tropical in climate; because of heavy rainfall, it produces an abundance and variety of food.<\/p>\nLacking a river like the Nile or the Tigris-Euphrates system, and having no regular seasonal rains as in Palestine, the agriculture of Persia is dependent on irrigation. Rainfall varies dramatically from one region to another and the climate differs markedly with the topography.<\/p>\nIn antiquity the lower mountains were heavily forested with many kinds of trees sought for building by the Sumerian kings of Mesopotamia. Alabaster, marble, lapis lazuli, carnelian, and turquoise were used from early times. Iron, copper, tin, and lead were found here. In modern times the oil resources of Iran have been widely exploited.<\/p>\nHistory<\/p>\nThe Medes (a term often used synonymously with Persians, since the two are so closely related) are a people about whom relatively little is known. They were pictured in Assyrian reliefs. It was the Median Cyaxares who teamed up with the Babylonian Nabopolassar to bring about the destruction of Nineveh in 612 BC<\/span>.<\/p>\nIn the seventh century BC<\/span>, a small kingdom of Persians was established at Parsumash under Achaemenes, after whom the great Persian dynasty was named. Teispes (675–640 BC<\/span>), the son and successor of Achaemenes, was under the domination of the Medes, who were gathering forces to overthrow Assyria. Trouble for the Medes freed Teispes from their control, and the weakness of Elam enabled him to gain the province of Parsa (modern Fars). The Assyrians under Ashurbanipal destroyed the nation of Elam and came into contact with the Persians under Cyrus I, son of Teispes.<\/p>\nCambyses, son of Cyrus, married the daughter of the Median king Astyages; their son, Cyrus II the Great (559–530 BC<\/span>), built a great palace complex for himself at Pasargadae. The Babylonian king, Nabonidus, allied himself with Cyrus against the Medes. Cyrus fought and defeated his grandfather, Astyages, and made the Median capital, Ecbatana, “place of assembly” (Hamadan), his own capital and set up his archives there (cf. Ezr 6:2).<\/p>\nCyrus, and later Darius, exhibited an attitude of benevolence and generosity toward defeated enemies, a policy that sometimes worked to the disadvantage of the Persians. A capable military leader, Cyrus invaded Asia Minor and defeated Croesus, king of Lydia, and brought the Greek cities of the area into subjection. He then solidified his eastern frontier. In 539 BC<\/span> he captured Babylon with virtually no resistance and decreed that the exiled Jews could return to Jerusalem to rebuild the temple (Ezr 1:1-4).<\/p>\nThe son of Cyrus, Cambyses II (529–522 BC<\/span>), conquered Egypt. Upon his suicide, the empire nearly disintegrated. Cambyses was succeeded by Darius I the Great (521–486 BC<\/span>), the son of Hystaspis, satrap of Parthia. Darius put down the internal revolts and consolidated the empire. For efficient administration of his vast empire, he created 20 provinces or satrapies, each under a satrap or “protector of the kingdom.” Other offices were instituted to check on the activities of the satraps. Darius changed the principal capital from Pasargadae to Persepolis, where his building activities were continued by later Achaemenid kings to make a tremendous palace complex. He was a follower of Zoroaster and a worshiper of Ahura Mazda, as were Xerxes and Artaxerxes.<\/p>\nThe early victory of Darius over the rebels is commemorated on the famous rock of Bisitun (Behistun). This memorial took the form of reliefs and a long cuneiform inscription in three languages: Persian, Elamite, and Akkadian. A copy of these records was made by Henry C. Rawlinson in 1855 at considerable risk, for the monument was difficult to approach, situated some 500 feet (152.4 meters) above the plain. This accomplishment played a large part in the deciphering of languages in the cuneiform script. During the later part of Darius’s reign, he suffered defeat at the hands of the Greeks at Marathon (491 BC<\/span>). Upon his death, Darius was buried in a rock-cut tomb at Naqsh-i-Rustam, a short distance northeast of Persepolis. This was a memorial consisting of reliefs and a trilingual inscription that lauds his person and reign. Later kings were buried in tombs cut in the same cliff.<\/p>\nDarius was succeeded by his son Khshayarsha, better known as Xerxes (485–465 BC<\/span>). An inscription at Persepolis lists the nations subject to him at the time of his accession and confirms his devotion to Ahura Mazda. During his rule, the Persian fleet was defeated at Salamis (480 BC<\/span>).<\/p>\nArtaxerxes I Longimanus (Artakhshathra, 464–424 BC<\/span>) was followed by Darius II (423–405), Artaxerxes II Mnemon (404–359), Artaxerxes III Ochus (358–338), Arses (337–336), and finally Darius III (335–331).<\/p>\nThe loss of the empire has been attributed to the cowardice of Darius III, whose armies were defeated by Alexander the Great at Issus in 333 BC<\/span> and ultimately at Gaugamela, near modern Erbil (Arbela) in 331 BC<\/span>. Upon the death of Alexander in 323 BC<\/span>, Persia became the lot of Seleucus, one of his generals. Persian sources say little of the period between Darius III and the beginnings of Sassanian rule in the early third century AD<\/span>.<\/p>\n\nPersia and the Bible<\/p>\nThe biblical references to Persia occur in the later period of OT history and in the writings of the prophets who ministered during that time. The earliest mention is the reference to Cyrus in Isaiah 44:28–45:1, a passage that has confounded scholars who have felt that the prophecy could not be so precise. This predictive prophecy was given to Isaiah by God more than 150 years before Cyrus captured Babylon and decreed the return of the captive Jews to Jerusalem.<\/p>\nThe chronological notations in Daniel, Ezra, Nehemiah, Zechariah, Haggai, and Esther enable us to set chronological markers with some degree of certainty. The first year of Cyrus’s reign over Babylon (Ezr 1:1) may be fixed at 538 BC<\/span>. The rebuilding of the temple met with opposition from enemies of the Jews in the time of Cyrus and Darius (Ezr 4).<\/p>\nIt was at this time that the prophets Haggai and Zechariah encouraged the Jews and urged the completion of the temple. Haggai 1:1 places the message of that prophet on the first day of the sixth month of the second year of Darius I. That translates into August 29, 520 BC<\/span>. Similarly, Zechariah 1:1 is dated to the eighth month of the year, that is, October\/November 520 BC<\/span>. The letter that was sent to Darius concerning the decree for rebuilding the temple (Ezr 5:6-17) brought about a search of the royal archives that Cyrus had set up at Ecbatana (cf. 6:1-2). The finding of the decree of Cyrus enabled the Jews to complete the temple project, which was finished on March 12, 515 BC<\/span> (the third day of the month Adar in the sixth year of Darius, Ezr 6:15).<\/p>\nThe work of Nehemiah occurred in the reign of Artaxerxes I Longimanus. Nehemiah’s request that he be allowed to return to Jerusalem to rebuild the wall was made in the month of Nisan in the 20th year of Artaxerxes (Neh 2:1, April\/May 445 BC<\/span>). This building project also met with strong opposition. The date is generally confirmed by a letter from the 17th year of Darius II (408 BC<\/span>) and found among the Elephantine papyri in Egypt. Two personal names found in Nehemiah also occur in this letter: the sons of Sanballat, Nehemiah’s most virulent enemy (cf. Neh 2:19; 4:1-8), and Johanan the grandson of Eliashib, who was high priest at Jerusalem when Nehemiah arrived there (3:1). Another letter among these papyri grants Persian authority to the Jews at Elephantine to celebrate the Passover according to their custom.<\/p>\nThe book of Esther is set in the time of King Ahasuerus, who is Xerxes, referred to in Ezra 4:6 between Darius and Artaxerxes. The Hebrew Ahasuerus represents Khshayarsha, whom the Greeks called Xerxes. On the other hand, the Septuagint has Artaxerxes, and Josephus names Artaxerxes as the king mentioned in the book of Esther. Esther provides a number of details of the life and customs of Persian royalty.<\/p>\nPersia also figures in the prophecies of Ezekiel, where Persia is named among the armies of Tyre (Ez 27:10). It is also listed as an ally of Gog in the invasion of Israel (38:5). The recorded history in Daniel refers to Persia (Dn 10:1), as do the prophecies of that book (8:20; 11:2).<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Postexilic Period; Medes, Media, Median.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>PERSIA, PERSIANS<\/h3>\nCountry lying just to the east of Mesopotamia (modern Iraq) and covering virtually the same territory as present-day Iran. It was known in ancient times by various forms of Fars or Pars, which came down to us as Persia. It continued to be known as Persia until 1935, when its name was changed to Iran. The official modern language of the country is Persian, an Indo-European language written in Arabic characters.<\/p>\nPreview<\/p>\n• Geography and Climate<\/p>\n• History<\/p>\n• Persia and the Bible<\/p>\nGeography and Climate<\/p>\nPersia served as a geographical link between inner Asia and the plateau of Asia Minor. It has been described as a triangle set between two depressions, the Persian Gulf on the south and the Caspian Sea to the north. The sides of the triangle are made up of mountain ranges that enclose an area of desert. On the west the Zagros Mountains run northwest-southeast, with many fertile valleys that are suitable for agriculture. Severe summer heat requires that animals be taken to cooler elevations during that season.<\/p>\nOn the north is the Elburz range, with Mt Demavend reaching a height of more than 19,000 feet (5,791.2 meters). The most heavily populated area of Persia is Azerbaijan, which, because of routes leading from various northern points, was one of the most accessible parts of the country and therefore had to be protected by strong fortifications.<\/p>\nFarther east, the Elburz becomes the mountains of Khorasan, which also afford easy passage into the country. This district, which has been called the “granary of Iran,” has been susceptible to foreign invasion over the centuries. On the south, the third side of the triangle, is another mountain range, the Makran. Within these ranges is a saline depression, the southern part of which has been regarded as more arid than the Gobi Desert.<\/p>\nOne of the important sections of the country was actually an extension of the Mesopotamian plain; this was known in ancient times as Susiana and now is called Khuzistan. Here the capital, Susa, was situated. Adjoining it to the north is a mountain spur that was the location of Luristan, famous for its bronzes. Another plain, near the Caspian Sea, is tropical in climate; because of heavy rainfall, it produces an abundance and variety of food.<\/p>\nLacking a river like the Nile or the Tigris-Euphrates system, and having no regular seasonal rains as in Palestine, the agriculture of Persia is dependent on irrigation. Rainfall varies dramatically from one region to another and the climate differs markedly with the topography.<\/p>\nIn antiquity the lower mountains were heavily forested with many kinds of trees sought for building by the Sumerian kings of Mesopotamia. Alabaster, marble, lapis lazuli, carnelian, and turquoise were used from early times. Iron, copper, tin, and lead were found here. In modern times the oil resources of Iran have been widely exploited.<\/p>\nHistory<\/p>\nThe Medes (a term often used synonymously with Persians, since the two are so closely related) are a people about whom relatively little is known. They were pictured in Assyrian reliefs. It was the Median Cyaxares who teamed up with the Babylonian Nabopolassar to bring about the destruction of Nineveh in 612 BC<\/span>.<\/p>\nIn the seventh century BC<\/span>, a small kingdom of Persians was established at Parsumash under Achaemenes, after whom the great Persian dynasty was named. Teispes (675–640 BC<\/span>), the son and successor of Achaemenes, was under the domination of the Medes, who were gathering forces to overthrow Assyria. Trouble for the Medes freed Teispes from their control, and the weakness of Elam enabled him to gain the province of Parsa (modern Fars). The Assyrians under Ashurbanipal destroyed the nation of Elam and came into contact with the Persians under Cyrus I, son of Teispes.<\/p>\nCambyses, son of Cyrus, married the daughter of the Median king Astyages; their son, Cyrus II the Great (559–530 BC<\/span>), built a great palace complex for himself at Pasargadae. The Babylonian king, Nabonidus, allied himself with Cyrus against the Medes. Cyrus fought and defeated his grandfather, Astyages, and made the Median capital, Ecbatana, “place of assembly” (Hamadan), his own capital and set up his archives there (cf. Ezr 6:2).<\/p>\nCyrus, and later Darius, exhibited an attitude of benevolence and generosity toward defeated enemies, a policy that sometimes worked to the disadvantage of the Persians. A capable military leader, Cyrus invaded Asia Minor and defeated Croesus, king of Lydia, and brought the Greek cities of the area into subjection. He then solidified his eastern frontier. In 539 BC<\/span> he captured Babylon with virtually no resistance and decreed that the exiled Jews could return to Jerusalem to rebuild the temple (Ezr 1:1-4).<\/p>\nThe son of Cyrus, Cambyses II (529–522 BC<\/span>), conquered Egypt. Upon his suicide, the empire nearly disintegrated. Cambyses was succeeded by Darius I the Great (521–486 BC<\/span>), the son of Hystaspis, satrap of Parthia. Darius put down the internal revolts and consolidated the empire. For efficient administration of his vast empire, he created 20 provinces or satrapies, each under a satrap or “protector of the kingdom.” Other offices were instituted to check on the activities of the satraps. Darius changed the principal capital from Pasargadae to Persepolis, where his building activities were continued by later Achaemenid kings to make a tremendous palace complex. He was a follower of Zoroaster and a worshiper of Ahura Mazda, as were Xerxes and Artaxerxes.<\/p>\nThe early victory of Darius over the rebels is commemorated on the famous rock of Bisitun (Behistun). This memorial took the form of reliefs and a long cuneiform inscription in three languages: Persian, Elamite, and Akkadian. A copy of these records was made by Henry C. Rawlinson in 1855 at considerable risk, for the monument was difficult to approach, situated some 500 feet (152.4 meters) above the plain. This accomplishment played a large part in the deciphering of languages in the cuneiform script. During the later part of Darius’s reign, he suffered defeat at the hands of the Greeks at Marathon (491 BC<\/span>). Upon his death, Darius was buried in a rock-cut tomb at Naqsh-i-Rustam, a short distance northeast of Persepolis. This was a memorial consisting of reliefs and a trilingual inscription that lauds his person and reign. Later kings were buried in tombs cut in the same cliff.<\/p>\nDarius was succeeded by his son Khshayarsha, better known as Xerxes (485–465 BC<\/span>). An inscription at Persepolis lists the nations subject to him at the time of his accession and confirms his devotion to Ahura Mazda. During his rule, the Persian fleet was defeated at Salamis (480 BC<\/span>).<\/p>\nArtaxerxes I Longimanus (Artakhshathra, 464–424 BC<\/span>) was followed by Darius II (423–405), Artaxerxes II Mnemon (404–359), Artaxerxes III Ochus (358–338), Arses (337–336), and finally Darius III (335–331).<\/p>\nThe loss of the empire has been attributed to the cowardice of Darius III, whose armies were defeated by Alexander the Great at Issus in 333 BC<\/span> and ultimately at Gaugamela, near modern Erbil (Arbela) in 331 BC<\/span>. Upon the death of Alexander in 323 BC<\/span>, Persia became the lot of Seleucus, one of his generals. Persian sources say little of the period between Darius III and the beginnings of Sassanian rule in the early third century AD<\/span>.<\/p>\n\nPersia and the Bible<\/p>\nThe biblical references to Persia occur in the later period of OT history and in the writings of the prophets who ministered during that time. The earliest mention is the reference to Cyrus in Isaiah 44:28–45:1, a passage that has confounded scholars who have felt that the prophecy could not be so precise. This predictive prophecy was given to Isaiah by God more than 150 years before Cyrus captured Babylon and decreed the return of the captive Jews to Jerusalem.<\/p>\nThe chronological notations in Daniel, Ezra, Nehemiah, Zechariah, Haggai, and Esther enable us to set chronological markers with some degree of certainty. The first year of Cyrus’s reign over Babylon (Ezr 1:1) may be fixed at 538 BC<\/span>. The rebuilding of the temple met with opposition from enemies of the Jews in the time of Cyrus and Darius (Ezr 4).<\/p>\nIt was at this time that the prophets Haggai and Zechariah encouraged the Jews and urged the completion of the temple. Haggai 1:1 places the message of that prophet on the first day of the sixth month of the second year of Darius I. That translates into August 29, 520 BC<\/span>. Similarly, Zechariah 1:1 is dated to the eighth month of the year, that is, October\/November 520 BC<\/span>. The letter that was sent to Darius concerning the decree for rebuilding the temple (Ezr 5:6-17) brought about a search of the royal archives that Cyrus had set up at Ecbatana (cf. 6:1-2). The finding of the decree of Cyrus enabled the Jews to complete the temple project, which was finished on March 12, 515 BC<\/span> (the third day of the month Adar in the sixth year of Darius, Ezr 6:15).<\/p>\nThe work of Nehemiah occurred in the reign of Artaxerxes I Longimanus. Nehemiah’s request that he be allowed to return to Jerusalem to rebuild the wall was made in the month of Nisan in the 20th year of Artaxerxes (Neh 2:1, April\/May 445 BC<\/span>). This building project also met with strong opposition. The date is generally confirmed by a letter from the 17th year of Darius II (408 BC<\/span>) and found among the Elephantine papyri in Egypt. Two personal names found in Nehemiah also occur in this letter: the sons of Sanballat, Nehemiah’s most virulent enemy (cf. Neh 2:19; 4:1-8), and Johanan the grandson of Eliashib, who was high priest at Jerusalem when Nehemiah arrived there (3:1). Another letter among these papyri grants Persian authority to the Jews at Elephantine to celebrate the Passover according to their custom.<\/p>\nThe book of Esther is set in the time of King Ahasuerus, who is Xerxes, referred to in Ezra 4:6 between Darius and Artaxerxes. The Hebrew Ahasuerus represents Khshayarsha, whom the Greeks called Xerxes. On the other hand, the Septuagint has Artaxerxes, and Josephus names Artaxerxes as the king mentioned in the book of Esther. Esther provides a number of details of the life and customs of Persian royalty.<\/p>\nPersia also figures in the prophecies of Ezekiel, where Persia is named among the armies of Tyre (Ez 27:10). It is also listed as an ally of Gog in the invasion of Israel (38:5). The recorded history in Daniel refers to Persia (Dn 10:1), as do the prophecies of that book (8:20; 11:2).<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Postexilic Period; Medes, Media, Median.<\/p>","summary_ro":"PERSIA, PERSIANS Country lying just to the east of Mesopotamia (modern Iraq) and covering virtually the same territory as present-day Iran. It was known in ancient times by various forms of Fars or Pars, which came down to us as Persia. It continued to be known as Persia until 1935, when its name was changed to Iran. The official modern language of the country is Persian, an Indo-European language written in Arabic characters. Preview • Geography and Climate • History • Persia and the Bible G...","summary_en":"PERSIA, PERSIANS Country lying just to the east of Mesopotamia (modern Iraq) and covering virtually the same territory as present-day Iran. It was known in ancient times by various forms of Fars or Pars, which came down to us as Persia. It continued to be known as Persia until 1935, when its name was changed to Iran. The official modern language of the country is Persian, an Indo-European language written in Arabic characters. Preview • Geography and Climate • History • Persia and the Bible G...","source":"Articles\/P.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":48037,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ezra 5:6","title_en":"Study Note: Ezra 5:6","content_ro":"5:6-17<\/strong> Ezra includes a copy in Aramaic of Tattenai’s letter to King Darius. Unlike the letter of 4:11-16, this letter was a straightforward inquiry into the validity of the Jews’ activity.<\/p>","content_en":"5:6-17<\/strong> Ezra includes a copy in Aramaic of Tattenai’s letter to King Darius. Unlike the letter of 4:11-16, this letter was a straightforward inquiry into the validity of the Jews’ activity.<\/p>","summary_ro":"5:6-17 Ezra includes a copy in Aramaic of Tattenai’s letter to King Darius. Unlike the letter of 4:11-16, this letter was a straightforward inquiry into the validity of the Jews’ activity.","summary_en":"5:6-17 Ezra includes a copy in Aramaic of Tattenai’s letter to King Darius. Unlike the letter of 4:11-16, this letter was a straightforward inquiry into the validity of the Jews’ activity.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":48038,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ezra 5:6","title_en":"Study Note: Ezra 5:6","content_ro":"5:6<\/strong> other officials:<\/em> A Persian term for inspectors<\/em> or investigators.<\/em><\/p>","content_en":"5:6<\/strong> other officials:<\/em> A Persian term for inspectors<\/em> or investigators.<\/em><\/p>","summary_ro":"5:6 other officials: A Persian term for inspectors or investigators.","summary_en":"5:6 other officials: A Persian term for inspectors or investigators.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":75663,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ezra 5:6","title_en":"Study Note: Ezra 5:6","content_ro":"5:6-17<\/strong> Ezra includes a copy in Aramaic of Tattenai’s letter to King Darius. Unlike the letter of 4:11-16, this letter was a straightforward inquiry into the validity of the Jews’ activity.<\/p>","content_en":"5:6-17<\/strong> Ezra includes a copy in Aramaic of Tattenai’s letter to King Darius. Unlike the letter of 4:11-16, this letter was a straightforward inquiry into the validity of the Jews’ activity.<\/p>","summary_ro":"5:6-17 Ezra includes a copy in Aramaic of Tattenai’s letter to King Darius. Unlike the letter of 4:11-16, this letter was a straightforward inquiry into the validity of the Jews’ activity.","summary_en":"5:6-17 Ezra includes a copy in Aramaic of Tattenai’s letter to King Darius. Unlike the letter of 4:11-16, this letter was a straightforward inquiry into the validity of the Jews’ activity.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":75664,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ezra 5:6","title_en":"Study Note: Ezra 5:6","content_ro":"5:6<\/strong> other officials:<\/em> A Persian term for inspectors<\/em> or investigators.<\/em><\/p>","content_en":"5:6<\/strong> other officials:<\/em> A Persian term for inspectors<\/em> or investigators.<\/em><\/p>","summary_ro":"5:6 other officials: A Persian term for inspectors or investigators.","summary_en":"5:6 other officials: A Persian term for inspectors or investigators.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":103289,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ezra 5:6","title_en":"Study Note: Ezra 5:6","content_ro":"5:6-17<\/strong> Ezra includes a copy in Aramaic of Tattenai’s letter to King Darius. Unlike the letter of 4:11-16, this letter was a straightforward inquiry into the validity of the Jews’ activity.<\/p>","content_en":"5:6-17<\/strong> Ezra includes a copy in Aramaic of Tattenai’s letter to King Darius. Unlike the letter of 4:11-16, this letter was a straightforward inquiry into the validity of the Jews’ activity.<\/p>","summary_ro":"5:6-17 Ezra includes a copy in Aramaic of Tattenai’s letter to King Darius. Unlike the letter of 4:11-16, this letter was a straightforward inquiry into the validity of the Jews’ activity.","summary_en":"5:6-17 Ezra includes a copy in Aramaic of Tattenai’s letter to King Darius. Unlike the letter of 4:11-16, this letter was a straightforward inquiry into the validity of the Jews’ activity.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":103290,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ezra 5:6","title_en":"Study Note: Ezra 5:6","content_ro":"5:6<\/strong> other officials:<\/em> A Persian term for inspectors<\/em> or investigators.<\/em><\/p>","content_en":"5:6<\/strong> other officials:<\/em> A Persian term for inspectors<\/em> or investigators.<\/em><\/p>","summary_ro":"5:6 other officials: A Persian term for inspectors or investigators.","summary_en":"5:6 other officials: A Persian term for inspectors or investigators.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":130915,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ezra 5:6","title_en":"Study Note: Ezra 5:6","content_ro":"5:6-17<\/strong> Ezra includes a copy in Aramaic of Tattenai’s letter to King Darius. Unlike the letter of 4:11-16, this letter was a straightforward inquiry into the validity of the Jews’ activity.<\/p>","content_en":"5:6-17<\/strong> Ezra includes a copy in Aramaic of Tattenai’s letter to King Darius. Unlike the letter of 4:11-16, this letter was a straightforward inquiry into the validity of the Jews’ activity.<\/p>","summary_ro":"5:6-17 Ezra includes a copy in Aramaic of Tattenai’s letter to King Darius. Unlike the letter of 4:11-16, this letter was a straightforward inquiry into the validity of the Jews’ activity.","summary_en":"5:6-17 Ezra includes a copy in Aramaic of Tattenai’s letter to King Darius. Unlike the letter of 4:11-16, this letter was a straightforward inquiry into the validity of the Jews’ activity.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":130916,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ezra 5:6","title_en":"Study Note: Ezra 5:6","content_ro":"5:6<\/strong> other officials:<\/em> A Persian term for inspectors<\/em> or investigators.<\/em><\/p>","content_en":"5:6<\/strong> other officials:<\/em> A Persian term for inspectors<\/em> or investigators.<\/em><\/p>","summary_ro":"5:6 other officials: A Persian term for inspectors or investigators.","summary_en":"5:6 other officials: A Persian term for inspectors or investigators.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"7":[{"id":11812,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Book of Ezra","title_en":"Book of Ezra","content_ro":"<h3>EZRA, Book of<\/h3>\nOne of the historical books of the OT, associated with 2 Chronicles and Nehemiah.<\/p>\nPreview<\/p>\n• Name<\/p>\n• Background<\/p>\n• Sources<\/p>\n• Date<\/p>\n• Languages, Texts, and Versions<\/p>\n• Purpose and Content<\/p>\nName<\/p>\nIn the Talmud tractate Baba Bathra<\/em> 15a, the rabbis and scribes regarded Ezra and Nehemiah as one book. Josephus (Apion<\/em> 1.8) also considered the two books to be one when the number of OT books was given as 22. Some church fathers, such as Melito of Sardis and Jerome, thought of them as one book. The Septuagint (Greek translation of the OT) also grouped the two books as one, referring to them as 2 Ezra to distinguish them from an apocryphal book known as 1 Ezra. The Latin Vulgate, however, called Ezra “1 Ezra” and Nehemiah “2 Ezra.”<\/p>\nBackground<\/p>\nThe Jewish people came under the rule of the Persian Empire when Cyrus conquered Babylon in 539 BC<\/span>. From then until Ezra’s time, the Persian kings were Cyrus (539–530 BC<\/span>), who allowed the Jewish people and other captives to return to their homeland (Ezr 1); Cambyses (529–522 BC<\/span>); Gaumata, a usurper of the throne (522 BC<\/span>); Darius I (521–486 BC<\/span>; Ezr 5:6); Xerxes I (OT Ahasuerus, 486–465 BC<\/span>; Ezr 4:6); and Artaxerxes I (465–424 BC<\/span>; Ezr 4:7-23; 7:1–10:44). Both Ezra’s and Nehemiah’s work fall within the period between Cyrus and Artaxerxes I. Some scholars, however, place Ezra during the reign of Artaxerxes II (404–359 BC<\/span>).<\/p>\nSources<\/p>\nBy tradition, the Jewish leader Ezra researched and put together the material that forms his book. Chapters 7–10 are written in the first person singular, and Ezra may have used the autobiographical passages as the core of this book, adding information from other sources. That the book contains portions written in Aramaic has been used as justification for assigning a date later than Ezra’s time. But the Aramaic of Ezra bears a remarkable similarity to fifth-century BC<\/span> Aramaic papyri from the Jewish community at Elephantine in Egypt.<\/p>\nThe book is largely a compilation, using autobiography, official documents, edicts, and other material. The present book of Ezra contains four identifiable strata of source material.<\/p>\n<h5>Memoirs of Ezra<\/h5>\nCertain sections appear in the first person singular (7:27–9:15), located between third-person narratives (7:1-26; 10). The memoirs were probably part of Ezra’s own official reports.<\/p>\n<h5>Aramaic Documents<\/h5>\nAramaic was the diplomatic language of the Persian Empire, and a number of documents appear in the book of Ezra. A letter of complaint was written to Artaxerxes I about the rebuilding of the city walls, for example, and Ezra also included the official reply (Ezr 4:8-23). There is also a letter of Darius I and the king’s reply (5:1–6:18). An official authorization by the Persian court of Artaxerxes permitted Ezra to return, and this included a description of material entrusted into his keeping (7:12-26). Since all of those sections were official correspondence, the record naturally is written in Aramaic.<\/p>\n<h5>Hebrew Lists<\/h5>\nEzra included Hebrew documents listing people’s names for a number of purposes. One such document indicated the Persian government’s permission for Jewish immigrants to return to the land of Israel (Ezr 1:2-4). It was a Jewish version of Cyrus’s general edict expressing concern for all his subjects. The edict in Aramaic is repeated by Ezra in 6:3-5, and that version is probably taken from an original memorandum of a royal decision. Ezra included lists of the immigrants who returned to begin the second commonwealth of Israel (ch 2, repeated in Neh 7). The book also contains a list of immigrants who returned with Ezra by permission of Artaxerxes I (Ezr 8:1-14). Lists of those who had married pagan wives are provided as well (10:18-43).<\/p>\n<h5>Narrative<\/h5>\nThe rest of the book comprises narrative by Ezra himself. For the period of the first return prior to his own time, he probably drew upon existing sources, either oral or documentary. Material in the book that was contemporary with the scribe would be his personal account about his own work.<\/p>\nDate<\/p>\nTraditionally, the Artaxerxes in Ezra 7:1 has been identified with Artaxerxes I Longimanus. Ezra’s arrival in Jerusalem would thus have been in 458 BC<\/span> (see nlt<\/span> mg for 7:8). Therefore, Ezra’s work at Jerusalem started before that of Nehemiah, who came in 445 BC<\/span>.<\/p>\nBut the traditional dates are questioned from a number of sources. One alternative is to place Nehemiah during the reign of Artaxerxes I (464–424 BC<\/span>) and Ezra at a later date, in the reign of Artaxerxes II Mnemon (404–359 BC<\/span>). Such a suggestion creates a difficulty with Nehemiah 8:2, because there Ezra is named as Nehemiah’s contemporary and coworker.<\/p>\nIn addition, the Elephantine papyri (407–400 BC<\/span>) mention the high priest Johanan in Jerusalem, and Sanballat as governor of Samaria. Johanan is considered a grandson of Eliashib, but Nehemiah was a contemporary of Eliashib (Neh 3:1, 20). The biblical material that speaks of Nehemiah going to Jerusalem in the 20th year of Artaxerxes (Neh 2:1, 445 BC<\/span>) and again during the 32nd year (Neh 13:6, 433 BC<\/span>) refers to Eliashib’s contemporary high priesthood with Ezra. The traditional position thus furnishes a reasonable date for the book of Ezra. If the scribe were placed during the reign of Artaxerxes II (c. 397 BC<\/span>), his ministry would be too late for the high priesthood of Johanan.<\/p>\nLanguages, Texts, and Versions<\/p>\nThe primary language of the book of Ezra is Hebrew; the exceptions are 4:7, 6:18, and 7:12-26, which are written in Aramaic. The Hebrew portion appears to resemble the language of Daniel, Haggai, and 2 Chronicles much more than later Hebrew, such as that of Ecclesiasticus. As indicated, the Aramaic portions resemble the Elephantine papyri, dated about 407–400 BC<\/span>. In addition, Persian personal and family names and Persian words and expressions occur in the book, such as Bigvai, Mithredath, and Elam. All of these evidences serve to place the book in about the fifth century BC<\/span>.<\/p>\nThe Hebrew Masoretic Text of Ezra seems well preserved. The Septuagint version is a bit shorter than the Masoretic Text. Only parts of Ezra 4 and 5 have been found among the Dead Sea Scrolls.<\/p>\nPurpose and Content<\/p>\nThe book of Ezra is a straightforward account of one of the most important events in Jewish history. From a priestly point of view, it is an account of the restoration of Jewish people to their homeland following the Babylonian dispersion. The record tells of two distinct returns, one under the leadership of Zerubbabel (chs 1–6; 538 BC<\/span>), and 80 years later, the second return led by Ezra (chs 7–10; 458 BC<\/span>). The book emphasizes Ezra’s leadership and the reestablishment of the people on their land, both of which were to have important future consequences.<\/p>\nLittle is known about the political activity of Ezra in the Persian court. He appears to have been a man of considerable influence, however, and could well be described as an official who held a position corresponding to that of “Secretary of State for Jewish Affairs.” To what extent that function applied to the Persian Empire as a whole is uncertain, since Ezra’s recorded activities took place only in the area known to the Persians as the province “Beyond the River,” that is, the territory lying to the west of the Euphrates. The importance of Ezra’s position in the Persian Empire is indicated by the fact that King Artaxerxes gave him full authority to do whatever he thought necessary for the welfare of his people and the empire (7:21-26). Ezra’s genealogy is given in 7:1-5, and he is consistently spoken of as a scribe learned in the Mosaic law. As a descendant of Zadok the priest, he would have the authority to instruct others in the Torah.<\/p>\nChapter 4 speaks of the opposition to rebuilding the temple and the walls. We should recognize that Ezra’s approach in this chapter is topical rather than chronological where, in the middle of describing the earlier opposition to building the temple (5:1-5), he complained that the same kind of opposition was being repeated in his day concerning the attempt to rebuild the city walls and repair the fortifications of Jerusalem (5:7-23). Internal evidence suggests that a long historical interval ensued during the reign of Ahasuerus, or Xerxes, and the early part of Artaxerxes’ regime. During this period, complaints were made to the Persian authorities that the returned Judeans were rebuilding the city wall of Jerusalem, and as a result the work was halted for some time. It readily can be seen that Ezra was dealing with the evil intentions of Judah’s enemies and that the opposition of Rehum and Shimshai did not appear in the 520s (when the temple was being built) because they lived in the 460s, early in the reign of Artaxerxes I.<\/p>\nBut the initial passage is actually a history of opposition to rebuilding the ruined temple. It narrates the frustrations experienced by the Judean community from the time of return to their homeland during Cyrus’s rule (4:1-5) up to the time of King Darius (v 24). The prophet Haggai (520 BC<\/span>) aroused the people with his message and persuaded them to lay the foundations of the new temple.<\/p>\nEzra resumes the theme of the book in chapter 5. He points out the problems, frustrations, and hindrances the Jewish people had with the construction of the temple. It was not until a diligent search had been made in the archives by the Persian authorities that the original edict granting permission to build the temple was found (5:7–6:5).<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Ezra (Person) #1; Postexilic Period.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>EZRA, Book of<\/h3>\nOne of the historical books of the OT, associated with 2 Chronicles and Nehemiah.<\/p>\nPreview<\/p>\n• Name<\/p>\n• Background<\/p>\n• Sources<\/p>\n• Date<\/p>\n• Languages, Texts, and Versions<\/p>\n• Purpose and Content<\/p>\nName<\/p>\nIn the Talmud tractate Baba Bathra<\/em> 15a, the rabbis and scribes regarded Ezra and Nehemiah as one book. Josephus (Apion<\/em> 1.8) also considered the two books to be one when the number of OT books was given as 22. Some church fathers, such as Melito of Sardis and Jerome, thought of them as one book. The Septuagint (Greek translation of the OT) also grouped the two books as one, referring to them as 2 Ezra to distinguish them from an apocryphal book known as 1 Ezra. The Latin Vulgate, however, called Ezra “1 Ezra” and Nehemiah “2 Ezra.”<\/p>\nBackground<\/p>\nThe Jewish people came under the rule of the Persian Empire when Cyrus conquered Babylon in 539 BC<\/span>. From then until Ezra’s time, the Persian kings were Cyrus (539–530 BC<\/span>), who allowed the Jewish people and other captives to return to their homeland (Ezr 1); Cambyses (529–522 BC<\/span>); Gaumata, a usurper of the throne (522 BC<\/span>); Darius I (521–486 BC<\/span>; Ezr 5:6); Xerxes I (OT Ahasuerus, 486–465 BC<\/span>; Ezr 4:6); and Artaxerxes I (465–424 BC<\/span>; Ezr 4:7-23; 7:1–10:44). Both Ezra’s and Nehemiah’s work fall within the period between Cyrus and Artaxerxes I. Some scholars, however, place Ezra during the reign of Artaxerxes II (404–359 BC<\/span>).<\/p>\nSources<\/p>\nBy tradition, the Jewish leader Ezra researched and put together the material that forms his book. Chapters 7–10 are written in the first person singular, and Ezra may have used the autobiographical passages as the core of this book, adding information from other sources. That the book contains portions written in Aramaic has been used as justification for assigning a date later than Ezra’s time. But the Aramaic of Ezra bears a remarkable similarity to fifth-century BC<\/span> Aramaic papyri from the Jewish community at Elephantine in Egypt.<\/p>\nThe book is largely a compilation, using autobiography, official documents, edicts, and other material. The present book of Ezra contains four identifiable strata of source material.<\/p>\n<h5>Memoirs of Ezra<\/h5>\nCertain sections appear in the first person singular (7:27–9:15), located between third-person narratives (7:1-26; 10). The memoirs were probably part of Ezra’s own official reports.<\/p>\n<h5>Aramaic Documents<\/h5>\nAramaic was the diplomatic language of the Persian Empire, and a number of documents appear in the book of Ezra. A letter of complaint was written to Artaxerxes I about the rebuilding of the city walls, for example, and Ezra also included the official reply (Ezr 4:8-23). There is also a letter of Darius I and the king’s reply (5:1–6:18). An official authorization by the Persian court of Artaxerxes permitted Ezra to return, and this included a description of material entrusted into his keeping (7:12-26). Since all of those sections were official correspondence, the record naturally is written in Aramaic.<\/p>\n<h5>Hebrew Lists<\/h5>\nEzra included Hebrew documents listing people’s names for a number of purposes. One such document indicated the Persian government’s permission for Jewish immigrants to return to the land of Israel (Ezr 1:2-4). It was a Jewish version of Cyrus’s general edict expressing concern for all his subjects. The edict in Aramaic is repeated by Ezra in 6:3-5, and that version is probably taken from an original memorandum of a royal decision. Ezra included lists of the immigrants who returned to begin the second commonwealth of Israel (ch 2, repeated in Neh 7). The book also contains a list of immigrants who returned with Ezra by permission of Artaxerxes I (Ezr 8:1-14). Lists of those who had married pagan wives are provided as well (10:18-43).<\/p>\n<h5>Narrative<\/h5>\nThe rest of the book comprises narrative by Ezra himself. For the period of the first return prior to his own time, he probably drew upon existing sources, either oral or documentary. Material in the book that was contemporary with the scribe would be his personal account about his own work.<\/p>\nDate<\/p>\nTraditionally, the Artaxerxes in Ezra 7:1 has been identified with Artaxerxes I Longimanus. Ezra’s arrival in Jerusalem would thus have been in 458 BC<\/span> (see nlt<\/span> mg for 7:8). Therefore, Ezra’s work at Jerusalem started before that of Nehemiah, who came in 445 BC<\/span>.<\/p>\nBut the traditional dates are questioned from a number of sources. One alternative is to place Nehemiah during the reign of Artaxerxes I (464–424 BC<\/span>) and Ezra at a later date, in the reign of Artaxerxes II Mnemon (404–359 BC<\/span>). Such a suggestion creates a difficulty with Nehemiah 8:2, because there Ezra is named as Nehemiah’s contemporary and coworker.<\/p>\nIn addition, the Elephantine papyri (407–400 BC<\/span>) mention the high priest Johanan in Jerusalem, and Sanballat as governor of Samaria. Johanan is considered a grandson of Eliashib, but Nehemiah was a contemporary of Eliashib (Neh 3:1, 20). The biblical material that speaks of Nehemiah going to Jerusalem in the 20th year of Artaxerxes (Neh 2:1, 445 BC<\/span>) and again during the 32nd year (Neh 13:6, 433 BC<\/span>) refers to Eliashib’s contemporary high priesthood with Ezra. The traditional position thus furnishes a reasonable date for the book of Ezra. If the scribe were placed during the reign of Artaxerxes II (c. 397 BC<\/span>), his ministry would be too late for the high priesthood of Johanan.<\/p>\nLanguages, Texts, and Versions<\/p>\nThe primary language of the book of Ezra is Hebrew; the exceptions are 4:7, 6:18, and 7:12-26, which are written in Aramaic. The Hebrew portion appears to resemble the language of Daniel, Haggai, and 2 Chronicles much more than later Hebrew, such as that of Ecclesiasticus. As indicated, the Aramaic portions resemble the Elephantine papyri, dated about 407–400 BC<\/span>. In addition, Persian personal and family names and Persian words and expressions occur in the book, such as Bigvai, Mithredath, and Elam. All of these evidences serve to place the book in about the fifth century BC<\/span>.<\/p>\nThe Hebrew Masoretic Text of Ezra seems well preserved. The Septuagint version is a bit shorter than the Masoretic Text. Only parts of Ezra 4 and 5 have been found among the Dead Sea Scrolls.<\/p>\nPurpose and Content<\/p>\nThe book of Ezra is a straightforward account of one of the most important events in Jewish history. From a priestly point of view, it is an account of the restoration of Jewish people to their homeland following the Babylonian dispersion. The record tells of two distinct returns, one under the leadership of Zerubbabel (chs 1–6; 538 BC<\/span>), and 80 years later, the second return led by Ezra (chs 7–10; 458 BC<\/span>). The book emphasizes Ezra’s leadership and the reestablishment of the people on their land, both of which were to have important future consequences.<\/p>\nLittle is known about the political activity of Ezra in the Persian court. He appears to have been a man of considerable influence, however, and could well be described as an official who held a position corresponding to that of “Secretary of State for Jewish Affairs.” To what extent that function applied to the Persian Empire as a whole is uncertain, since Ezra’s recorded activities took place only in the area known to the Persians as the province “Beyond the River,” that is, the territory lying to the west of the Euphrates. The importance of Ezra’s position in the Persian Empire is indicated by the fact that King Artaxerxes gave him full authority to do whatever he thought necessary for the welfare of his people and the empire (7:21-26). Ezra’s genealogy is given in 7:1-5, and he is consistently spoken of as a scribe learned in the Mosaic law. As a descendant of Zadok the priest, he would have the authority to instruct others in the Torah.<\/p>\nChapter 4 speaks of the opposition to rebuilding the temple and the walls. We should recognize that Ezra’s approach in this chapter is topical rather than chronological where, in the middle of describing the earlier opposition to building the temple (5:1-5), he complained that the same kind of opposition was being repeated in his day concerning the attempt to rebuild the city walls and repair the fortifications of Jerusalem (5:7-23). Internal evidence suggests that a long historical interval ensued during the reign of Ahasuerus, or Xerxes, and the early part of Artaxerxes’ regime. During this period, complaints were made to the Persian authorities that the returned Judeans were rebuilding the city wall of Jerusalem, and as a result the work was halted for some time. It readily can be seen that Ezra was dealing with the evil intentions of Judah’s enemies and that the opposition of Rehum and Shimshai did not appear in the 520s (when the temple was being built) because they lived in the 460s, early in the reign of Artaxerxes I.<\/p>\nBut the initial passage is actually a history of opposition to rebuilding the ruined temple. It narrates the frustrations experienced by the Judean community from the time of return to their homeland during Cyrus’s rule (4:1-5) up to the time of King Darius (v 24). The prophet Haggai (520 BC<\/span>) aroused the people with his message and persuaded them to lay the foundations of the new temple.<\/p>\nEzra resumes the theme of the book in chapter 5. He points out the problems, frustrations, and hindrances the Jewish people had with the construction of the temple. It was not until a diligent search had been made in the archives by the Persian authorities that the original edict granting permission to build the temple was found (5:7–6:5).<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Ezra (Person) #1; Postexilic Period.<\/p>","summary_ro":"EZRA, Book of One of the historical books of the OT, associated with 2 Chronicles and Nehemiah. Preview • Name • Background • Sources • Date • Languages, Texts, and Versions • Purpose and Content Name In the Talmud tractate Baba Bathra 15a, the rabbis and scribes regarded Ezra and Nehemiah as one book. Josephus (Apion 1.8) also considered the two books to be one when the number of OT books was given as 22. Some church fathers, such as Melito of Sardis and Jerome, thought of them as one book. ...","summary_en":"EZRA, Book of One of the historical books of the OT, associated with 2 Chronicles and Nehemiah. Preview • Name • Background • Sources • Date • Languages, Texts, and Versions • Purpose and Content Name In the Talmud tractate Baba Bathra 15a, the rabbis and scribes regarded Ezra and Nehemiah as one book. Josephus (Apion 1.8) also considered the two books to be one when the number of OT books was given as 22. Some church fathers, such as Melito of Sardis and Jerome, thought of them as one book. ...","source":"Articles\/E.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":22978,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Letter Writing*, Ancient","title_en":"Letter Writing*, Ancient","content_ro":"<h3>LETTER WRITING*, Ancient<\/h3>\nA communication, especially from a king or high official, usually containing commands, promulgations, or reports. There are letters extant from Arad-Nana, the royal physician, to his master Ashurbanipal on the matter of the monarch’s spondylitis and a young prince’s eye trouble. The famous Amarna letters are reports and appeals from petty subject princes in Palestine disturbed over the weakness of Pharaoh Akhnaton’s foreign policy in the area. There is a tantalizing letter from Tutankhamen’s widow to a Hittite king on the subject of a marriage arrangement.<\/p>\nExamples of OT letters are David’s deadly letter to Joab about Uriah (2 Sm 11:14-15), Jezebel’s equally evil letter over Ahab’s forged signature to the elders of Jezreel (1 Kgs 21:8-9), and the Syrian king’s letter to the king of Israel about Naaman’s leprosy (2 Kgs 5:5-7). All these are reported in the OT record without the customary greetings and the polite forms of address. In Ezra (Ezr 4:11-23; 5:7-17; 7:11-26), Nehemiah (Neh 6:5-7), and Jeremiah, correspondence appears that purports to be the full text. Commonly there is paraphrase, abbreviation, or mere report of content (Neh 2:8; Est 9:20-31).<\/p>\nOfficial communications in letter form like those noted in the OT are found in the Egyptian papyri. For example, there is the letter of Claudius sent in AD<\/span> 42 to the turbulent Alexandrians about the Jewish problem in that city. A circular letter of the early second century AD<\/span> from the governor of Egypt about the approaching census, and highly relevant to the story of the Nativity, is known. The letters of Cicero provide invaluable information on the stormy period in which senatorial rule ended and the Roman Empire was established. The letters of Pliny show Roman society at its best at the turn of the first century of the Christian era, when the writer was governor of Bithynia, and they give much information about the first clash between the state and the church.<\/p>\nAncient correspondence throws vivid light on common life and the mundane occupations of ordinary people in Greco-Roman times and the early Christian centuries in a manner only to be paralleled in the documents of the NT. It provides background, illustration, comment, and sometimes direct historical evidence—as, for example, the letter file of the leader of the second rebellion of the Jews (AD<\/span> 132–35), Bar-Kochba. A cache of Bar-Kochba’s letters and campaign documents was discovered in a cave by the Dead Sea. In one letter he orders, “Whatever Elisha says, do.” Another orders the arrest of Tahnun ben Ishmael and the confiscation of his wheat. Another calls for punishment of some who had repaired their homes in defiance of some scorched-earth policy.<\/p>\nPaul observed, with some care, the forms of letter writing common in his day. There is an opening word of salutation, followed by thanksgiving and prayer for the person or company addressed. Then comes the special subject of communication, greetings to friends, and perhaps a closing word of prayer. Here is a second-century letter that shows strikingly the Pauline style in brief:<\/p>\nAmmonous to her sweetest father, greeting. When I received your letter and recognized that by the will of the gods you were preserved, I rejoiced greatly. And as at the same time an opportunity here presented itself, I am writing you this letter being anxious to pay my respects. Attend as quickly as possible to the matters that are pressing. Whatever the little one asks shall be done. If the bearer of this letter hands over a small basket to you, it is I who sent it. All your friends greet you by name. Celer greets you and all who are with him. I pray for your health.<\/p>\nIn subject matter Paul ranges from delicate irony over Corinthian pretensions to stern rebuke for heresy, and from news of friends to some precious books and the warm cloak he left at Troas.<\/p>\nThe NT letters continue and adapt a mode of didactic correspondence that can be traced back to Plato and Aristotle, except that the NT writers address themselves to groups or communities (Romans, Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, Ephesians, Colossians, Thessalonians, Hebrews), to the church at large (the letters of Peter, Jude, James, and John’s first epistle), or to individuals or a specific Christian community. The apostolic letter recorded in Acts 15 may have inspired this practice. Revelation 2 and 3 are genuine letters to seven churches on John’s Asian circuit.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Lachish Letters; Writing.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>LETTER WRITING*, Ancient<\/h3>\nA communication, especially from a king or high official, usually containing commands, promulgations, or reports. There are letters extant from Arad-Nana, the royal physician, to his master Ashurbanipal on the matter of the monarch’s spondylitis and a young prince’s eye trouble. The famous Amarna letters are reports and appeals from petty subject princes in Palestine disturbed over the weakness of Pharaoh Akhnaton’s foreign policy in the area. There is a tantalizing letter from Tutankhamen’s widow to a Hittite king on the subject of a marriage arrangement.<\/p>\nExamples of OT letters are David’s deadly letter to Joab about Uriah (2 Sm 11:14-15), Jezebel’s equally evil letter over Ahab’s forged signature to the elders of Jezreel (1 Kgs 21:8-9), and the Syrian king’s letter to the king of Israel about Naaman’s leprosy (2 Kgs 5:5-7). All these are reported in the OT record without the customary greetings and the polite forms of address. In Ezra (Ezr 4:11-23; 5:7-17; 7:11-26), Nehemiah (Neh 6:5-7), and Jeremiah, correspondence appears that purports to be the full text. Commonly there is paraphrase, abbreviation, or mere report of content (Neh 2:8; Est 9:20-31).<\/p>\nOfficial communications in letter form like those noted in the OT are found in the Egyptian papyri. For example, there is the letter of Claudius sent in AD<\/span> 42 to the turbulent Alexandrians about the Jewish problem in that city. A circular letter of the early second century AD<\/span> from the governor of Egypt about the approaching census, and highly relevant to the story of the Nativity, is known. The letters of Cicero provide invaluable information on the stormy period in which senatorial rule ended and the Roman Empire was established. The letters of Pliny show Roman society at its best at the turn of the first century of the Christian era, when the writer was governor of Bithynia, and they give much information about the first clash between the state and the church.<\/p>\nAncient correspondence throws vivid light on common life and the mundane occupations of ordinary people in Greco-Roman times and the early Christian centuries in a manner only to be paralleled in the documents of the NT. It provides background, illustration, comment, and sometimes direct historical evidence—as, for example, the letter file of the leader of the second rebellion of the Jews (AD<\/span> 132–35), Bar-Kochba. A cache of Bar-Kochba’s letters and campaign documents was discovered in a cave by the Dead Sea. In one letter he orders, “Whatever Elisha says, do.” Another orders the arrest of Tahnun ben Ishmael and the confiscation of his wheat. Another calls for punishment of some who had repaired their homes in defiance of some scorched-earth policy.<\/p>\nPaul observed, with some care, the forms of letter writing common in his day. There is an opening word of salutation, followed by thanksgiving and prayer for the person or company addressed. Then comes the special subject of communication, greetings to friends, and perhaps a closing word of prayer. Here is a second-century letter that shows strikingly the Pauline style in brief:<\/p>\nAmmonous to her sweetest father, greeting. When I received your letter and recognized that by the will of the gods you were preserved, I rejoiced greatly. And as at the same time an opportunity here presented itself, I am writing you this letter being anxious to pay my respects. Attend as quickly as possible to the matters that are pressing. Whatever the little one asks shall be done. If the bearer of this letter hands over a small basket to you, it is I who sent it. All your friends greet you by name. Celer greets you and all who are with him. I pray for your health.<\/p>\nIn subject matter Paul ranges from delicate irony over Corinthian pretensions to stern rebuke for heresy, and from news of friends to some precious books and the warm cloak he left at Troas.<\/p>\nThe NT letters continue and adapt a mode of didactic correspondence that can be traced back to Plato and Aristotle, except that the NT writers address themselves to groups or communities (Romans, Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, Ephesians, Colossians, Thessalonians, Hebrews), to the church at large (the letters of Peter, Jude, James, and John’s first epistle), or to individuals or a specific Christian community. The apostolic letter recorded in Acts 15 may have inspired this practice. Revelation 2 and 3 are genuine letters to seven churches on John’s Asian circuit.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Lachish Letters; Writing.<\/p>","summary_ro":"LETTER WRITING*, Ancient A communication, especially from a king or high official, usually containing commands, promulgations, or reports. There are letters extant from Arad-Nana, the royal physician, to his master Ashurbanipal on the matter of the monarch’s spondylitis and a young prince’s eye trouble. The famous Amarna letters are reports and appeals from petty subject princes in Palestine disturbed over the weakness of Pharaoh Akhnaton’s foreign policy in the area. There is a tantalizing l...","summary_en":"LETTER WRITING*, Ancient A communication, especially from a king or high official, usually containing commands, promulgations, or reports. There are letters extant from Arad-Nana, the royal physician, to his master Ashurbanipal on the matter of the monarch’s spondylitis and a young prince’s eye trouble. The famous Amarna letters are reports and appeals from petty subject princes in Palestine disturbed over the weakness of Pharaoh Akhnaton’s foreign policy in the area. There is a tantalizing l...","source":"Articles\/L.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"8":[{"id":21183,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Judeans Judea","title_en":"Judeans Judea","content_ro":"<h3>JUDEA, JUDEANS<\/h3>\n“Land of the Jews,” particularly after the Captivity. Since most of the Israelites who returned from the exile were from the tribe of Judah, they were called Judeans or Jews and their land, Judea. This part of the Holy Land has always been of great interest to the Bible student because of the location of such places as Jerusalem and Bethlehem within the area and because of the events of Christ’s life and ministry that occurred here.<\/p>\nDefinition<\/p>\nFirst used in Ezra 5:8, the term there designates a province of the Persian Empire. It is also spoken of in the literature of the Maccabean period after Greece had taken control of the area from the Persians (1 Macc 5:45; 7:10). In Roman times Judea was annexed to the Roman province of Syria until the time of Herod the Great, who was declared king of Judea in about 37 BC<\/span>. On occasion, the term Judea seems to mean all the territory occupied by the Jewish nation, that is, all of western Palestine (Lk 23:5; Acts 10:37; 26:20). Secular writers of NT times, including Strabo, Tacitus, and Philo, used the term in the wider sense. But in its ordinary and strict sense it denoted the southern district of Palestine. The other two districts or divisions were Galilee in the north and Samaria in the center.<\/p>\nGeography<\/p>\nWhile the geographic boundaries of Judea were not always the same in different historical periods, the province did include the territories once belonging to the tribes of Judah, Dan, Benjamin, and Simeon. The northern boundary, separating Judea and Samaria, is less definite than the others since there is no natural geographic barrier—no valley, no body of water, no break in the terrain—to indicate a division. It is thought, however, that the northern boundary line ran from Joppa on the Mediterranean to a point on the Jordan River about 10 to 12 miles (16 to 19 kilometers) north of the Dead Sea.<\/p>\nThe southern boundary extended from a point about seven miles (11 kilometers) southwest of Gaza near the coast through Beersheba to the Dead Sea. According to Judges 20:1, Beersheba was the southern boundary of the nation, and it is therefore properly considered the southern limit of Judea. The eastern boundary was the Dead Sea, and the western boundary the Mediterranean Sea. Judea therefore was in shape a square of territory approximately 45 miles (72 kilometers) wide on each side.<\/p>\nHistory<\/p>\nThe history of Judea begins in the Persian period (539–331 BC<\/span>), when Cyrus allowed the Jews to return to rebuild their temple and their holy city of Jerusalem. In the Greek period (334–167 BC<\/span>) the area came under the control of the Seleucids, descendants of one of Alexander’s generals who ruled in Syria. Their attempts to destroy the Jewish religion led to a Jewish revolt under the leadership of the Hasmonean family, and the Jews enjoyed nearly a hundred years of independence (167–63 BC<\/span>). In 63 BC<\/span> Pompey conquered Palestine for Rome, and eventually Herod the Great was made king (37–4 BC<\/span>), being succeeded by his son Herod Archelaus (4 BC<\/span>–AD<\/span> 6). The Romans then appointed a series of imperial governors called procurators, and these ruled Judea, Samaria, and Idumea (south of Judea) until the Jewish revolt of 66–70, with the exception of the years 41 to 44, when the grandson of Herod the Great, Herod Agrippa I, ruled all of Palestine.<\/p>\nThe fate of Judea has been the fate of all Palestine, and it has continued to know many cruel conquerors since the close of NT times. The country was under the heel of Rome until 330, when it came under Constantinople, or Byzantium, and saw the building of many Christian churches (330–634). The Persians again invaded (607–629), destroying Christian churches and killing many people. The Arab period (634–1099) saw the coming of Muslim control of Judea, which was interrupted by the Crusaders (1099–1263), who were determined to rescue the Holy Land from the Muslims. After the final defeat of the Crusaders, the Muslims regained control until the modern period (1917–present). After World War I, Judea was a part of the British mandate over Palestine. In 1948 it was partitioned between Israel and Jordan, and as a result of Israel’s victories in the Six Day War of June 1967, Judea was reunited and came once again under the control of the Jews.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Diaspora of the Jews; Judaism; Palestine; Postexilic Period.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>JUDEA, JUDEANS<\/h3>\n“Land of the Jews,” particularly after the Captivity. Since most of the Israelites who returned from the exile were from the tribe of Judah, they were called Judeans or Jews and their land, Judea. This part of the Holy Land has always been of great interest to the Bible student because of the location of such places as Jerusalem and Bethlehem within the area and because of the events of Christ’s life and ministry that occurred here.<\/p>\nDefinition<\/p>\nFirst used in Ezra 5:8, the term there designates a province of the Persian Empire. It is also spoken of in the literature of the Maccabean period after Greece had taken control of the area from the Persians (1 Macc 5:45; 7:10). In Roman times Judea was annexed to the Roman province of Syria until the time of Herod the Great, who was declared king of Judea in about 37 BC<\/span>. On occasion, the term Judea seems to mean all the territory occupied by the Jewish nation, that is, all of western Palestine (Lk 23:5; Acts 10:37; 26:20). Secular writers of NT times, including Strabo, Tacitus, and Philo, used the term in the wider sense. But in its ordinary and strict sense it denoted the southern district of Palestine. The other two districts or divisions were Galilee in the north and Samaria in the center.<\/p>\nGeography<\/p>\nWhile the geographic boundaries of Judea were not always the same in different historical periods, the province did include the territories once belonging to the tribes of Judah, Dan, Benjamin, and Simeon. The northern boundary, separating Judea and Samaria, is less definite than the others since there is no natural geographic barrier—no valley, no body of water, no break in the terrain—to indicate a division. It is thought, however, that the northern boundary line ran from Joppa on the Mediterranean to a point on the Jordan River about 10 to 12 miles (16 to 19 kilometers) north of the Dead Sea.<\/p>\nThe southern boundary extended from a point about seven miles (11 kilometers) southwest of Gaza near the coast through Beersheba to the Dead Sea. According to Judges 20:1, Beersheba was the southern boundary of the nation, and it is therefore properly considered the southern limit of Judea. The eastern boundary was the Dead Sea, and the western boundary the Mediterranean Sea. Judea therefore was in shape a square of territory approximately 45 miles (72 kilometers) wide on each side.<\/p>\nHistory<\/p>\nThe history of Judea begins in the Persian period (539–331 BC<\/span>), when Cyrus allowed the Jews to return to rebuild their temple and their holy city of Jerusalem. In the Greek period (334–167 BC<\/span>) the area came under the control of the Seleucids, descendants of one of Alexander’s generals who ruled in Syria. Their attempts to destroy the Jewish religion led to a Jewish revolt under the leadership of the Hasmonean family, and the Jews enjoyed nearly a hundred years of independence (167–63 BC<\/span>). In 63 BC<\/span> Pompey conquered Palestine for Rome, and eventually Herod the Great was made king (37–4 BC<\/span>), being succeeded by his son Herod Archelaus (4 BC<\/span>–AD<\/span> 6). The Romans then appointed a series of imperial governors called procurators, and these ruled Judea, Samaria, and Idumea (south of Judea) until the Jewish revolt of 66–70, with the exception of the years 41 to 44, when the grandson of Herod the Great, Herod Agrippa I, ruled all of Palestine.<\/p>\nThe fate of Judea has been the fate of all Palestine, and it has continued to know many cruel conquerors since the close of NT times. The country was under the heel of Rome until 330, when it came under Constantinople, or Byzantium, and saw the building of many Christian churches (330–634). The Persians again invaded (607–629), destroying Christian churches and killing many people. The Arab period (634–1099) saw the coming of Muslim control of Judea, which was interrupted by the Crusaders (1099–1263), who were determined to rescue the Holy Land from the Muslims. After the final defeat of the Crusaders, the Muslims regained control until the modern period (1917–present). After World War I, Judea was a part of the British mandate over Palestine. In 1948 it was partitioned between Israel and Jordan, and as a result of Israel’s victories in the Six Day War of June 1967, Judea was reunited and came once again under the control of the Jews.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Diaspora of the Jews; Judaism; Palestine; Postexilic Period.<\/p>","summary_ro":"JUDEA, JUDEANS “Land of the Jews,” particularly after the Captivity. Since most of the Israelites who returned from the exile were from the tribe of Judah, they were called Judeans or Jews and their land, Judea. This part of the Holy Land has always been of great interest to the Bible student because of the location of such places as Jerusalem and Bethlehem within the area and because of the events of Christ’s life and ministry that occurred here. Definition First used in Ezra 5:8, the term t...","summary_en":"JUDEA, JUDEANS “Land of the Jews,” particularly after the Captivity. Since most of the Israelites who returned from the exile were from the tribe of Judah, they were called Judeans or Jews and their land, Judea. This part of the Holy Land has always been of great interest to the Bible student because of the location of such places as Jerusalem and Bethlehem within the area and because of the events of Christ’s life and ministry that occurred here. Definition First used in Ezra 5:8, the term t...","source":"Articles\/J.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":48039,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ezra 5:8","title_en":"Study Note: Ezra 5:8","content_ro":"5:8<\/strong> the great God:<\/em> This title was a Persian way of referring to an important high deity; it does not indicate that the provincial authorities believed in Israel’s God. • Following the pattern of Solomon’s Temple (1 Kgs 6:36), after every three rows of prepared stones<\/em>,<\/em> a layer of timber<\/em> was laid in its walls<\/em> (see Ezra 6:4) to reduce potential damage from earthquakes.<\/p>","content_en":"5:8<\/strong> the great God:<\/em> This title was a Persian way of referring to an important high deity; it does not indicate that the provincial authorities believed in Israel’s God. • Following the pattern of Solomon’s Temple (1 Kgs 6:36), after every three rows of prepared stones<\/em>,<\/em> a layer of timber<\/em> was laid in its walls<\/em> (see Ezra 6:4) to reduce potential damage from earthquakes.<\/p>","summary_ro":"5:8 the great God: This title was a Persian way of referring to an important high deity; it does not indicate that the provincial authorities believed in Israel’s God. • Following the pattern of Solomon’s Temple (1 Kgs 6:36), after every three rows of prepared stones, a layer of timber was laid in its walls (see Ezra 6:4) to reduce potential damage from earthquakes.","summary_en":"5:8 the great God: This title was a Persian way of referring to an important high deity; it does not indicate that the provincial authorities believed in Israel’s God. • Following the pattern of Solomon’s Temple (1 Kgs 6:36), after every three rows of prepared stones, a layer of timber was laid in its walls (see Ezra 6:4) to reduce potential damage from earthquakes.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":75665,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ezra 5:8","title_en":"Study Note: Ezra 5:8","content_ro":"5:8<\/strong> the great God:<\/em> This title was a Persian way of referring to an important high deity; it does not indicate that the provincial authorities believed in Israel’s God. • Following the pattern of Solomon’s Temple (1 Kgs 6:36), after every three rows of prepared stones<\/em>,<\/em> a layer of timber<\/em> was laid in its walls<\/em> (see Ezra 6:4) to reduce potential damage from earthquakes.<\/p>","content_en":"5:8<\/strong> the great God:<\/em> This title was a Persian way of referring to an important high deity; it does not indicate that the provincial authorities believed in Israel’s God. • Following the pattern of Solomon’s Temple (1 Kgs 6:36), after every three rows of prepared stones<\/em>,<\/em> a layer of timber<\/em> was laid in its walls<\/em> (see Ezra 6:4) to reduce potential damage from earthquakes.<\/p>","summary_ro":"5:8 the great God: This title was a Persian way of referring to an important high deity; it does not indicate that the provincial authorities believed in Israel’s God. • Following the pattern of Solomon’s Temple (1 Kgs 6:36), after every three rows of prepared stones, a layer of timber was laid in its walls (see Ezra 6:4) to reduce potential damage from earthquakes.","summary_en":"5:8 the great God: This title was a Persian way of referring to an important high deity; it does not indicate that the provincial authorities believed in Israel’s God. • Following the pattern of Solomon’s Temple (1 Kgs 6:36), after every three rows of prepared stones, a layer of timber was laid in its walls (see Ezra 6:4) to reduce potential damage from earthquakes.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":103291,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ezra 5:8","title_en":"Study Note: Ezra 5:8","content_ro":"5:8<\/strong> the great God:<\/em> This title was a Persian way of referring to an important high deity; it does not indicate that the provincial authorities believed in Israel’s God. • Following the pattern of Solomon’s Temple (1 Kgs 6:36), after every three rows of prepared stones<\/em>,<\/em> a layer of timber<\/em> was laid in its walls<\/em> (see Ezra 6:4) to reduce potential damage from earthquakes.<\/p>","content_en":"5:8<\/strong> the great God:<\/em> This title was a Persian way of referring to an important high deity; it does not indicate that the provincial authorities believed in Israel’s God. • Following the pattern of Solomon’s Temple (1 Kgs 6:36), after every three rows of prepared stones<\/em>,<\/em> a layer of timber<\/em> was laid in its walls<\/em> (see Ezra 6:4) to reduce potential damage from earthquakes.<\/p>","summary_ro":"5:8 the great God: This title was a Persian way of referring to an important high deity; it does not indicate that the provincial authorities believed in Israel’s God. • Following the pattern of Solomon’s Temple (1 Kgs 6:36), after every three rows of prepared stones, a layer of timber was laid in its walls (see Ezra 6:4) to reduce potential damage from earthquakes.","summary_en":"5:8 the great God: This title was a Persian way of referring to an important high deity; it does not indicate that the provincial authorities believed in Israel’s God. • Following the pattern of Solomon’s Temple (1 Kgs 6:36), after every three rows of prepared stones, a layer of timber was laid in its walls (see Ezra 6:4) to reduce potential damage from earthquakes.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":130917,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ezra 5:8","title_en":"Study Note: Ezra 5:8","content_ro":"5:8<\/strong> the great God:<\/em> This title was a Persian way of referring to an important high deity; it does not indicate that the provincial authorities believed in Israel’s God. • Following the pattern of Solomon’s Temple (1 Kgs 6:36), after every three rows of prepared stones<\/em>,<\/em> a layer of timber<\/em> was laid in its walls<\/em> (see Ezra 6:4) to reduce potential damage from earthquakes.<\/p>","content_en":"5:8<\/strong> the great God:<\/em> This title was a Persian way of referring to an important high deity; it does not indicate that the provincial authorities believed in Israel’s God. • Following the pattern of Solomon’s Temple (1 Kgs 6:36), after every three rows of prepared stones<\/em>,<\/em> a layer of timber<\/em> was laid in its walls<\/em> (see Ezra 6:4) to reduce potential damage from earthquakes.<\/p>","summary_ro":"5:8 the great God: This title was a Persian way of referring to an important high deity; it does not indicate that the provincial authorities believed in Israel’s God. • Following the pattern of Solomon’s Temple (1 Kgs 6:36), after every three rows of prepared stones, a layer of timber was laid in its walls (see Ezra 6:4) to reduce potential damage from earthquakes.","summary_en":"5:8 the great God: This title was a Persian way of referring to an important high deity; it does not indicate that the provincial authorities believed in Israel’s God. • Following the pattern of Solomon’s Temple (1 Kgs 6:36), after every three rows of prepared stones, a layer of timber was laid in its walls (see Ezra 6:4) to reduce potential damage from earthquakes.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"11":[{"id":48040,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ezra 5:11","title_en":"Study Note: Ezra 5:11","content_ro":"5:11<\/strong> the God of heaven:<\/em> This title would be understood by the Persians: He was the universal high God, not an insignificant local deity. • a great king of Israel:<\/em> Solomon (see 1 Kgs 5–8).<\/p>","content_en":"5:11<\/strong> the God of heaven:<\/em> This title would be understood by the Persians: He was the universal high God, not an insignificant local deity. • a great king of Israel:<\/em> Solomon (see 1 Kgs 5–8).<\/p>","summary_ro":"5:11 the God of heaven: This title would be understood by the Persians: He was the universal high God, not an insignificant local deity. • a great king of Israel: Solomon (see 1 Kgs 5–8).","summary_en":"5:11 the God of heaven: This title would be understood by the Persians: He was the universal high God, not an insignificant local deity. • a great king of Israel: Solomon (see 1 Kgs 5–8).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":75666,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ezra 5:11","title_en":"Study Note: Ezra 5:11","content_ro":"5:11<\/strong> the God of heaven:<\/em> This title would be understood by the Persians: He was the universal high God, not an insignificant local deity. • a great king of Israel:<\/em> Solomon (see 1 Kgs 5–8).<\/p>","content_en":"5:11<\/strong> the God of heaven:<\/em> This title would be understood by the Persians: He was the universal high God, not an insignificant local deity. • a great king of Israel:<\/em> Solomon (see 1 Kgs 5–8).<\/p>","summary_ro":"5:11 the God of heaven: This title would be understood by the Persians: He was the universal high God, not an insignificant local deity. • a great king of Israel: Solomon (see 1 Kgs 5–8).","summary_en":"5:11 the God of heaven: This title would be understood by the Persians: He was the universal high God, not an insignificant local deity. • a great king of Israel: Solomon (see 1 Kgs 5–8).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":103292,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ezra 5:11","title_en":"Study Note: Ezra 5:11","content_ro":"5:11<\/strong> the God of heaven:<\/em> This title would be understood by the Persians: He was the universal high God, not an insignificant local deity. • a great king of Israel:<\/em> Solomon (see 1 Kgs 5–8).<\/p>","content_en":"5:11<\/strong> the God of heaven:<\/em> This title would be understood by the Persians: He was the universal high God, not an insignificant local deity. • a great king of Israel:<\/em> Solomon (see 1 Kgs 5–8).<\/p>","summary_ro":"5:11 the God of heaven: This title would be understood by the Persians: He was the universal high God, not an insignificant local deity. • a great king of Israel: Solomon (see 1 Kgs 5–8).","summary_en":"5:11 the God of heaven: This title would be understood by the Persians: He was the universal high God, not an insignificant local deity. • a great king of Israel: Solomon (see 1 Kgs 5–8).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":130918,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ezra 5:11","title_en":"Study Note: Ezra 5:11","content_ro":"5:11<\/strong> the God of heaven:<\/em> This title would be understood by the Persians: He was the universal high God, not an insignificant local deity. • a great king of Israel:<\/em> Solomon (see 1 Kgs 5–8).<\/p>","content_en":"5:11<\/strong> the God of heaven:<\/em> This title would be understood by the Persians: He was the universal high God, not an insignificant local deity. • a great king of Israel:<\/em> Solomon (see 1 Kgs 5–8).<\/p>","summary_ro":"5:11 the God of heaven: This title would be understood by the Persians: He was the universal high God, not an insignificant local deity. • a great king of Israel: Solomon (see 1 Kgs 5–8).","summary_en":"5:11 the God of heaven: This title would be understood by the Persians: He was the universal high God, not an insignificant local deity. • a great king of Israel: Solomon (see 1 Kgs 5–8).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":62100,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Purity and Identity","title_en":"Purity and Identity","content_ro":"<h3>Purity and Identity<\/h3>\nGod is holy, and he made a covenant with Israel to establish a holy nation (Exod 19:4-6; Lev 19:2). Israel’s identity as God’s people required purity in worship and in social relationships. God knew that if his people mingled with their pagan neighbors, they would be drawn into their detestable worship practices (see Num 25:1-9). Their failure to maintain purity and their assimilation to the surrounding cultures ultimately led to their destruction and exile (2 Kgs 17:5-23).<\/p>\nWhen Ezra wrote to the Jews who had returned to Jerusalem, one of his main purposes was to remind them of their need to remain pure in their beliefs and commitments. After arriving in Jerusalem, Ezra found that the people had intermarried with pagan foreigners, even though doing so was not permitted in God’s law (see Deut 7:3-4; Josh 23:12-13). As a result, their identity as God’s holy nation was in danger of disintegrating once again (Ezra 9:1-2).<\/p>\nTo impress on his readers the need for separation from these foreigners, Ezra recounts how those who first returned to Jerusalem refused to cooperate with the pagan people living around them (4:1-5). These people claimed to worship the same God, but they actually worshiped several gods in addition to Israel’s God. If the Jews had joined with these people, they soon would have compromised their beliefs and become ungodly, just as Israel had done before the Exile (see Exod 34:15-16; 1 Kgs 11:1-5; 2 Kgs 16:3). Those early leaders of the Jews in Judea understood the danger of accommodating these foreigners. They learned from their ancestors’ experience and refused to compromise the purity of their faith for the sake of peace. They carefully followed God’s instructions in everything they did (Ezra 3:2, 9; 6:18). If they were going to identify themselves as “the servants of the God of heaven and earth” (5:11), they would need to please and serve him and no other gods.<\/p>\nBelievers today are identified as God’s holy people (1 Pet 2:9), a title that speaks of purity. Paul admonished the Corinthians to refrain from marrying unbelievers—for Christ and Satan have no fellowship (2 Cor 6:14-15). Righteousness and unrighteousness do not mix. The people of God must dissociate themselves from all behavior that defiles, instead clothing themselves with attitudes and actions that befit their holy status (Col 3:5-15).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 27:46–28:5; Exod 19:4-6; 34:15-16; Lev 19:2; Deut 7:3-4; Josh 23:12-13; 1 Kgs 11:1-5; Ezra 4:1-5; 5:11; 9:1–10:11; Mal 2:15; 1 Cor 6:15-20; 2 Cor 6:14-18; 2 Tim 2:21-22; 1 Pet 2:9-10<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Purity and Identity<\/h3>\nGod is holy, and he made a covenant with Israel to establish a holy nation (Exod 19:4-6; Lev 19:2). Israel’s identity as God’s people required purity in worship and in social relationships. God knew that if his people mingled with their pagan neighbors, they would be drawn into their detestable worship practices (see Num 25:1-9). Their failure to maintain purity and their assimilation to the surrounding cultures ultimately led to their destruction and exile (2 Kgs 17:5-23).<\/p>\nWhen Ezra wrote to the Jews who had returned to Jerusalem, one of his main purposes was to remind them of their need to remain pure in their beliefs and commitments. After arriving in Jerusalem, Ezra found that the people had intermarried with pagan foreigners, even though doing so was not permitted in God’s law (see Deut 7:3-4; Josh 23:12-13). As a result, their identity as God’s holy nation was in danger of disintegrating once again (Ezra 9:1-2).<\/p>\nTo impress on his readers the need for separation from these foreigners, Ezra recounts how those who first returned to Jerusalem refused to cooperate with the pagan people living around them (4:1-5). These people claimed to worship the same God, but they actually worshiped several gods in addition to Israel’s God. If the Jews had joined with these people, they soon would have compromised their beliefs and become ungodly, just as Israel had done before the Exile (see Exod 34:15-16; 1 Kgs 11:1-5; 2 Kgs 16:3). Those early leaders of the Jews in Judea understood the danger of accommodating these foreigners. They learned from their ancestors’ experience and refused to compromise the purity of their faith for the sake of peace. They carefully followed God’s instructions in everything they did (Ezra 3:2, 9; 6:18). If they were going to identify themselves as “the servants of the God of heaven and earth” (5:11), they would need to please and serve him and no other gods.<\/p>\nBelievers today are identified as God’s holy people (1 Pet 2:9), a title that speaks of purity. Paul admonished the Corinthians to refrain from marrying unbelievers—for Christ and Satan have no fellowship (2 Cor 6:14-15). Righteousness and unrighteousness do not mix. The people of God must dissociate themselves from all behavior that defiles, instead clothing themselves with attitudes and actions that befit their holy status (Col 3:5-15).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 27:46–28:5; Exod 19:4-6; 34:15-16; Lev 19:2; Deut 7:3-4; Josh 23:12-13; 1 Kgs 11:1-5; Ezra 4:1-5; 5:11; 9:1–10:11; Mal 2:15; 1 Cor 6:15-20; 2 Cor 6:14-18; 2 Tim 2:21-22; 1 Pet 2:9-10<\/p>","summary_ro":"Purity and Identity God is holy, and he made a covenant with Israel to establish a holy nation (Exod 19:4-6; Lev 19:2). Israel’s identity as God’s people required purity in worship and in social relationships. God knew that if his people mingled with their pagan neighbors, they would be drawn into their detestable worship practices (see Num 25:1-9). Their failure to maintain purity and their assimilation to the surrounding cultures ultimately led to their destruction and exile (2 Kgs 17:5-23)...","summary_en":"Purity and Identity God is holy, and he made a covenant with Israel to establish a holy nation (Exod 19:4-6; Lev 19:2). Israel’s identity as God’s people required purity in worship and in social relationships. God knew that if his people mingled with their pagan neighbors, they would be drawn into their detestable worship practices (see Num 25:1-9). Their failure to maintain purity and their assimilation to the surrounding cultures ultimately led to their destruction and exile (2 Kgs 17:5-23)...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":89726,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Purity and Identity","title_en":"Purity and Identity","content_ro":"<h3>Purity and Identity<\/h3>\nGod is holy, and he made a covenant with Israel to establish a holy nation (Exod 19:4-6; Lev 19:2). Israel’s identity as God’s people required purity in worship and in social relationships. God knew that if his people mingled with their pagan neighbors, they would be drawn into their detestable worship practices (see Num 25:1-9). Their failure to maintain purity and their assimilation to the surrounding cultures ultimately led to their destruction and exile (2 Kgs 17:5-23).<\/p>\nWhen Ezra wrote to the Jews who had returned to Jerusalem, one of his main purposes was to remind them of their need to remain pure in their beliefs and commitments. After arriving in Jerusalem, Ezra found that the people had intermarried with pagan foreigners, even though doing so was not permitted in God’s law (see Deut 7:3-4; Josh 23:12-13). As a result, their identity as God’s holy nation was in danger of disintegrating once again (Ezra 9:1-2).<\/p>\nTo impress on his readers the need for separation from these foreigners, Ezra recounts how those who first returned to Jerusalem refused to cooperate with the pagan people living around them (4:1-5). These people claimed to worship the same God, but they actually worshiped several gods in addition to Israel’s God. If the Jews had joined with these people, they soon would have compromised their beliefs and become ungodly, just as Israel had done before the Exile (see Exod 34:15-16; 1 Kgs 11:1-5; 2 Kgs 16:3). Those early leaders of the Jews in Judea understood the danger of accommodating these foreigners. They learned from their ancestors’ experience and refused to compromise the purity of their faith for the sake of peace. They carefully followed God’s instructions in everything they did (Ezra 3:2, 9; 6:18). If they were going to identify themselves as “the servants of the God of heaven and earth” (5:11), they would need to please and serve him and no other gods.<\/p>\nBelievers today are identified as God’s holy people (1 Pet 2:9), a title that speaks of purity. Paul admonished the Corinthians to refrain from marrying unbelievers—for Christ and Satan have no fellowship (2 Cor 6:14-15). Righteousness and unrighteousness do not mix. The people of God must dissociate themselves from all behavior that defiles, instead clothing themselves with attitudes and actions that befit their holy status (Col 3:5-15).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 27:46–28:5; Exod 19:4-6; 34:15-16; Lev 19:2; Deut 7:3-4; Josh 23:12-13; 1 Kgs 11:1-5; Ezra 4:1-5; 5:11; 9:1–10:11; Mal 2:15; 1 Cor 6:15-20; 2 Cor 6:14-18; 2 Tim 2:21-22; 1 Pet 2:9-10<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Purity and Identity<\/h3>\nGod is holy, and he made a covenant with Israel to establish a holy nation (Exod 19:4-6; Lev 19:2). Israel’s identity as God’s people required purity in worship and in social relationships. God knew that if his people mingled with their pagan neighbors, they would be drawn into their detestable worship practices (see Num 25:1-9). Their failure to maintain purity and their assimilation to the surrounding cultures ultimately led to their destruction and exile (2 Kgs 17:5-23).<\/p>\nWhen Ezra wrote to the Jews who had returned to Jerusalem, one of his main purposes was to remind them of their need to remain pure in their beliefs and commitments. After arriving in Jerusalem, Ezra found that the people had intermarried with pagan foreigners, even though doing so was not permitted in God’s law (see Deut 7:3-4; Josh 23:12-13). As a result, their identity as God’s holy nation was in danger of disintegrating once again (Ezra 9:1-2).<\/p>\nTo impress on his readers the need for separation from these foreigners, Ezra recounts how those who first returned to Jerusalem refused to cooperate with the pagan people living around them (4:1-5). These people claimed to worship the same God, but they actually worshiped several gods in addition to Israel’s God. If the Jews had joined with these people, they soon would have compromised their beliefs and become ungodly, just as Israel had done before the Exile (see Exod 34:15-16; 1 Kgs 11:1-5; 2 Kgs 16:3). Those early leaders of the Jews in Judea understood the danger of accommodating these foreigners. They learned from their ancestors’ experience and refused to compromise the purity of their faith for the sake of peace. They carefully followed God’s instructions in everything they did (Ezra 3:2, 9; 6:18). If they were going to identify themselves as “the servants of the God of heaven and earth” (5:11), they would need to please and serve him and no other gods.<\/p>\nBelievers today are identified as God’s holy people (1 Pet 2:9), a title that speaks of purity. Paul admonished the Corinthians to refrain from marrying unbelievers—for Christ and Satan have no fellowship (2 Cor 6:14-15). Righteousness and unrighteousness do not mix. The people of God must dissociate themselves from all behavior that defiles, instead clothing themselves with attitudes and actions that befit their holy status (Col 3:5-15).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 27:46–28:5; Exod 19:4-6; 34:15-16; Lev 19:2; Deut 7:3-4; Josh 23:12-13; 1 Kgs 11:1-5; Ezra 4:1-5; 5:11; 9:1–10:11; Mal 2:15; 1 Cor 6:15-20; 2 Cor 6:14-18; 2 Tim 2:21-22; 1 Pet 2:9-10<\/p>","summary_ro":"Purity and Identity God is holy, and he made a covenant with Israel to establish a holy nation (Exod 19:4-6; Lev 19:2). Israel’s identity as God’s people required purity in worship and in social relationships. God knew that if his people mingled with their pagan neighbors, they would be drawn into their detestable worship practices (see Num 25:1-9). Their failure to maintain purity and their assimilation to the surrounding cultures ultimately led to their destruction and exile (2 Kgs 17:5-23)...","summary_en":"Purity and Identity God is holy, and he made a covenant with Israel to establish a holy nation (Exod 19:4-6; Lev 19:2). Israel’s identity as God’s people required purity in worship and in social relationships. God knew that if his people mingled with their pagan neighbors, they would be drawn into their detestable worship practices (see Num 25:1-9). Their failure to maintain purity and their assimilation to the surrounding cultures ultimately led to their destruction and exile (2 Kgs 17:5-23)...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":117352,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Purity and Identity","title_en":"Purity and Identity","content_ro":"<h3>Purity and Identity<\/h3>\nGod is holy, and he made a covenant with Israel to establish a holy nation (Exod 19:4-6; Lev 19:2). Israel’s identity as God’s people required purity in worship and in social relationships. God knew that if his people mingled with their pagan neighbors, they would be drawn into their detestable worship practices (see Num 25:1-9). Their failure to maintain purity and their assimilation to the surrounding cultures ultimately led to their destruction and exile (2 Kgs 17:5-23).<\/p>\nWhen Ezra wrote to the Jews who had returned to Jerusalem, one of his main purposes was to remind them of their need to remain pure in their beliefs and commitments. After arriving in Jerusalem, Ezra found that the people had intermarried with pagan foreigners, even though doing so was not permitted in God’s law (see Deut 7:3-4; Josh 23:12-13). As a result, their identity as God’s holy nation was in danger of disintegrating once again (Ezra 9:1-2).<\/p>\nTo impress on his readers the need for separation from these foreigners, Ezra recounts how those who first returned to Jerusalem refused to cooperate with the pagan people living around them (4:1-5). These people claimed to worship the same God, but they actually worshiped several gods in addition to Israel’s God. If the Jews had joined with these people, they soon would have compromised their beliefs and become ungodly, just as Israel had done before the Exile (see Exod 34:15-16; 1 Kgs 11:1-5; 2 Kgs 16:3). Those early leaders of the Jews in Judea understood the danger of accommodating these foreigners. They learned from their ancestors’ experience and refused to compromise the purity of their faith for the sake of peace. They carefully followed God’s instructions in everything they did (Ezra 3:2, 9; 6:18). If they were going to identify themselves as “the servants of the God of heaven and earth” (5:11), they would need to please and serve him and no other gods.<\/p>\nBelievers today are identified as God’s holy people (1 Pet 2:9), a title that speaks of purity. Paul admonished the Corinthians to refrain from marrying unbelievers—for Christ and Satan have no fellowship (2 Cor 6:14-15). Righteousness and unrighteousness do not mix. The people of God must dissociate themselves from all behavior that defiles, instead clothing themselves with attitudes and actions that befit their holy status (Col 3:5-15).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 27:46–28:5; Exod 19:4-6; 34:15-16; Lev 19:2; Deut 7:3-4; Josh 23:12-13; 1 Kgs 11:1-5; Ezra 4:1-5; 5:11; 9:1–10:11; Mal 2:15; 1 Cor 6:15-20; 2 Cor 6:14-18; 2 Tim 2:21-22; 1 Pet 2:9-10<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Purity and Identity<\/h3>\nGod is holy, and he made a covenant with Israel to establish a holy nation (Exod 19:4-6; Lev 19:2). Israel’s identity as God’s people required purity in worship and in social relationships. God knew that if his people mingled with their pagan neighbors, they would be drawn into their detestable worship practices (see Num 25:1-9). Their failure to maintain purity and their assimilation to the surrounding cultures ultimately led to their destruction and exile (2 Kgs 17:5-23).<\/p>\nWhen Ezra wrote to the Jews who had returned to Jerusalem, one of his main purposes was to remind them of their need to remain pure in their beliefs and commitments. After arriving in Jerusalem, Ezra found that the people had intermarried with pagan foreigners, even though doing so was not permitted in God’s law (see Deut 7:3-4; Josh 23:12-13). As a result, their identity as God’s holy nation was in danger of disintegrating once again (Ezra 9:1-2).<\/p>\nTo impress on his readers the need for separation from these foreigners, Ezra recounts how those who first returned to Jerusalem refused to cooperate with the pagan people living around them (4:1-5). These people claimed to worship the same God, but they actually worshiped several gods in addition to Israel’s God. If the Jews had joined with these people, they soon would have compromised their beliefs and become ungodly, just as Israel had done before the Exile (see Exod 34:15-16; 1 Kgs 11:1-5; 2 Kgs 16:3). Those early leaders of the Jews in Judea understood the danger of accommodating these foreigners. They learned from their ancestors’ experience and refused to compromise the purity of their faith for the sake of peace. They carefully followed God’s instructions in everything they did (Ezra 3:2, 9; 6:18). If they were going to identify themselves as “the servants of the God of heaven and earth” (5:11), they would need to please and serve him and no other gods.<\/p>\nBelievers today are identified as God’s holy people (1 Pet 2:9), a title that speaks of purity. Paul admonished the Corinthians to refrain from marrying unbelievers—for Christ and Satan have no fellowship (2 Cor 6:14-15). Righteousness and unrighteousness do not mix. The people of God must dissociate themselves from all behavior that defiles, instead clothing themselves with attitudes and actions that befit their holy status (Col 3:5-15).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 27:46–28:5; Exod 19:4-6; 34:15-16; Lev 19:2; Deut 7:3-4; Josh 23:12-13; 1 Kgs 11:1-5; Ezra 4:1-5; 5:11; 9:1–10:11; Mal 2:15; 1 Cor 6:15-20; 2 Cor 6:14-18; 2 Tim 2:21-22; 1 Pet 2:9-10<\/p>","summary_ro":"Purity and Identity God is holy, and he made a covenant with Israel to establish a holy nation (Exod 19:4-6; Lev 19:2). Israel’s identity as God’s people required purity in worship and in social relationships. God knew that if his people mingled with their pagan neighbors, they would be drawn into their detestable worship practices (see Num 25:1-9). Their failure to maintain purity and their assimilation to the surrounding cultures ultimately led to their destruction and exile (2 Kgs 17:5-23)...","summary_en":"Purity and Identity God is holy, and he made a covenant with Israel to establish a holy nation (Exod 19:4-6; Lev 19:2). Israel’s identity as God’s people required purity in worship and in social relationships. God knew that if his people mingled with their pagan neighbors, they would be drawn into their detestable worship practices (see Num 25:1-9). Their failure to maintain purity and their assimilation to the surrounding cultures ultimately led to their destruction and exile (2 Kgs 17:5-23)...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":144978,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Purity and Identity","title_en":"Purity and Identity","content_ro":"<h3>Purity and Identity<\/h3>\nGod is holy, and he made a covenant with Israel to establish a holy nation (Exod 19:4-6; Lev 19:2). Israel’s identity as God’s people required purity in worship and in social relationships. God knew that if his people mingled with their pagan neighbors, they would be drawn into their detestable worship practices (see Num 25:1-9). Their failure to maintain purity and their assimilation to the surrounding cultures ultimately led to their destruction and exile (2 Kgs 17:5-23).<\/p>\nWhen Ezra wrote to the Jews who had returned to Jerusalem, one of his main purposes was to remind them of their need to remain pure in their beliefs and commitments. After arriving in Jerusalem, Ezra found that the people had intermarried with pagan foreigners, even though doing so was not permitted in God’s law (see Deut 7:3-4; Josh 23:12-13). As a result, their identity as God’s holy nation was in danger of disintegrating once again (Ezra 9:1-2).<\/p>\nTo impress on his readers the need for separation from these foreigners, Ezra recounts how those who first returned to Jerusalem refused to cooperate with the pagan people living around them (4:1-5). These people claimed to worship the same God, but they actually worshiped several gods in addition to Israel’s God. If the Jews had joined with these people, they soon would have compromised their beliefs and become ungodly, just as Israel had done before the Exile (see Exod 34:15-16; 1 Kgs 11:1-5; 2 Kgs 16:3). Those early leaders of the Jews in Judea understood the danger of accommodating these foreigners. They learned from their ancestors’ experience and refused to compromise the purity of their faith for the sake of peace. They carefully followed God’s instructions in everything they did (Ezra 3:2, 9; 6:18). If they were going to identify themselves as “the servants of the God of heaven and earth” (5:11), they would need to please and serve him and no other gods.<\/p>\nBelievers today are identified as God’s holy people (1 Pet 2:9), a title that speaks of purity. Paul admonished the Corinthians to refrain from marrying unbelievers—for Christ and Satan have no fellowship (2 Cor 6:14-15). Righteousness and unrighteousness do not mix. The people of God must dissociate themselves from all behavior that defiles, instead clothing themselves with attitudes and actions that befit their holy status (Col 3:5-15).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 27:46–28:5; Exod 19:4-6; 34:15-16; Lev 19:2; Deut 7:3-4; Josh 23:12-13; 1 Kgs 11:1-5; Ezra 4:1-5; 5:11; 9:1–10:11; Mal 2:15; 1 Cor 6:15-20; 2 Cor 6:14-18; 2 Tim 2:21-22; 1 Pet 2:9-10<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Purity and Identity<\/h3>\nGod is holy, and he made a covenant with Israel to establish a holy nation (Exod 19:4-6; Lev 19:2). Israel’s identity as God’s people required purity in worship and in social relationships. God knew that if his people mingled with their pagan neighbors, they would be drawn into their detestable worship practices (see Num 25:1-9). Their failure to maintain purity and their assimilation to the surrounding cultures ultimately led to their destruction and exile (2 Kgs 17:5-23).<\/p>\nWhen Ezra wrote to the Jews who had returned to Jerusalem, one of his main purposes was to remind them of their need to remain pure in their beliefs and commitments. After arriving in Jerusalem, Ezra found that the people had intermarried with pagan foreigners, even though doing so was not permitted in God’s law (see Deut 7:3-4; Josh 23:12-13). As a result, their identity as God’s holy nation was in danger of disintegrating once again (Ezra 9:1-2).<\/p>\nTo impress on his readers the need for separation from these foreigners, Ezra recounts how those who first returned to Jerusalem refused to cooperate with the pagan people living around them (4:1-5). These people claimed to worship the same God, but they actually worshiped several gods in addition to Israel’s God. If the Jews had joined with these people, they soon would have compromised their beliefs and become ungodly, just as Israel had done before the Exile (see Exod 34:15-16; 1 Kgs 11:1-5; 2 Kgs 16:3). Those early leaders of the Jews in Judea understood the danger of accommodating these foreigners. They learned from their ancestors’ experience and refused to compromise the purity of their faith for the sake of peace. They carefully followed God’s instructions in everything they did (Ezra 3:2, 9; 6:18). If they were going to identify themselves as “the servants of the God of heaven and earth” (5:11), they would need to please and serve him and no other gods.<\/p>\nBelievers today are identified as God’s holy people (1 Pet 2:9), a title that speaks of purity. Paul admonished the Corinthians to refrain from marrying unbelievers—for Christ and Satan have no fellowship (2 Cor 6:14-15). Righteousness and unrighteousness do not mix. The people of God must dissociate themselves from all behavior that defiles, instead clothing themselves with attitudes and actions that befit their holy status (Col 3:5-15).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 27:46–28:5; Exod 19:4-6; 34:15-16; Lev 19:2; Deut 7:3-4; Josh 23:12-13; 1 Kgs 11:1-5; Ezra 4:1-5; 5:11; 9:1–10:11; Mal 2:15; 1 Cor 6:15-20; 2 Cor 6:14-18; 2 Tim 2:21-22; 1 Pet 2:9-10<\/p>","summary_ro":"Purity and Identity God is holy, and he made a covenant with Israel to establish a holy nation (Exod 19:4-6; Lev 19:2). Israel’s identity as God’s people required purity in worship and in social relationships. God knew that if his people mingled with their pagan neighbors, they would be drawn into their detestable worship practices (see Num 25:1-9). Their failure to maintain purity and their assimilation to the surrounding cultures ultimately led to their destruction and exile (2 Kgs 17:5-23)...","summary_en":"Purity and Identity God is holy, and he made a covenant with Israel to establish a holy nation (Exod 19:4-6; Lev 19:2). Israel’s identity as God’s people required purity in worship and in social relationships. God knew that if his people mingled with their pagan neighbors, they would be drawn into their detestable worship practices (see Num 25:1-9). Their failure to maintain purity and their assimilation to the surrounding cultures ultimately led to their destruction and exile (2 Kgs 17:5-23)...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"12":[{"id":48041,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ezra 5:12","title_en":"Study Note: Ezra 5:12","content_ro":"5:12<\/strong> destroyed this Temple and exiled the people:<\/em> See 2 Kgs 25:9-17.<\/p>","content_en":"5:12<\/strong> destroyed this Temple and exiled the people:<\/em> See 2 Kgs 25:9-17.<\/p>","summary_ro":"5:12 destroyed this Temple and exiled the people: See 2 Kgs 25:9-17.","summary_en":"5:12 destroyed this Temple and exiled the people: See 2 Kgs 25:9-17.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":75667,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ezra 5:12","title_en":"Study Note: Ezra 5:12","content_ro":"5:12<\/strong> destroyed this Temple and exiled the people:<\/em> See 2 Kgs 25:9-17.<\/p>","content_en":"5:12<\/strong> destroyed this Temple and exiled the people:<\/em> See 2 Kgs 25:9-17.<\/p>","summary_ro":"5:12 destroyed this Temple and exiled the people: See 2 Kgs 25:9-17.","summary_en":"5:12 destroyed this Temple and exiled the people: See 2 Kgs 25:9-17.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":103293,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ezra 5:12","title_en":"Study Note: Ezra 5:12","content_ro":"5:12<\/strong> destroyed this Temple and exiled the people:<\/em> See 2 Kgs 25:9-17.<\/p>","content_en":"5:12<\/strong> destroyed this Temple and exiled the people:<\/em> See 2 Kgs 25:9-17.<\/p>","summary_ro":"5:12 destroyed this Temple and exiled the people: See 2 Kgs 25:9-17.","summary_en":"5:12 destroyed this Temple and exiled the people: See 2 Kgs 25:9-17.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":130919,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ezra 5:12","title_en":"Study Note: Ezra 5:12","content_ro":"5:12<\/strong> destroyed this Temple and exiled the people:<\/em> See 2 Kgs 25:9-17.<\/p>","content_en":"5:12<\/strong> destroyed this Temple and exiled the people:<\/em> See 2 Kgs 25:9-17.<\/p>","summary_ro":"5:12 destroyed this Temple and exiled the people: See 2 Kgs 25:9-17.","summary_en":"5:12 destroyed this Temple and exiled the people: See 2 Kgs 25:9-17.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":63132,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Making Sense of the Exile","title_en":"Making Sense of the Exile","content_ro":"<h3>Making Sense of the Exile<\/h3>\nIsrael’s kings and the people of Israel repeatedly rebelled against God and broke their covenant with him. God therefore declared that he would bring the curses of the covenant upon them (see Deut 28:15-68; cp. Jer 4:13; Amos 5:11; Mic 6:14-15). God sent the Assyrian and Babylonian armies to execute this sentence, and a large number of the Israelites were taken into exile (see 2 Kgs 24:1–25:21).<\/p>\nThe Exile shaped many of the psalms; we see its impact working behind the scenes in various images and themes. In Psalm 89 the grief, anguish, and confusion of the Exile are distilled into several questions that the psalmist raises: Has God abandoned David’s royal line (89:38-39)? How long will God’s anger last (Ps 89:46)? Does God understand human frailty (89:47-48)? Is God true to his nature (89:49)? Is God just in not avenging his people (89:50-51)?<\/p>\nThese questions were on the minds of God’s people during and after the Exile. Some of their doubts raise questions concerning God’s ability to rule. Rather than dismissing these questions, wise readers listen, reflect, and study the answers that Scripture gives.<\/p>\nThe definitive answer came in the Lord Jesus Christ (see Isa 52–54; Luke 1:46-55, 67-79; 4:18-19; Rom 6:6, 16-23; Heb 12:22-24). But those who experienced the Exile could only dimly foresee a hopeful future. They asked these hard questions and lived without clear answers.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nLev 26:27-45; Deut 28:36-37, 63-68; 30:1-5; 2 Kgs 17:5-23; 24:1–25:21; Ezra 5:12; Pss 89; 107; 126; Isa 5:13; 27:13; 52:1-12; 59:10; Jer 2:37; 3:18; 4:13; Ezek 6:9; 20:41; 37:1-14; Amos 5:11; Mic 6:14-15<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Making Sense of the Exile<\/h3>\nIsrael’s kings and the people of Israel repeatedly rebelled against God and broke their covenant with him. God therefore declared that he would bring the curses of the covenant upon them (see Deut 28:15-68; cp. Jer 4:13; Amos 5:11; Mic 6:14-15). God sent the Assyrian and Babylonian armies to execute this sentence, and a large number of the Israelites were taken into exile (see 2 Kgs 24:1–25:21).<\/p>\nThe Exile shaped many of the psalms; we see its impact working behind the scenes in various images and themes. In Psalm 89 the grief, anguish, and confusion of the Exile are distilled into several questions that the psalmist raises: Has God abandoned David’s royal line (89:38-39)? How long will God’s anger last (Ps 89:46)? Does God understand human frailty (89:47-48)? Is God true to his nature (89:49)? Is God just in not avenging his people (89:50-51)?<\/p>\nThese questions were on the minds of God’s people during and after the Exile. Some of their doubts raise questions concerning God’s ability to rule. Rather than dismissing these questions, wise readers listen, reflect, and study the answers that Scripture gives.<\/p>\nThe definitive answer came in the Lord Jesus Christ (see Isa 52–54; Luke 1:46-55, 67-79; 4:18-19; Rom 6:6, 16-23; Heb 12:22-24). But those who experienced the Exile could only dimly foresee a hopeful future. They asked these hard questions and lived without clear answers.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nLev 26:27-45; Deut 28:36-37, 63-68; 30:1-5; 2 Kgs 17:5-23; 24:1–25:21; Ezra 5:12; Pss 89; 107; 126; Isa 5:13; 27:13; 52:1-12; 59:10; Jer 2:37; 3:18; 4:13; Ezek 6:9; 20:41; 37:1-14; Amos 5:11; Mic 6:14-15<\/p>","summary_ro":"Making Sense of the Exile Israel’s kings and the people of Israel repeatedly rebelled against God and broke their covenant with him. God therefore declared that he would bring the curses of the covenant upon them (see Deut 28:15-68; cp. Jer 4:13; Amos 5:11; Mic 6:14-15). God sent the Assyrian and Babylonian armies to execute this sentence, and a large number of the Israelites were taken into exile (see 2 Kgs 24:1–25:21). The Exile shaped many of the psalms; we see its impact working behind th...","summary_en":"Making Sense of the Exile Israel’s kings and the people of Israel repeatedly rebelled against God and broke their covenant with him. God therefore declared that he would bring the curses of the covenant upon them (see Deut 28:15-68; cp. Jer 4:13; Amos 5:11; Mic 6:14-15). God sent the Assyrian and Babylonian armies to execute this sentence, and a large number of the Israelites were taken into exile (see 2 Kgs 24:1–25:21). The Exile shaped many of the psalms; we see its impact working behind th...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":90758,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Making Sense of the Exile","title_en":"Making Sense of the Exile","content_ro":"<h3>Making Sense of the Exile<\/h3>\nIsrael’s kings and the people of Israel repeatedly rebelled against God and broke their covenant with him. God therefore declared that he would bring the curses of the covenant upon them (see Deut 28:15-68; cp. Jer 4:13; Amos 5:11; Mic 6:14-15). God sent the Assyrian and Babylonian armies to execute this sentence, and a large number of the Israelites were taken into exile (see 2 Kgs 24:1–25:21).<\/p>\nThe Exile shaped many of the psalms; we see its impact working behind the scenes in various images and themes. In Psalm 89 the grief, anguish, and confusion of the Exile are distilled into several questions that the psalmist raises: Has God abandoned David’s royal line (89:38-39)? How long will God’s anger last (Ps 89:46)? Does God understand human frailty (89:47-48)? Is God true to his nature (89:49)? Is God just in not avenging his people (89:50-51)?<\/p>\nThese questions were on the minds of God’s people during and after the Exile. Some of their doubts raise questions concerning God’s ability to rule. Rather than dismissing these questions, wise readers listen, reflect, and study the answers that Scripture gives.<\/p>\nThe definitive answer came in the Lord Jesus Christ (see Isa 52–54; Luke 1:46-55, 67-79; 4:18-19; Rom 6:6, 16-23; Heb 12:22-24). But those who experienced the Exile could only dimly foresee a hopeful future. They asked these hard questions and lived without clear answers.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nLev 26:27-45; Deut 28:36-37, 63-68; 30:1-5; 2 Kgs 17:5-23; 24:1–25:21; Ezra 5:12; Pss 89; 107; 126; Isa 5:13; 27:13; 52:1-12; 59:10; Jer 2:37; 3:18; 4:13; Ezek 6:9; 20:41; 37:1-14; Amos 5:11; Mic 6:14-15<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Making Sense of the Exile<\/h3>\nIsrael’s kings and the people of Israel repeatedly rebelled against God and broke their covenant with him. God therefore declared that he would bring the curses of the covenant upon them (see Deut 28:15-68; cp. Jer 4:13; Amos 5:11; Mic 6:14-15). God sent the Assyrian and Babylonian armies to execute this sentence, and a large number of the Israelites were taken into exile (see 2 Kgs 24:1–25:21).<\/p>\nThe Exile shaped many of the psalms; we see its impact working behind the scenes in various images and themes. In Psalm 89 the grief, anguish, and confusion of the Exile are distilled into several questions that the psalmist raises: Has God abandoned David’s royal line (89:38-39)? How long will God’s anger last (Ps 89:46)? Does God understand human frailty (89:47-48)? Is God true to his nature (89:49)? Is God just in not avenging his people (89:50-51)?<\/p>\nThese questions were on the minds of God’s people during and after the Exile. Some of their doubts raise questions concerning God’s ability to rule. Rather than dismissing these questions, wise readers listen, reflect, and study the answers that Scripture gives.<\/p>\nThe definitive answer came in the Lord Jesus Christ (see Isa 52–54; Luke 1:46-55, 67-79; 4:18-19; Rom 6:6, 16-23; Heb 12:22-24). But those who experienced the Exile could only dimly foresee a hopeful future. They asked these hard questions and lived without clear answers.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nLev 26:27-45; Deut 28:36-37, 63-68; 30:1-5; 2 Kgs 17:5-23; 24:1–25:21; Ezra 5:12; Pss 89; 107; 126; Isa 5:13; 27:13; 52:1-12; 59:10; Jer 2:37; 3:18; 4:13; Ezek 6:9; 20:41; 37:1-14; Amos 5:11; Mic 6:14-15<\/p>","summary_ro":"Making Sense of the Exile Israel’s kings and the people of Israel repeatedly rebelled against God and broke their covenant with him. God therefore declared that he would bring the curses of the covenant upon them (see Deut 28:15-68; cp. Jer 4:13; Amos 5:11; Mic 6:14-15). God sent the Assyrian and Babylonian armies to execute this sentence, and a large number of the Israelites were taken into exile (see 2 Kgs 24:1–25:21). The Exile shaped many of the psalms; we see its impact working behind th...","summary_en":"Making Sense of the Exile Israel’s kings and the people of Israel repeatedly rebelled against God and broke their covenant with him. God therefore declared that he would bring the curses of the covenant upon them (see Deut 28:15-68; cp. Jer 4:13; Amos 5:11; Mic 6:14-15). God sent the Assyrian and Babylonian armies to execute this sentence, and a large number of the Israelites were taken into exile (see 2 Kgs 24:1–25:21). The Exile shaped many of the psalms; we see its impact working behind th...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":118384,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Making Sense of the Exile","title_en":"Making Sense of the Exile","content_ro":"<h3>Making Sense of the Exile<\/h3>\nIsrael’s kings and the people of Israel repeatedly rebelled against God and broke their covenant with him. God therefore declared that he would bring the curses of the covenant upon them (see Deut 28:15-68; cp. Jer 4:13; Amos 5:11; Mic 6:14-15). God sent the Assyrian and Babylonian armies to execute this sentence, and a large number of the Israelites were taken into exile (see 2 Kgs 24:1–25:21).<\/p>\nThe Exile shaped many of the psalms; we see its impact working behind the scenes in various images and themes. In Psalm 89 the grief, anguish, and confusion of the Exile are distilled into several questions that the psalmist raises: Has God abandoned David’s royal line (89:38-39)? How long will God’s anger last (Ps 89:46)? Does God understand human frailty (89:47-48)? Is God true to his nature (89:49)? Is God just in not avenging his people (89:50-51)?<\/p>\nThese questions were on the minds of God’s people during and after the Exile. Some of their doubts raise questions concerning God’s ability to rule. Rather than dismissing these questions, wise readers listen, reflect, and study the answers that Scripture gives.<\/p>\nThe definitive answer came in the Lord Jesus Christ (see Isa 52–54; Luke 1:46-55, 67-79; 4:18-19; Rom 6:6, 16-23; Heb 12:22-24). But those who experienced the Exile could only dimly foresee a hopeful future. They asked these hard questions and lived without clear answers.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nLev 26:27-45; Deut 28:36-37, 63-68; 30:1-5; 2 Kgs 17:5-23; 24:1–25:21; Ezra 5:12; Pss 89; 107; 126; Isa 5:13; 27:13; 52:1-12; 59:10; Jer 2:37; 3:18; 4:13; Ezek 6:9; 20:41; 37:1-14; Amos 5:11; Mic 6:14-15<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Making Sense of the Exile<\/h3>\nIsrael’s kings and the people of Israel repeatedly rebelled against God and broke their covenant with him. God therefore declared that he would bring the curses of the covenant upon them (see Deut 28:15-68; cp. Jer 4:13; Amos 5:11; Mic 6:14-15). God sent the Assyrian and Babylonian armies to execute this sentence, and a large number of the Israelites were taken into exile (see 2 Kgs 24:1–25:21).<\/p>\nThe Exile shaped many of the psalms; we see its impact working behind the scenes in various images and themes. In Psalm 89 the grief, anguish, and confusion of the Exile are distilled into several questions that the psalmist raises: Has God abandoned David’s royal line (89:38-39)? How long will God’s anger last (Ps 89:46)? Does God understand human frailty (89:47-48)? Is God true to his nature (89:49)? Is God just in not avenging his people (89:50-51)?<\/p>\nThese questions were on the minds of God’s people during and after the Exile. Some of their doubts raise questions concerning God’s ability to rule. Rather than dismissing these questions, wise readers listen, reflect, and study the answers that Scripture gives.<\/p>\nThe definitive answer came in the Lord Jesus Christ (see Isa 52–54; Luke 1:46-55, 67-79; 4:18-19; Rom 6:6, 16-23; Heb 12:22-24). But those who experienced the Exile could only dimly foresee a hopeful future. They asked these hard questions and lived without clear answers.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nLev 26:27-45; Deut 28:36-37, 63-68; 30:1-5; 2 Kgs 17:5-23; 24:1–25:21; Ezra 5:12; Pss 89; 107; 126; Isa 5:13; 27:13; 52:1-12; 59:10; Jer 2:37; 3:18; 4:13; Ezek 6:9; 20:41; 37:1-14; Amos 5:11; Mic 6:14-15<\/p>","summary_ro":"Making Sense of the Exile Israel’s kings and the people of Israel repeatedly rebelled against God and broke their covenant with him. God therefore declared that he would bring the curses of the covenant upon them (see Deut 28:15-68; cp. Jer 4:13; Amos 5:11; Mic 6:14-15). God sent the Assyrian and Babylonian armies to execute this sentence, and a large number of the Israelites were taken into exile (see 2 Kgs 24:1–25:21). The Exile shaped many of the psalms; we see its impact working behind th...","summary_en":"Making Sense of the Exile Israel’s kings and the people of Israel repeatedly rebelled against God and broke their covenant with him. God therefore declared that he would bring the curses of the covenant upon them (see Deut 28:15-68; cp. Jer 4:13; Amos 5:11; Mic 6:14-15). God sent the Assyrian and Babylonian armies to execute this sentence, and a large number of the Israelites were taken into exile (see 2 Kgs 24:1–25:21). The Exile shaped many of the psalms; we see its impact working behind th...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":146010,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Making Sense of the Exile","title_en":"Making Sense of the Exile","content_ro":"<h3>Making Sense of the Exile<\/h3>\nIsrael’s kings and the people of Israel repeatedly rebelled against God and broke their covenant with him. God therefore declared that he would bring the curses of the covenant upon them (see Deut 28:15-68; cp. Jer 4:13; Amos 5:11; Mic 6:14-15). God sent the Assyrian and Babylonian armies to execute this sentence, and a large number of the Israelites were taken into exile (see 2 Kgs 24:1–25:21).<\/p>\nThe Exile shaped many of the psalms; we see its impact working behind the scenes in various images and themes. In Psalm 89 the grief, anguish, and confusion of the Exile are distilled into several questions that the psalmist raises: Has God abandoned David’s royal line (89:38-39)? How long will God’s anger last (Ps 89:46)? Does God understand human frailty (89:47-48)? Is God true to his nature (89:49)? Is God just in not avenging his people (89:50-51)?<\/p>\nThese questions were on the minds of God’s people during and after the Exile. Some of their doubts raise questions concerning God’s ability to rule. Rather than dismissing these questions, wise readers listen, reflect, and study the answers that Scripture gives.<\/p>\nThe definitive answer came in the Lord Jesus Christ (see Isa 52–54; Luke 1:46-55, 67-79; 4:18-19; Rom 6:6, 16-23; Heb 12:22-24). But those who experienced the Exile could only dimly foresee a hopeful future. They asked these hard questions and lived without clear answers.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nLev 26:27-45; Deut 28:36-37, 63-68; 30:1-5; 2 Kgs 17:5-23; 24:1–25:21; Ezra 5:12; Pss 89; 107; 126; Isa 5:13; 27:13; 52:1-12; 59:10; Jer 2:37; 3:18; 4:13; Ezek 6:9; 20:41; 37:1-14; Amos 5:11; Mic 6:14-15<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Making Sense of the Exile<\/h3>\nIsrael’s kings and the people of Israel repeatedly rebelled against God and broke their covenant with him. God therefore declared that he would bring the curses of the covenant upon them (see Deut 28:15-68; cp. Jer 4:13; Amos 5:11; Mic 6:14-15). God sent the Assyrian and Babylonian armies to execute this sentence, and a large number of the Israelites were taken into exile (see 2 Kgs 24:1–25:21).<\/p>\nThe Exile shaped many of the psalms; we see its impact working behind the scenes in various images and themes. In Psalm 89 the grief, anguish, and confusion of the Exile are distilled into several questions that the psalmist raises: Has God abandoned David’s royal line (89:38-39)? How long will God’s anger last (Ps 89:46)? Does God understand human frailty (89:47-48)? Is God true to his nature (89:49)? Is God just in not avenging his people (89:50-51)?<\/p>\nThese questions were on the minds of God’s people during and after the Exile. Some of their doubts raise questions concerning God’s ability to rule. Rather than dismissing these questions, wise readers listen, reflect, and study the answers that Scripture gives.<\/p>\nThe definitive answer came in the Lord Jesus Christ (see Isa 52–54; Luke 1:46-55, 67-79; 4:18-19; Rom 6:6, 16-23; Heb 12:22-24). But those who experienced the Exile could only dimly foresee a hopeful future. They asked these hard questions and lived without clear answers.<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nLev 26:27-45; Deut 28:36-37, 63-68; 30:1-5; 2 Kgs 17:5-23; 24:1–25:21; Ezra 5:12; Pss 89; 107; 126; Isa 5:13; 27:13; 52:1-12; 59:10; Jer 2:37; 3:18; 4:13; Ezek 6:9; 20:41; 37:1-14; Amos 5:11; Mic 6:14-15<\/p>","summary_ro":"Making Sense of the Exile Israel’s kings and the people of Israel repeatedly rebelled against God and broke their covenant with him. God therefore declared that he would bring the curses of the covenant upon them (see Deut 28:15-68; cp. Jer 4:13; Amos 5:11; Mic 6:14-15). God sent the Assyrian and Babylonian armies to execute this sentence, and a large number of the Israelites were taken into exile (see 2 Kgs 24:1–25:21). The Exile shaped many of the psalms; we see its impact working behind th...","summary_en":"Making Sense of the Exile Israel’s kings and the people of Israel repeatedly rebelled against God and broke their covenant with him. God therefore declared that he would bring the curses of the covenant upon them (see Deut 28:15-68; cp. Jer 4:13; Amos 5:11; Mic 6:14-15). God sent the Assyrian and Babylonian armies to execute this sentence, and a large number of the Israelites were taken into exile (see 2 Kgs 24:1–25:21). The Exile shaped many of the psalms; we see its impact working behind th...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"13":[{"id":48042,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ezra 5:13","title_en":"Study Note: Ezra 5:13","content_ro":"5:13<\/strong> a decree:<\/em> See 1:1-4.<\/p>","content_en":"5:13<\/strong> a decree:<\/em> See 1:1-4.<\/p>","summary_ro":"5:13 a decree: See 1:1-4.","summary_en":"5:13 a decree: See 1:1-4.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":75668,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ezra 5:13","title_en":"Study Note: Ezra 5:13","content_ro":"5:13<\/strong> a decree:<\/em> See 1:1-4.<\/p>","content_en":"5:13<\/strong> a decree:<\/em> See 1:1-4.<\/p>","summary_ro":"5:13 a decree: See 1:1-4.","summary_en":"5:13 a decree: See 1:1-4.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":103294,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ezra 5:13","title_en":"Study Note: Ezra 5:13","content_ro":"5:13<\/strong> a decree:<\/em> See 1:1-4.<\/p>","content_en":"5:13<\/strong> a decree:<\/em> See 1:1-4.<\/p>","summary_ro":"5:13 a decree: See 1:1-4.","summary_en":"5:13 a decree: See 1:1-4.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":130920,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ezra 5:13","title_en":"Study Note: Ezra 5:13","content_ro":"5:13<\/strong> a decree:<\/em> See 1:1-4.<\/p>","content_en":"5:13<\/strong> a decree:<\/em> See 1:1-4.<\/p>","summary_ro":"5:13 a decree: See 1:1-4.","summary_en":"5:13 a decree: See 1:1-4.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"14":[{"id":35028,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Sheshbazzar","title_en":"Sheshbazzar","content_ro":"<h3>SHESHBAZZAR<\/h3>\nJewish leader who found favor with Cyrus the Great, king of Persia. In the first year of his reign, Cyrus issued a decree that the temple in Jerusalem should be rebuilt (Ezr 1:1-4; cf. 6:1-5). He appointed Sheshbazzar governor of Judah (Ezr 5:14) and handed over to him the gold and silver vessels that Nebuchadnezzar had carried off when he took Jerusalem (1:7-9). Sheshbazzar fulfilled this commission by taking the vessels to Jerusalem with the returning exiles (v 9) and beginning the restoration of the temple (5:16).<\/p>\nSheshbazzar is mentioned in the Bible only four times, all in the book of Ezra (1:8-9; 5:14-16). For many years it was commonly held that Sheshbazzar was another name for Zerubbabel. Both were of the royal line; Sheshbazzar is called “the prince of Judah,” which may mean that he was heir apparent to the throne. Since his genealogy is not given, he may be represented in that listing by some other name, either Zerubbabel or Shenazzar (1 Chr 3:18-19). In the record of people who returned to Jerusalem, Sheshbazzar’s name does not appear. The name of Zerubbabel is at the head of this list, where one would expect Sheshbazzar’s to be; both were governors of the province of Judah. Zerubbabel is associated with the laying of the foundation of the temple (Ezr 3:8-11), but that work is attributed to Sheshbazzar in 5:16, in accordance with chapter 1. It is evident that the name Sheshbazzar is found only in connection with the Persians, for chapter 1 relates his dealings with Cyrus, and in chapter 5 the two occurrences of his name are in a letter written by the Persian official, Tattenai. One may conclude that the Persians knew him as Sheshbazzar, but the Jews called him Zerubbabel. Both names are Akkadian, so there is no parallel here to the renaming of Jewish captives in Babylon (Dn 1:7).<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>SHESHBAZZAR<\/h3>\nJewish leader who found favor with Cyrus the Great, king of Persia. In the first year of his reign, Cyrus issued a decree that the temple in Jerusalem should be rebuilt (Ezr 1:1-4; cf. 6:1-5). He appointed Sheshbazzar governor of Judah (Ezr 5:14) and handed over to him the gold and silver vessels that Nebuchadnezzar had carried off when he took Jerusalem (1:7-9). Sheshbazzar fulfilled this commission by taking the vessels to Jerusalem with the returning exiles (v 9) and beginning the restoration of the temple (5:16).<\/p>\nSheshbazzar is mentioned in the Bible only four times, all in the book of Ezra (1:8-9; 5:14-16). For many years it was commonly held that Sheshbazzar was another name for Zerubbabel. Both were of the royal line; Sheshbazzar is called “the prince of Judah,” which may mean that he was heir apparent to the throne. Since his genealogy is not given, he may be represented in that listing by some other name, either Zerubbabel or Shenazzar (1 Chr 3:18-19). In the record of people who returned to Jerusalem, Sheshbazzar’s name does not appear. The name of Zerubbabel is at the head of this list, where one would expect Sheshbazzar’s to be; both were governors of the province of Judah. Zerubbabel is associated with the laying of the foundation of the temple (Ezr 3:8-11), but that work is attributed to Sheshbazzar in 5:16, in accordance with chapter 1. It is evident that the name Sheshbazzar is found only in connection with the Persians, for chapter 1 relates his dealings with Cyrus, and in chapter 5 the two occurrences of his name are in a letter written by the Persian official, Tattenai. One may conclude that the Persians knew him as Sheshbazzar, but the Jews called him Zerubbabel. Both names are Akkadian, so there is no parallel here to the renaming of Jewish captives in Babylon (Dn 1:7).<\/p>","summary_ro":"SHESHBAZZAR Jewish leader who found favor with Cyrus the Great, king of Persia. In the first year of his reign, Cyrus issued a decree that the temple in Jerusalem should be rebuilt (Ezr 1:1-4; cf. 6:1-5). He appointed Sheshbazzar governor of Judah (Ezr 5:14) and handed over to him the gold and silver vessels that Nebuchadnezzar had carried off when he took Jerusalem (1:7-9). Sheshbazzar fulfilled this commission by taking the vessels to Jerusalem with the returning exiles (v 9) and beginning ...","summary_en":"SHESHBAZZAR Jewish leader who found favor with Cyrus the Great, king of Persia. In the first year of his reign, Cyrus issued a decree that the temple in Jerusalem should be rebuilt (Ezr 1:1-4; cf. 6:1-5). He appointed Sheshbazzar governor of Judah (Ezr 5:14) and handed over to him the gold and silver vessels that Nebuchadnezzar had carried off when he took Jerusalem (1:7-9). Sheshbazzar fulfilled this commission by taking the vessels to Jerusalem with the returning exiles (v 9) and beginning ...","source":"Articles\/S.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":37017,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Temple","title_en":"Temple","content_ro":"<h3>TEMPLE<\/h3>\nPreview<\/p>\n• Background<\/p>\n• Solomon’s Temple<\/p>\n• Zerubbabel’s Temple<\/p>\n• Herod’s Temple<\/p>\n• Significance of the Temple in the Old Testament<\/p>\n• Significance of the Temple in the New Testament<\/p>\nBackground<\/p>\nDavid’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>\nDavid’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>\nSolomon’s Temple<\/p>\n\n<h5>Date<\/h5>\nConstruction commenced in Solomon’s fourth year, about 966 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>\nThe 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>\nThe 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>\nThe 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>\nThe 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>\nThe 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>\nBetween 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>\nIn 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>\nImmediately 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>\nThe 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>\nProbably 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>\nHiram 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>\nEleven 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>\nThe 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>\nLike 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 BC<\/span>) depleted its gold and silver treasures to buy Syrian help against his oppressor, Baasha (908–886 BC<\/span>), king of Israel (15:16-19). Joash, the king of Judah (835–796 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 BC<\/span>), having shattered the arrogant pride of Amaziah of Judah (796–767 BC<\/span>), again stripped the temple (14:8-14). Later, King Ahaz (735-715 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 Then Hezekiah (715–686 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 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>\nManasseh’s grandson Josiah (640–609 BC<\/span>), was the second great reforming king. He organized the repair of the temple in 622 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 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 BC<\/span> (2 Kgs 24:1-4), Jerusalem was captured (596 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 BC<\/span>), the temple was demolished (2 Kgs 25:8-10). The remaining temple treasures were taken away.<\/p>\nZerubbabel’s Temple<\/p>\n<h5>Construction<\/h5>\nAlthough the temple was devastated, the site still remained as a place of pilgrimage during the exile (Jer 41:4-5). In 538 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>\nIn 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 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 BC<\/span> (Ezr 5:1–6:22).<\/p>\nLittle 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>\nSeveral 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 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 BC<\/span>) financially supported the temple when the Seleucids displaced the Ptolemies as masters of Jerusalem.<\/p>\nBen Sirach, early in the second century 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 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 BC<\/span>, he entered the temple to assert his authority but took no plunder, thus showing respect for it.<\/p>\nThe 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 BC<\/span>, began to dismantle it about 21 BC<\/span> in preparation for the construction of his own grand temple.<\/p>\nHerod’s Temple<\/p>\nApart 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 AD<\/span> 37 and died early in the second century), he is probably more reliable than the Middoth, which, dating from about AD<\/span> 150, appears to exaggerate occasionally. Archaeological research has been helpful in determining the positions of the outer walls and gates.<\/p>\nHerod’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 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 AD<\/span> 64, only six years before it was destroyed by the Romans.<\/p>\nHerod 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>\nThe 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>\nAccess 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>\nSignificance of the Temple in the Old Testament<\/p>\nThe 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>\nThe 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>\nEzekiel’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 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>\nSignificance of the Temple in the New Testament<\/p>\n<h5>Christ and the Temple<\/h5>\nChrist 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>\nThe NT writers used two different Greek words to describe the temple: naos<\/span> and hieron<\/span>.<\/em> Naos<\/span> refers to the actual sanctuary of the temple, the place of God’s dwelling. Hieron<\/span> refers to the temple precincts as well as to the sanctuary. Generally speaking, naos<\/span> was used to designate the inner section of the temple known as the Holy Place and the Holy of Holies, whereas hieron<\/span> included the outer court and the temple proper.<\/p>\nIn Paul’s epistles the word naos<\/span> appears six times (1 Cor 3:16-17; 6:19; 2 Cor 6:16; Eph 2:21; 2 Thes 2:4) and 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 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 naos<\/span>—the word that designates the place of deity’s presence (2 Thes 2:4).<\/p>\nIn all the other Pauline passages, 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>\nWhen 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>\nIn 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>\nIn 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>\nSee 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>\nPreview<\/p>\n• Background<\/p>\n• Solomon’s Temple<\/p>\n• Zerubbabel’s Temple<\/p>\n• Herod’s Temple<\/p>\n• Significance of the Temple in the Old Testament<\/p>\n• Significance of the Temple in the New Testament<\/p>\nBackground<\/p>\nDavid’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>\nDavid’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>\nSolomon’s Temple<\/p>\n\n<h5>Date<\/h5>\nConstruction commenced in Solomon’s fourth year, about 966 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>\nThe 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>\nThe 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>\nThe 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>\nThe 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>\nThe 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>\nBetween 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>\nIn 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>\nImmediately 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>\nThe 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>\nProbably 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>\nHiram 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>\nEleven 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>\nThe 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>\nLike 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 BC<\/span>) depleted its gold and silver treasures to buy Syrian help against his oppressor, Baasha (908–886 BC<\/span>), king of Israel (15:16-19). Joash, the king of Judah (835–796 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 BC<\/span>), having shattered the arrogant pride of Amaziah of Judah (796–767 BC<\/span>), again stripped the temple (14:8-14). Later, King Ahaz (735-715 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 Then Hezekiah (715–686 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 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>\nManasseh’s grandson Josiah (640–609 BC<\/span>), was the second great reforming king. He organized the repair of the temple in 622 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 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 BC<\/span> (2 Kgs 24:1-4), Jerusalem was captured (596 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 BC<\/span>), the temple was demolished (2 Kgs 25:8-10). The remaining temple treasures were taken away.<\/p>\nZerubbabel’s Temple<\/p>\n<h5>Construction<\/h5>\nAlthough the temple was devastated, the site still remained as a place of pilgrimage during the exile (Jer 41:4-5). In 538 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>\nIn 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 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 BC<\/span> (Ezr 5:1–6:22).<\/p>\nLittle 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>\nSeveral 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 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 BC<\/span>) financially supported the temple when the Seleucids displaced the Ptolemies as masters of Jerusalem.<\/p>\nBen Sirach, early in the second century 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 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 BC<\/span>, he entered the temple to assert his authority but took no plunder, thus showing respect for it.<\/p>\nThe 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 BC<\/span>, began to dismantle it about 21 BC<\/span> in preparation for the construction of his own grand temple.<\/p>\nHerod’s Temple<\/p>\nApart 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 AD<\/span> 37 and died early in the second century), he is probably more reliable than the Middoth, which, dating from about AD<\/span> 150, appears to exaggerate occasionally. Archaeological research has been helpful in determining the positions of the outer walls and gates.<\/p>\nHerod’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 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 AD<\/span> 64, only six years before it was destroyed by the Romans.<\/p>\nHerod 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>\nThe 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>\nAccess 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>\nSignificance of the Temple in the Old Testament<\/p>\nThe 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>\nThe 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>\nEzekiel’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 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>\nSignificance of the Temple in the New Testament<\/p>\n<h5>Christ and the Temple<\/h5>\nChrist 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>\nThe NT writers used two different Greek words to describe the temple: naos<\/span> and hieron<\/span>.<\/em> Naos<\/span> refers to the actual sanctuary of the temple, the place of God’s dwelling. Hieron<\/span> refers to the temple precincts as well as to the sanctuary. Generally speaking, naos<\/span> was used to designate the inner section of the temple known as the Holy Place and the Holy of Holies, whereas hieron<\/span> included the outer court and the temple proper.<\/p>\nIn Paul’s epistles the word naos<\/span> appears six times (1 Cor 3:16-17; 6:19; 2 Cor 6:16; Eph 2:21; 2 Thes 2:4) and 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 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 naos<\/span>—the word that designates the place of deity’s presence (2 Thes 2:4).<\/p>\nIn all the other Pauline passages, 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>\nWhen 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>\nIn 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>\nIn 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>\nSee 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":48043,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ezra 5:14","title_en":"Study Note: Ezra 5:14","content_ro":"5:14-15<\/strong> The Jews provided detailed information that the Persians could check for accuracy (see 1:7-11).<\/p>","content_en":"5:14-15<\/strong> The Jews provided detailed information that the Persians could check for accuracy (see 1:7-11).<\/p>","summary_ro":"5:14-15 The Jews provided detailed information that the Persians could check for accuracy (see 1:7-11).","summary_en":"5:14-15 The Jews provided detailed information that the Persians could check for accuracy (see 1:7-11).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":75669,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ezra 5:14","title_en":"Study Note: Ezra 5:14","content_ro":"5:14-15<\/strong> The Jews provided detailed information that the Persians could check for accuracy (see 1:7-11).<\/p>","content_en":"5:14-15<\/strong> The Jews provided detailed information that the Persians could check for accuracy (see 1:7-11).<\/p>","summary_ro":"5:14-15 The Jews provided detailed information that the Persians could check for accuracy (see 1:7-11).","summary_en":"5:14-15 The Jews provided detailed information that the Persians could check for accuracy (see 1:7-11).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":103295,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ezra 5:14","title_en":"Study Note: Ezra 5:14","content_ro":"5:14-15<\/strong> The Jews provided detailed information that the Persians could check for accuracy (see 1:7-11).<\/p>","content_en":"5:14-15<\/strong> The Jews provided detailed information that the Persians could check for accuracy (see 1:7-11).<\/p>","summary_ro":"5:14-15 The Jews provided detailed information that the Persians could check for accuracy (see 1:7-11).","summary_en":"5:14-15 The Jews provided detailed information that the Persians could check for accuracy (see 1:7-11).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":130921,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ezra 5:14","title_en":"Study Note: Ezra 5:14","content_ro":"5:14-15<\/strong> The Jews provided detailed information that the Persians could check for accuracy (see 1:7-11).<\/p>","content_en":"5:14-15<\/strong> The Jews provided detailed information that the Persians could check for accuracy (see 1:7-11).<\/p>","summary_ro":"5:14-15 The Jews provided detailed information that the Persians could check for accuracy (see 1:7-11).","summary_en":"5:14-15 The Jews provided detailed information that the Persians could check for accuracy (see 1:7-11).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"16":[{"id":35031,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Sheshbazzar","title_en":"Sheshbazzar","content_ro":"<h3>SHESHBAZZAR<\/h3>\nJewish leader who found favor with Cyrus the Great, king of Persia. In the first year of his reign, Cyrus issued a decree that the temple in Jerusalem should be rebuilt (Ezr 1:1-4; cf. 6:1-5). He appointed Sheshbazzar governor of Judah (Ezr 5:14) and handed over to him the gold and silver vessels that Nebuchadnezzar had carried off when he took Jerusalem (1:7-9). Sheshbazzar fulfilled this commission by taking the vessels to Jerusalem with the returning exiles (v 9) and beginning the restoration of the temple (5:16).<\/p>\nSheshbazzar is mentioned in the Bible only four times, all in the book of Ezra (1:8-9; 5:14-16). For many years it was commonly held that Sheshbazzar was another name for Zerubbabel. Both were of the royal line; Sheshbazzar is called “the prince of Judah,” which may mean that he was heir apparent to the throne. Since his genealogy is not given, he may be represented in that listing by some other name, either Zerubbabel or Shenazzar (1 Chr 3:18-19). In the record of people who returned to Jerusalem, Sheshbazzar’s name does not appear. The name of Zerubbabel is at the head of this list, where one would expect Sheshbazzar’s to be; both were governors of the province of Judah. Zerubbabel is associated with the laying of the foundation of the temple (Ezr 3:8-11), but that work is attributed to Sheshbazzar in 5:16, in accordance with chapter 1. It is evident that the name Sheshbazzar is found only in connection with the Persians, for chapter 1 relates his dealings with Cyrus, and in chapter 5 the two occurrences of his name are in a letter written by the Persian official, Tattenai. One may conclude that the Persians knew him as Sheshbazzar, but the Jews called him Zerubbabel. Both names are Akkadian, so there is no parallel here to the renaming of Jewish captives in Babylon (Dn 1:7).<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>SHESHBAZZAR<\/h3>\nJewish leader who found favor with Cyrus the Great, king of Persia. In the first year of his reign, Cyrus issued a decree that the temple in Jerusalem should be rebuilt (Ezr 1:1-4; cf. 6:1-5). He appointed Sheshbazzar governor of Judah (Ezr 5:14) and handed over to him the gold and silver vessels that Nebuchadnezzar had carried off when he took Jerusalem (1:7-9). Sheshbazzar fulfilled this commission by taking the vessels to Jerusalem with the returning exiles (v 9) and beginning the restoration of the temple (5:16).<\/p>\nSheshbazzar is mentioned in the Bible only four times, all in the book of Ezra (1:8-9; 5:14-16). For many years it was commonly held that Sheshbazzar was another name for Zerubbabel. Both were of the royal line; Sheshbazzar is called “the prince of Judah,” which may mean that he was heir apparent to the throne. Since his genealogy is not given, he may be represented in that listing by some other name, either Zerubbabel or Shenazzar (1 Chr 3:18-19). In the record of people who returned to Jerusalem, Sheshbazzar’s name does not appear. The name of Zerubbabel is at the head of this list, where one would expect Sheshbazzar’s to be; both were governors of the province of Judah. Zerubbabel is associated with the laying of the foundation of the temple (Ezr 3:8-11), but that work is attributed to Sheshbazzar in 5:16, in accordance with chapter 1. It is evident that the name Sheshbazzar is found only in connection with the Persians, for chapter 1 relates his dealings with Cyrus, and in chapter 5 the two occurrences of his name are in a letter written by the Persian official, Tattenai. One may conclude that the Persians knew him as Sheshbazzar, but the Jews called him Zerubbabel. Both names are Akkadian, so there is no parallel here to the renaming of Jewish captives in Babylon (Dn 1:7).<\/p>","summary_ro":"SHESHBAZZAR Jewish leader who found favor with Cyrus the Great, king of Persia. In the first year of his reign, Cyrus issued a decree that the temple in Jerusalem should be rebuilt (Ezr 1:1-4; cf. 6:1-5). He appointed Sheshbazzar governor of Judah (Ezr 5:14) and handed over to him the gold and silver vessels that Nebuchadnezzar had carried off when he took Jerusalem (1:7-9). Sheshbazzar fulfilled this commission by taking the vessels to Jerusalem with the returning exiles (v 9) and beginning ...","summary_en":"SHESHBAZZAR Jewish leader who found favor with Cyrus the Great, king of Persia. In the first year of his reign, Cyrus issued a decree that the temple in Jerusalem should be rebuilt (Ezr 1:1-4; cf. 6:1-5). He appointed Sheshbazzar governor of Judah (Ezr 5:14) and handed over to him the gold and silver vessels that Nebuchadnezzar had carried off when he took Jerusalem (1:7-9). Sheshbazzar fulfilled this commission by taking the vessels to Jerusalem with the returning exiles (v 9) and beginning ...","source":"Articles\/S.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":48044,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ezra 5:16","title_en":"Study Note: Ezra 5:16","content_ro":"5:16<\/strong> Most likely, Sheshbazzar<\/em> began the work and Zerubbabel finished it (see study note on 1:8).<\/p>","content_en":"5:16<\/strong> Most likely, Sheshbazzar<\/em> began the work and Zerubbabel finished it (see study note on 1:8).<\/p>","summary_ro":"5:16 Most likely, Sheshbazzar began the work and Zerubbabel finished it (see study note on 1:8).","summary_en":"5:16 Most likely, Sheshbazzar began the work and Zerubbabel finished it (see study note on 1:8).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":75670,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ezra 5:16","title_en":"Study Note: Ezra 5:16","content_ro":"5:16<\/strong> Most likely, Sheshbazzar<\/em> began the work and Zerubbabel finished it (see study note on 1:8).<\/p>","content_en":"5:16<\/strong> Most likely, Sheshbazzar<\/em> began the work and Zerubbabel finished it (see study note on 1:8).<\/p>","summary_ro":"5:16 Most likely, Sheshbazzar began the work and Zerubbabel finished it (see study note on 1:8).","summary_en":"5:16 Most likely, Sheshbazzar began the work and Zerubbabel finished it (see study note on 1:8).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":103296,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ezra 5:16","title_en":"Study Note: Ezra 5:16","content_ro":"5:16<\/strong> Most likely, Sheshbazzar<\/em> began the work and Zerubbabel finished it (see study note on 1:8).<\/p>","content_en":"5:16<\/strong> Most likely, Sheshbazzar<\/em> began the work and Zerubbabel finished it (see study note on 1:8).<\/p>","summary_ro":"5:16 Most likely, Sheshbazzar began the work and Zerubbabel finished it (see study note on 1:8).","summary_en":"5:16 Most likely, Sheshbazzar began the work and Zerubbabel finished it (see study note on 1:8).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":130922,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ezra 5:16","title_en":"Study Note: Ezra 5:16","content_ro":"5:16<\/strong> Most likely, Sheshbazzar<\/em> began the work and Zerubbabel finished it (see study note on 1:8).<\/p>","content_en":"5:16<\/strong> Most likely, Sheshbazzar<\/em> began the work and Zerubbabel finished it (see study note on 1:8).<\/p>","summary_ro":"5:16 Most likely, Sheshbazzar began the work and Zerubbabel finished it (see study note on 1:8).","summary_en":"5:16 Most likely, Sheshbazzar began the work and Zerubbabel finished it (see study note on 1:8).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"17":[{"id":16921,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"House of the Archives*","title_en":"House of the Archives*","content_ro":"<h3>HOUSE OF THE ARCHIVES*<\/h3>\nBuilding used for storage of records, annals, and decrees; a common structure in Near Eastern nations in the second millennium BC<\/span> (Ezr 5:17–6:1). In the archives at Ecbatana, a summer resort for Persian kings, King Darius (521–486 BC<\/span>) found an edict of Cyrus (559–530 BC<\/span>) that entitled the Jews to begin reconstruction of the Jerusalem temple following the exile (Ezr 6:2). On the basis of that edict, Darius gave his support to renewed reconstruction efforts, which had been halted for 16 years due to local opposition (cf. Hg 1:1; Zec 1:1).<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>HOUSE OF THE ARCHIVES*<\/h3>\nBuilding used for storage of records, annals, and decrees; a common structure in Near Eastern nations in the second millennium BC<\/span> (Ezr 5:17–6:1). In the archives at Ecbatana, a summer resort for Persian kings, King Darius (521–486 BC<\/span>) found an edict of Cyrus (559–530 BC<\/span>) that entitled the Jews to begin reconstruction of the Jerusalem temple following the exile (Ezr 6:2). On the basis of that edict, Darius gave his support to renewed reconstruction efforts, which had been halted for 16 years due to local opposition (cf. Hg 1:1; Zec 1:1).<\/p>","summary_ro":"HOUSE OF THE ARCHIVES* Building used for storage of records, annals, and decrees; a common structure in Near Eastern nations in the second millennium BC (Ezr 5:17–6:1). In the archives at Ecbatana, a summer resort for Persian kings, King Darius (521–486 BC) found an edict of Cyrus (559–530 BC) that entitled the Jews to begin reconstruction of the Jerusalem temple following the exile (Ezr 6:2). On the basis of that edict, Darius gave his support to renewed reconstruction efforts, which had bee...","summary_en":"HOUSE OF THE ARCHIVES* Building used for storage of records, annals, and decrees; a common structure in Near Eastern nations in the second millennium BC (Ezr 5:17–6:1). In the archives at Ecbatana, a summer resort for Persian kings, King Darius (521–486 BC) found an edict of Cyrus (559–530 BC) that entitled the Jews to begin reconstruction of the Jerusalem temple following the exile (Ezr 6:2). On the basis of that edict, Darius gave his support to renewed reconstruction efforts, which had bee...","source":"Articles\/H.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"}}

Ezra 5

Citește Biblia

Ezra 5

Niciun rezultat

Redare audio

Bine ai venit! 👋